Leaderboard

In this DCS: AH-64D video, we’ll delve into the ability of the AH-64D to search for, acquire, and track a laser designation that is not from our own aircraft. This could be another aircraft, a UAV, or a Joint Terminal Attack Controller, or JTAC. Laser Spot Tracking, or LST, is a useful feature when you have an offboard designation source at your disposal. As you might imagine, we first need to determine what laser code the LST will search for. This is done by selecting the WPN page and then CODE sub-page. From there, select the SET LST and pick the channel to search for A to L. Valid LST frequencies range from 1111 to 1788. LST operations are conducted from the CP/G seat with the right handgrip. Specifically, the Laser Tracker Mode Switch. It has three positions: When set forward to A for Automatic, commands the TADS to inhibit the LRFD from firing and conducts a 4-bar LST scan along the azimuth of the TADS line of sight. If the set LST code is detected in the scan, the TADS line of sight will slave to it. If the LST track is lost, the TADS will revert to the 4-bar raster scan. If set to the center, off, position, LST is disabled and the LRFD can fire. The aft, manual, position enables LST and disables the LRFD while allowing you to manually steer the LST search area. Once a matching LST code is detected, the TADS line of sight will slave to it. Let’s try this in operation now based on a JTAC designation. First, I’ll select LST from Code and select channel R, 1788, as my LST channel to search for. Back on the Weapons page, you can see that I have my LST window set as R. I’ll set my TADS as the sight and place its line of sight in the general area of the target. I’ll then press forward on the Laser Tracker switch to enter automatic mode. If you select the Slave button, the TADS will be slaved to the acquisition source and cease an LST search or track. You can use the LST while tracking a target using the IAT and MTT functions, but the LST functions overrides those of the IAT. The TADS will continue to maintain an image auto-track on all primary and secondary MTT tracks while performing LST functions, but if those tracks remain outside the TADS field-of-view for too long, they may be dropped. However, if the LST loses the laser spot it was tracking while in manual mode or the LST is switched to Off, the TADS will slave back to the IAT primary track if it was able to maintain an auto-track on it.

RAZBAM F-15E

Полгода назад просил вернуть пропавшие после одного из патчей звуки (которые 100% есть) срабатывания пожарных кранов "для реализма", 0 эффекта. Давайте лучше на полном серьёзе обсудим тряску которой нет, или ещё какой нибудь маразм аля перевозки птуров. Почему бы и нет

There some amazing campaigns by Reflected, but not dynamic. Highly recommend those, and in the new Normandy map they have been updated, so are like new campaigns. But I suppose you already know about those? We need dynamic campaigns for DCS, or convince Patrick Wilson to switch to DCS

Ich hoffe sehr, dass man diese Entscheidung Kampfhubschrauber als solche komplett aufzugeben nochmal überdenkt... Wenn die Niederländer Apache können, wieso wir nicht auch?

Well, if you have carpets, velcro is your best friend, my combat rudders actually take quite some effort to pull loose As for when mounted on a plank Just mount these on the board upside down This prevents the setup from hinging up when applying too much forward force might want to put some foam on the rear to prevent damage to the wall(paper)

Magnitude 3 FB

I know Razbam did what they could with it before control of weapons went to ED, but it seems to just have been thrown in a closet and forgotten about since the Harrier is the only aircraft that currently carries the AGM-122. A number of us have been discussing it in the AV-8B discord for some time, and came to the realization the reason the AGM-122 has never been fixed, is because nobody has reported just how inaccurate the current version of the missile is compared to the real missile. So I gathered a bit of things that had been mentioned in our conversations to post here. Hopefully more knowledgeable people can chime in on some of these that I list off. Although it may be unpopular to fix the missile. Based on how people currently use it, in a sense of it being a tiny HARM it needs to be properly fixed in comparison to all the other work done on other missiles in the sim. The AGM-122 is based off the very unsuccessful AIM-9C Sidewinder. The AGM-122 has a very limited range, limited usage window, and unique features that are missing from the missile even currently. The issues that should be addressed are some of the following; 1) Range: Currently the AGM-122 in DCS can be lofted to ranges of 20+nm. This is entirely inaccurate for this missile by a significant margin. This is based off the missile specifications as well as documentation of the missile being far less capable than it's being used currently. 2) Missing features of the missile. Self lofting feature of the missile is also missing. The AGM-122 was designed to be fired at very low altitudes. When the missile is fired at a certain altitude, it will, loft itself for a top down attack onto the targeted radar emitter. Also, a lesser documented option mode the Sidearm had, which allegedly was not used much if at all, was an automatic launch feature. 3) Limited Bandwith usage. I cannot speak to the this in great detail as I am not fully aware as to this specific limitation and how it’s put forward in DCS, but the AGM-122 has specific bandwith windows that have to be selected prior to take off for it to scan for in-mission. I know this feature isn’t available, but the scan range on what the 122 can engage I don’t believe is implemented either. It simply can be fired at any surface radar site, which is also allegedly inaccurate to the missile. Addressing the range issue which arguably is the largest issue with the missile currently. It is vastly out performing the real missile. Which is a short range, self defense ARM. The AGM-122 shares the entirety of the AIM-9C, except the seeker. The AGM-122/AIM-9C is equipped with a thermal battery that is powered off the exhaust gases when the missile is launched. Which stores heat to the battery and provides at a maximum, of 60 seconds of guidance time and a maximum range cited on paper of 18,044 yards, or about 9 nautical miles (8.9 and change). This is because of the thermal battery limitation. Once the 60 seconds is up, the missile is dead, as there is no longer guidance power. No more guidance, no more control surface control or detonation ability, it’s dead as a door nail. Therefore, lofting it 20+ nautical miles onto SAM sites is not possible with this missile. In numerous documents of use of the AGM-122 the paper cited range of 9nm is in best case scenario launched at high altitude. In typical launch at low altitude from helicopters or the Harrier, ranges were much lower, around 5-6nm at most. Again, it was a short range ARM. Documentation of the thermal battery guidance limit is noted in the NAVWEPS OP 3353 Declassified Document on the AIM-9C/Parent platform of the AGM-122. (which I wont link here for obvious reasons). It is publicly available. This article also cites the limited range of the AGM-122 being much lower than a cited 9nm. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12009/the-agm-122-sidearm-came-to-be-from-a-novel-missile-recycling-scheme Addressing the missing pop up feature. The missile was entirely designed to be launched from low altitudes aboard helicopters primarily and therefore, a “pop up” program was input into the programing of the Sidearm that if it was fired below a certain altitude it would pop up and attack the radar emitter in a top down attack. Similar to the Javelin missile. Currently the missile in DCS does not do this. If fired at low altitude the missile will nearly in all situations hit the ground or trees. This is precisely the reason why the missile was given the pop up feature in real life. The article cited above also describes this feature. As for the self launch feature. This I think “could” be left out given there’s not much documentation on it other than some tertiary sources from interviews talking about how pilots didn’t like that mode (link to an interview about that mode below), but it had it. But in this mode, if the missile picked up a threat on one of it’s 7 bands it would be set to prior to take off, if a threat passed in front of the seeker in range when the missiles were armed, the missile would automatically leave the aircraft and engage the site on it’s own. Addressing the limited bandwith the seeker could see. Coupling it with a considerably shorter range, the bandwith receiver on the missile had to be set on the ground prior to launch. Now we don’t have this feature in DCS. However, the limitations in what types of sites it can see I think should be implemented based on what bands it can see. The missile can detect and engage things like the ZSU-23 and other fixed site type emitting dishes/signals. However, given it's limited seeker, it had problems with rotating dishes, as anytime the radar beam pointed in a direction not in the cone of detection, the 122 would lose track of it. The missile based on sources is stated to be most effective against the ZSU-23 style radar and SA-8 sites. This has been discussed in detail in the discord by people that have a much better understanding of the restrictions in this category than I, but I wanted to at least mention it and anyone else who sees this can chime in on more detailed knowledge on the matter. The only other thing addressing the seeker on the 122 would be the fact of the limited seeker it was easily fooled by countermeasures.

Just wanna ask if theres anything new on mentioned topics? Couldnt find anything in the progress and news posts. Just if you want more specific what I mean: Damage to F-16 seems quite simplistic in some ways; you obviously dont "tank" damage in an aircraft, but its always massive fuel leakage, most of the time damage results in pilot kill, it doesnt feel realistic. Storage overstress isnt simulated, mostly no FPL features, etc. To some degree that also applies to the F-18, makes me wonder if theres shared systems being developed or so. Eg in an F-14 damage control and recovery is actually pretty interesting imo.

Made a wishlist item about that lately. I too think doing a map slection screen is not really a low effort task but would involve quite some work. I instead asked for dropdown fields to filter for module type as well as to filter for only-onwned modules to be displayed. Think this would help a lot already - and should be quite low effort to implement. Did you try this one already? I put it on the mouse thumb button (and always got flashlight on/off on the second thumb button). Hides the mouse cursor and should do what you are looking for i think. It's in each modules controls, not the UI or general ones.

Grass used to be possible to be modified though files in Bazar/shaders/metashders/. That folder as we know has been encrypted.

IFE, please fix the various bugs of your module: we diserve to enjoy it at its 100%

Since the grahics.lua config file contains a MaxFPS setting, it should be easy to add a MaxFPS slider into the main system menu, tied to the presets.

I think it's important that this change, if ever pursued, should only be an option. I have a force-sensing stick from Realsimsulator and it works beautifully with the current control implementation for the DCS Viper. Coming from several "high-end" cam/spring bases from Virpil and VKB, my upgrade to a force-sensing solution was a revelation and transformed my enjoyment of the module. I even prefer it now for other modules like the Tomcat and Apache. In other words, please don't change things for those if us with compatible simulation hardware.

Normal MP aircraft selection, similar to any other sim. Where you just see the map with airfields and aircraft types available on them, select the airfield and aircraft. Instead of long-ass list to scroll 1-2 minutes, with just abstract airfields names, every aircrafts thrown in a heap, no filters, anything. If someone doesn't know locations of all small, less important airfields on all maps - it's his problem. This looks live very low hanging fruit.

People……I’m an idiot….. I had the monitor connected to the motherboard instead of the graphic card……..

I have a few ideas that others or myself have probably mentioned before, but i'll go ahead push them anyways. More training options - ACMI Pod: ACMI pod talks to tacview. So if a player is flying with the ACMI pod, captive versions of their missiles, and the master arm switch in simulate, then simulated shots can be taken (nothing actually leaves the airplane to include visually) with full symbology, and a range controller (range ATC) will call the simulated kills. Tacview for debrief will look identical to the actual weapons launches and the kills there will match up or be close to what range control called. A communications menu will allow players to call "fights on" with range control or "terminate calls" to start or stop an engagement. This allows for training without being shot down and using air-spawns. That way a actual training sortie can be conducted with multiple objectives to include landing. This can be scaled up for red flag style events. For guns, players can verbally call "guns, guns, guns" for kills and with the mode in simulate see their gun kills in tacview. - Aerial Refueling: Contact practice option. This allows players to get a contact and remain in contact even with full fuel just to practice with no actual fuel transfer. This is normal in actual Air Force training sorties. - Range Scoring for A/G Weapons Delivery: Scoring option for air-to-ground deliveries would be useful. The editor already has a tower you can place. Might as well make it useful if you create your own bombing range. It would be cool if you could check in at a range via the comm menu and do your releases. The scoring official would let you know how you did. This would be especially useful for unguided inert deliveries. Maybe just a meters with short, right, left, or long. New Ground Crew Features - Crew chief assisting in control surface checks: Crew chiefs will assist a pilot in control surface checks on the ground prior to taxi especially if the pilot does not have the ability to actually see control surface movement outside of indications in the cockpit. So it is common for a pilot to go through these checks with his ground crew. For example if a pilot is checking the ailerons or elevons as he moves the stick, he would hear from the crew chief "right side up, left side down", when doing the speed breaks "extended" or "retracted". I think this would add a new bit of life to ground ops.

Working on something that we've all missed in DCS: elevation profile of the route.

Thank you! I witnessed the bug and was about to report it when... my PC PSU died! It was quite old actually. I'll go fetch a new one tomorrow so I can report this curious bug.

nullnull

Can we count on some campaign with La-7 module? Perhaps the area of Georgia would be suitable for this. Unfortunately, recently we have mostly modules without a campaign, even a short one, 8-10 missions. There are of course exceptions. After all, it's not atomic knowledge and you can add something like that to a module. It would definitely be nice, and it would also be an added value for users, which would further strengthen sales. It would certainly be an incentive. Pretty please!

At present we have an option for ground units "Disperse under fire". I'd like to raise for consideration some additional options when groups are under fire. Some ideas I have include: Move towards attacker An example would be T-90 tanks. An Apache at present can target a group and sit there picking them off. If the group was setup to move towards their attacker at full speed (if they were capable of firing at said attacker - no point having tanks move towards a FA18 ) this could give a more dynamic feel when encountering units. Parameters for this could include things such as deploy smoke screen to help mask as they move towards the attacker, etc. Likewise it'd be pretty scary to know that a SA-19 is not going to stay where you first spotted it, but is actively trying to find a way to get closer or flank and then engage you. Retreat away from attacker More than just 'Disperse under fire' - this would actively have the units flee (potentially another option to support in different directions such as panicking) and keep going until they haven't been engaged within a set period of time - at which point they could then regroup and go either back to their original positions, a new nearby random position, or keep going to next waypoint - depending on what parameters are set by the user. Like the disperse under fire - but move more than just a few meters - keep fleeing. Goto nearest Cover Probably especially handy for infantry - but could be used for vehicles as well - to go to nearest lot of trees, buildings, etc. Would be even better to have an option where infantry could actually enter a building, (but the building could be destroyed which would destroy infantry) Other options would be similar to 'Retreat away from attacker' as per above but fleeing towards cover instead of just random directions away from player/attacker. Call Reinforcements This option could call in any assets within a certain range that are capable of taking on the target that is posing a threat to the unit(s). This could include fast already in the area (or on the ground), or other ground assets. Variables for this could include unit types, distance away, etc. This is probably the only option that I can see that we could practically do at present with MOOSE or some scripting if we wanted to, but given the request here, it would be nice to have included as part of the options. Random Simply an option that allows you to select multiple of the above so you don't know how the group is necessarily going to behave. Thanks for your consideration. Edit: To save pages of back and forth on whether people think this is a good idea or not - I thought it easier to just create a poll instead to have your say.

We'll see. The land and sea assets I create are pretty much standalone, unlike a missile would be. Not in the immediate future, there are enough modern and semi-modern assets to make. Great idea, thanks! It will automatically be raised when targets get within range. But you can force it by setting the unit alarm state to red. Which I recommend if you want it to be ready for incoming threats.

What part of ''text edit'' was misunderstood? It is literally extremely easy, and you could tweak the MiG's handling yourself by modifying the numbers. If I can do it, they can do it. Because of a lack of will, not ability. Don't mythologise this stuff into some monumental task. MANY things ARE complex, but not ALL. Period, full stop. I'm a fanboi, too, but I draw the line at candy coated bull<profanity> excuses. They pass it off as ''we have a perfect fix planned and don't like half measures'' which is bs and how <profanity> like the MiG's bs gets neglected for ten years. Low priority? Sure. Better fix planned for unspecified future? Great! That has f all to do with why a ''good enough'' tweak wasn't implemented years ago when it has been easy to do all along. For Christ's sake, WWII planes still have JET SOUNDS and it's also been near ten years. That's not likely a simple fix, but it's not TEN YEARS complex either.

That is blatantly untrue. People often make off the cuff suggestions/requests for stuff that is neither quick nor easy, but there's no point in mythologising it either. There are a lot of things that ARE in fact easy to do, things like simple text edits to fix the guns on the F-86 or the MiG-15's FM, for example. I know because before they started encrypting everything that's exactly what the community did. They could literally have fixed some of our longest standing issues 10+ years ago in an afternoon of tweaking if they wanted to. They did not, most likely due to corporate culture/bureaucracy.

Whoa! Just read through unread posts in this thread! The communication this team is simply super, and I will definitely, as already planned, get this map on day one! [emoji1319] Cheers! Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Yeah that was my point. Adding a dead zone isn’t a good solution for this problem.

If you can source a sheet of this microsuction "tape", it works really really well for sticking your pedals to a hard-surface floor. It's not tape at all, rather a microscopic suction cup surface that adheres like tape but is easy to remove/replace/clean and leaves no residue. It's the same stuff that Honeycomb uses on their mounts for the Alpha/Bravo controls, if you are familiar with that.. https://sewelldirect.com/products/airstick-microsuction-tape?variant=15164885270574 Amazon (US at least) has it, or you can try direct from Sewell

Something changed in version 2.8.3 of the Open Beta. I've done all I can to remedy the issue and the fact is, if you launch on a target and then FLY between your missile and that target, it can prox fuse or impact you. Which, probably is more realistic. Make sure that you have good launch parameters for your Fox3's.

I just ordered a roll of 3M adhesive non-slip pads that I plan on cutting and applying to the bottom of my pedals. Will let you know how they work. I've got Crosswind pedals on a wooden floor.

Thanks, I don't have carpets, but only "greis porcellanato". However, wooden table with hinges, or bracket behind the pedals, both are beautiful ideas.

I have asked for this one a few times, in DCS core give us two new profiles default air plane default helicopter The entire point would be to set the commonly used controls in a single location so that when you install a new module (either commercial or community) you'll have the basic commands set and then can focus on tweaking them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mod manager- If ED doesn't want to spend a lot of resources on this, then how about doing an open-source one so the community can develop it?

Really dumb question here, but this is going to be a free mod? The level of detail and amount of work that is going into this is beyond impressive. I doubt there would be official authorization from the manufacture. I appreciate the hard work and effort you and the team are putting into this. It will be a huge hit I am sure. Outstanding work with the cockpit.

WW2 DCS late western front is still lacking lots of stuff. And with some sort of pacific thing coming. No need to spread WW2 DCS any thinner.

Exaggerating as a means of cheap humour. Not to be taken literally.

I don't think anyone was interested in a value assesment based on preference here. This is a modding section. Specifically about terrain. Modders mess with default files to make the game look better. There are many wonderful modders that have had great result with tinkering with textures and lua files as you know. Taz, Barthek and Mustang just to name a handful. There are many more. Some have even been baked in the base game. This is a thread about the possibility to mod/tune/enhance the grass based on one's preference. That it costs performance or that DD Fenrir deems it 'ridiculous'is totally irrelevant. How people mod their games is totally up to them. It is a fair question, posted in the correct section.

I flew it the other day without any rockets or missiles loaded and got myself into uncontrollable rolls. I suppose it is easier to enter a roll when the aircraft is light.

I wish to use the great maps made by flappy, which are available here However, this breaks integrity check because the raster maps need to be placed into the core game folder. I wish that raster maps can be placed in the user files directory ("saved games/dcs") instead and if present be loaded from there and if not, be loaded from the default location. Currently placing those files into the user files directory does nothing. There is no reason to include those map pictures in the integrity check, because altering them doesn't allow you to cheat. It's just texture data after all that isn't useful for finding targets (like making the T-55 texture bright red, for example).

I have an HP Reverb G2 and I can read everything in the Tomcat cockpit, no mods needed (not that I'm going to criticize anyone who uses a clean cockpit mod, I love the look of a "just delivered" Turkey myself!) and I also haven't figured out how to zoom with a headset on and consider it irrelevant because I can see clearly everything I need to. If there is anything I really want to get down precisely, I lean forward.

Keybind names: Wing Sweep Bomb Mode Wing Sweep Auto Mode Wing Sweep Forward Wing Sweep Aft They're in the "Throttle" section.

There are (lockable) hinges. Could do it like i and Hunter Joker explained but cut the board in half behind the rudder pedals. With the lockable hinges, you could remove the pin, separate the boards and store them on top of each other. When using normal hinges, you could fold the board and push it back to the wall so the rear board sits on the wall in a ~90° angle. In the latter case probably also put a bar, so the rear board can not fall onto the pedals. edit: probably use thicker MDF then, like 16mm, to make it more sturdy.

Don't open the communications menu automatically when I start to taxi Every time start to taxi out of the hangar, the game opens the communications menu and I have to close it, even though neither I or the AI has showed any intent of communication. Most servers don't use the communication menu ATC functionality anymore and it's annoying having to close it every sortie.

yes, I also found it in the web archive, there is a lot of good information that will be very useful in the future

Not really. It was one mission that was broken when we recently updated the instant action missions to include the improved weather. It's already been fixed internally. We appreciate this video and we studied it carefully. We then compared his exact set up to public Energy Management (EM) diagrams and it seems his comments are not matching the data. We've sent him these findings and we look forward to him helping us understand this disparity. Above all, we want to provide most authentic simulation possible. thank you

They look great, what we've seen of them. I'm hoping somehow we can have a Bomber Command airfield (or more) to go with it. I'll have to learn how to make skins then I'll be asking for the tractor template

Let me reiterate that I’ve been doing this professionally for decades and that looking for traffic is something I do daily. Nevertheless as a result of this discussion I decided to test this today on my way back from Madrid. Crossing the North Atlantic at FL340 (34,000 feet), there was a fair amount of opposite direction traffic on the same route a few thousand above and below me. TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) would pick up the traffic at a distance of approximately 25-30nm, and inform me precisely where to look. At this altitude they were producing contrails. I could easily see the contrails at this distance but could not see the aircraft themselves until approximately 15nm despite the contrails making their location obvious. Later we climbed to FL380 and ultimately FL400 over the Canadian maritimes. At this point traffic was not producing contrails. There where two large wide body aircraft shown on TCAS about 25 miles to the right, one at my altitude and one 2,000’ below. The sun was shining directly on these high-aspect, 260 foot long, 50 foot tall brilliant white aircraft silhouetted against a deep blue sky, and TCAS was directing me precisely where to look. After a minute or so of searching, I was able to see those aircraft, just barely. I found however, that despite the relatively small angular difference between them, if I looked at one aircraft I couldn’t see the other. I had to look in between them to see both. If I took my eyes of them, they where difficult to re-acquire. If TCAS hadn’t been directing me where to look, I would never in a million years have seen them from simply scanning the sky. Low-aspect traffic coming directly at me from the other direction could not be spotted until about 15 miles, again even though I knew exactly where to look. Once they where within 7-8nm, spotting was much easier and I simply had to look in that general direction of sky. Let me reiterate that these aircraft are about as long as a football field and painted brilliant white. And, at least according to my AME, I do have 20/20 vision. Now, imagine instead these aircraft where only 62’ long (the length of an F-14 Tomcat) and painted matte gray. Or, for another thought experiment, imagine standing on top of the Empire State Building (1250’/380m tall) and spotting a die-cast model of an F-14 Tomcat 4.7 inches in length sitting on the sidewalk. That is is being described when spotting an aircraft at 60km. Let me reiterate, *comical*.

Sounds like DCS needs to nerf the guys using 2d monitors then. 60km spotting distance is comical. I found this on Hoggit: Several investigations have been made to determine aircraft target acquisition capabilities. A total of 759 training engagements at the Naval Air Station Oceana Tactical Air Combat Training System (TACTS) range revealed that in 624 of the engagements the pilots first sighted the target as a dot against the background at an average distance of 5.67 nmi (Hamilton & Monaco, 1986; Monaco & Hamilton, 1985). In the remaining 135 engagements exhaust smoke, contrails and sun glint off the aircraft allowed the pilots to detect the aircraft at even greater distances. In the 122 engagements where exhaust smoke was the primary cue, detection distances averaged 7.64 nmi. Environmental and local conditions as well as target type and paint scheme play a significant role in detection distances though. Variables such as background sky or ground coloring vs. aircraft coloring, brightness and directness of sunlight as well as target location vs. the sun and several other variables can either enhance or decrease detection distances. Furthermore, although Hamilton & Monaco found several instances where exhaust smoke was the primary cue, this condition is arguably becoming of decreasing value as aircraft emissions have become less visible over the last decade or two. Table 1 provides a large list of factors that have been shown to affect target detectability. These items were taken from the field evaluations cited in this section as well as Bloomfield & Smith (1982), Boff & Lincoln (1998), Buffett (1986), Costanza, Stacey, & Snyder (1980), and Hoffman (1976). In 1983, Kress & Brictson studied 87 air-to-air engagements at the Yuma TACTS range. Average unaided detection distances for the target F-5 and F-4 aircraft were 3.1 nmi. When the pilots were aided with a head-up display (HUD) symbol that cued the pilot to the target’s location, the mean detection distance grew to 6.8 nmi. Another study that investigated detection distances was Temme & Still (1991). They measured air-to-air target detection distances at the Naval Air Station Oceana TACTS range to see if there was a performance difference between those pilots who wore corrective eyeglasses and those who did not. Those with eyeglasses did not detect the targets until they were about 10% closer than those with unaided vision. Two very closely matched groups of eyeglass and non-eyeglass wearers had average detection ranges of 4.52 and 5.64 nmi respectively when using all detection means including aircraft sighting, target glint, contrails and exhaust smoke. When limiting subjects to aircraft-only detections, the corresponding distances were 4.35 and 5.54 nmi respectively. Although the distinction of glasses vs. no glasses is not of interest to this investigation, it does provide two more data points for detection distance ability. Another study by Hutchins in 1978 at the Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR), which is the earlier name of the TACTS, involved 45 air combat training engagements. The mean detection distance of the A-4 targets was 3.09, with a range of 0.38 to 6.23 nmi. Other studies were done using observers on the ground. With visibility conditions spanning 7 to 10 miles over an 8-day testing period, O’Neal & Miller (1998) found detection distances for approaching T-38 aircraft to ranged from 4.77 to 6.73 nmi. Another ground observer study used 400 visual detections of a T-38 aircraft (Provines, Rahe, Block, Pena, & Tredici, 1983). The aircraft was approaching from a known direction and a distance of 9 miles and mean detection distance was 4.55 miles over the 400 trials. References Hamilton, P. V., Monaco, W. A. (1986). Improving air-to-air target detection. Wings of Gold, 46-48. Kress, G., Brictson, C. A. (1983). Operational Analysis of Visual Skills for Air Combat Maneuvering (NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 80-D-0011/041-3). Orlando, FL: Code N712, Naval Training Equipment Center. Hutchins, Jr., C. W. (1978). The Relationship between Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR) Output Measures and Initial Visual Acquisition Performance (NAMRLSR-79-1, AD-A062 134). Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. Provines, W. F., Rahe, A. J., Block, M. G., Pena, T., Tredici, T. J. (1983). Yellow Ophthalmic Filters in the Visual Acquisition of Aircraft (USAFSAM-TR-83-46, AD-A138 536). Brooks AFB, TX: Aerospace Medical Division, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine

Please keep us updated, I've been telling everyone how good cold war is getting in DCS, but analyzing the assets we have, we truly are lacking a lot of REDFOR, especially good cold war Soviet assets, the YAK 38 and Kiev class carriers are going to be amazing, i know im going to love them, with the MiG23 coming, this will make 1980s DCS perfect. all we'll need at that point is a high fidelity KA27