Booger

That's a really good point actually. Jumping in on-the-fly is kind of lame in my honest opinion. Still, you would have to prepare for Murphy's Law--disconnects, hiccups or whatever else could go wrong, so there would still need to be the option to connect while in the air. Another point would be pit griefing. I can already see the asshattery of some idiot jumping in a pit & not leaving. Even with the ability to boot him out of your pit, he would just reenter. The best way to solve it before it starts is an opt-in option for both sides before your gunner "sat" in the pit: hog_driver111th wants to join your flight, select OK to accept. It would still need to be flood protected though. Otherwise you'll sit there forever clicking the "No" button as some jerk observer mashes the join button.

Fantastic transitions in this little melody.

Aha! This reminds me of 1981: Operation Opera. Leave it to the Israelis to be the exception. There are none more deserving.

If I remember correctly, they said they would announce what aircraft it is once it enters Beta. My guess? Around Christmas.

Hell, I would actually get my wife to sit in the gunner's seat, regardless of what airframe is made. She would actually like the idea of being able to do all the cool stuff while I just fly. Anyway, from the list I would have to say AH-1 (any variant). Maybe it's not the best, but it's damn sexy. I've loved the Cobra since I was a kid & to have it as a DCS aircraft would be wonderful.

To assist in readability, if I don't quote it, I don't contest your point or have no further need to highlight what was already wrote. Actually, I wasn't the one who introduced the logistics & the availability of additional assets in the topic. Ironically, it was others who had tunnel vision with it at every WWII reference...you being one of them. Simply, it's not so simple as that. I agree. The planner has to have his wits about him while setting up missions that would be fitting a typical package for that type of asset (note my previous comment about different roles per aircraft used, depending on what DCS model you're flying). My point with this is: If you build it in a modular way, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel for playability in other DCS modules. All it would take is a fair bit of tweaking. In the same breath, you can't just randomly stick enemy assets just anywhere with no logic. To aim for realism, you want your environment to be modeled like the real thing (see this topic)--this includes enemy & friendly asset formations & strategic placement. Consider the two grossly extreme examples you've used thus far: A single HARM punching a "huge hole" through an anti-aircraft net, and the other being MIG Alley. The situation will dictate whether it's lightly or heavily defended, as determined by the Commander. Having a massive net protecting the low man on the totem pole is a complete waste of assets that would be better saved/employed elsewhere. ...and a bit more as well, which is what we were discussing previously. My previous comment was about using a no-brainer force-on-force as a main plot-line. Could it be tailored differently? It certainly should! At the same time, the end of a good campaign shouldn't be incredibly easy to achieve. Yes, I remember the discussion, as well as Sith rambling some idiotic flower power nonsense about the greater good. Where I brought up WWII was to reflect the impact that poorly trained personnel would have in the grand scheme of things. Was it a true comparison like how it's apparently made into now? Riddle me this: How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Desert Storm/Shield? How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Afghanistan? How many pilots were rushed/cut through training for Iraqi Freedom? How can you compare the two when there was no real change in daily business in current (and near recent) time? WWII (as well as the Vietnam references) are classic examples of the importance of training. The impact of a pilot is, in most cases (there are exceptions) transparent. The impact of the mission's success/failure isn't...they're milestones in the big picture. Let's look at Randy Cunningham as a classic example of the "happy medium". He didn't do anything extravagant. He simply was lucky enough to not get shot down in the engagement he had with an apparent (possibly fictitious) Vietnam ace. This glamorized incident really had no bearing what-so-ever on the success/failure of the campaign as a whole. If anything, it raised morale a few notches. First, I used that as an example to illustrate you comments, as well as the road heading to the discussion in force-multiplying. I said "let's say...", suggesting it was to be read as such. Why you're suggesting that it was presented as an absolute, and now contesting it, is beyond me. I assure you, you're arguing with yourself. As far as irreplaceable air assets. Honestly, I don't see the US losing Attrition Warfare. I see. So you're suggesting this for air assets only? Or... I agree, but that's not what you said previously: "...the fact that this is an A-10, not an F-22 sim..."? I covered the intent of modular planning of campaign building earlier, but it's worth a note here as well. :doh: Do you think the Soviet Union, China or any other formidable foe to the US would just sit and take the ass whopping like Iraq did? Hell, do you think they would allow the building up of forces before doing anything? While that scheme may look good for politicians, war is anything but black and white. Both China and the Soviets would turn that plan into shit on the first day. How? Unlike Iraq, they both have the strategic capability to do so. So no, I disagree. Research Combined Arms Operations & think "big picture". Could there be missions where there are US fighters providing CAP as you, in your A-10, provide CAS & it be considered realistic? Absolutely. You seem to only want "dynamic" applied to a very small part of a campaign than what it could potentially be. This is why I make "win win win" comments. You're setting yourself up to where there is never a time where you just might find yourself, like MANY real-world pilots (and ground folks) have, where all that's left is you, your plane, and your training. You wouldn't, and shouldn't in a dynamic environment, have the upper-hand all the time. That, sir, is unrealistic in a full-scale modern war. To clarify (and before it's said), do I mean that the entire campaign being you against hell? Absolutely not, but it most certainly can be the odds that you're slapped in the face with either by chance or by the consequences of your actions.

Butthurt? umad? Note my responses were made to Frostiken...you know the guy who, unlike you, doesn't have to pretend to have logic & knowledge. Now if you don't mind, the grown-ups are talking.

Fantastic. Thanks guys.

Nah. UAVs are great attack platforms, but .

:doh: I'll just simply state that your logic is flawed & in some conclusions, you're dead wrong. While you're apparently offended by offering Sun Tzu passages, they, above everything else, highlight points offered in the simplest form. Very well. I can compare them because I consider everything assets. Your mind's eye sees them as a $20 million dollar plane. I don't think that in the 60s, engineers, strategists & tacticians were so ignorant as to lack the ability of forward thinking. Maybe the lack of technical details were obviously not there, but there certainly was no shortage of future developments. JFK was the father of unconventional warfare as we know it today because he was a forward thinker. More recently, Gen Charles Krulak (ret former CMC/Joint Chiefs of Staff) went on damn near a crusade preaching that future conficts will be in built-up/developed areas. Look what we have now on both fronts :thumbup: Oh, as far as intelligence gathering goes. HUMINT has, and always will be the best source of intelligence. It's a well known, practice & preached fact. It's as old as man himself and still done today. Once again, you're looking at the development of technology (and no doubt buzzing about cost differences) when it's simply an improved/upgraded asset. Why? By whose rules? Yours? The strategy is left for the commander to dictate. Where your single F-16/HARM example paves the way for any & all, it's simply unrealistic. Choices are made based off of what the commander sees as probable/unprobable risks & deploys from there. Actually, these days it's pretty much doctrine. If you want to fly missions just to win win win, then ok, put them wherever you want. The less the better. If you want a realistic & challenging experience based on the assets available to you, you see where I'm going with this (I hope). Lastly, no. I'm not looking at the DC being tailored for A-10. I'm looking at a DC fitting ALL DCS aircraft where, depending on which airframe you use, the remaining voids will be filled with either AI or MP. Why on earth would you want it to be for just one type of airplane? Are you not considering a BS role in the big picture, or even a task that could be given to the next (US Fighter) release? You say A-10 now, but I'm sure you'll change your tune when your focus is turned to the pit of a fast mover. On this, I absolutely agree with you. In a long, drawn-out full-scale war? Come on. Would industry kick in to 5th gear? Absolutely! But let's look at what has happened in the past: In WWII, contracts were actually shared between production companies & new facilities built in an attempt to match supply with demand. The burden was huge, not to mention materials. Imagine the scale if Army vs Army happened today. While yes, I DO agree on this point, I don't, unlike you guys, have tunnel vision on only seeing industry when WWII is mentioned. This is where strategy comes in to play. I think Moa covered it brilliantly in his post. The bottom line? Consider this post also... What we have are our assets to counter the assets on the opposing side that were made to counter ours. Yeah, let's read that again heh. In a DC, at least with the available enemy types, you are fighting a legitimate army. Both sides merging with, equally, the latest & greatest of what they have in their arsenal. A large amount of that is already modeled in DCS. The last time that scenario happened was Vietnam. So maybe that would be more fitting comparison than WWII for you guys? Industry (production) problems are generally the same as it would be now, as well as the costs being more "realistic"? Really, I know what you're getting at. You're concerned that the demand would make supply resemble a pipe-dream. To be clear, I think that would be foolish to implement. Would adjustments need to be made in that regard to a reasonable/realistic value? You betcha. Where WWII is favored: it presents it's own sets of strategic problems that simply can't be covered based on one specific past theatre. The map to do the DC in is only so big. If you don't consider the environment you're fighting in, you might as well just steal your son's toy soldier set & use your hand as the airframe you're flying in. Secondly, current military operations face an unconventional opponent. Is this the DC you want? Mind you, all the neat MILITARY assets already found in the game will be extremely limited. Personally, I would love an unconventional DC as it has it's own unique sets of problems to work through...but your opposing side won't have the same luxuries you do. The DC is already tipped in your favor in regards to assets. So what it really boils down to is if you want a DC that's a war or a conflict & is there a FAIR chance for the end result to be successful or fail.

Yes and no I think. With insurgencies, there is no clear FEBA. That's a blessing and a curse...but the potential is incredibly enormous. The shortfall is you're pretty limited to enemy types, at least initially (see propaganda below). A clever planner could keep you on your toes though. The devil is in the details. I haven't done GOW completely (the little I had was a long time ago). Still, what you're talking about would be sweet. Another thing to consider too is the propaganda factor. If you kill a few, that's fine...all is good in war. If you kill a ton or a certain type of people, that very well could get you facing a lot more, maybe even deadlier, down the road. It's kind of like the example I gave previously concerning strategically taking out SAM sites in the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. There was a lot of stuff to blow up, but it wasn't a necessity to accomplish their mission. I know someone will probably chime in with "What about engaging targets of opportunity". What if your ToO was standing next to two figures that, if killed, will adversely effect the campaign either immediately or later on? Imagine, if you will, some village Sheik (sorry if that sounds racist, I'm using real-world conficts as an example) standing next to an insurgent. Knowing very well how sensitive some cultures are, you target the baddie but accidentally wipe out that Sheik. That would cause a bit of a stir. Knock out a few? It won't matter, you're obviously targeting them in their eyes. What if someone, clearly visible to the population, gave up and you blew them to hell? The consequences of your actions :thumbup: Never played it :cry: I think you can still make the dumb do smart things easily. The model could be simple. Make a list of probable actions that could be done by ____ and give each action a percentage (chance) to do _____ activity...or even associate a trigger. Here's a scenario that illustrates what I mean: What if you're providing CAS to a location that intel has identified as a holding place for hostages. Ground forces are on the way. Upon arriving on station (the trigger), 3 of the 4 insurgent hostage takers walk away/give up? What if your orders were to stay ___ far away from the house, but you go blazing in anyway? At ___ meters away (trigger) the hostage takers see you coming and kill the hostages (which you find out about over the radio once ground forces breach the place). Maybe I'm going a bit overboard with the level of detail I would like to see happen in missions, but the randomness (even if slight) truly defines "dynamic". I really don't think it would be too difficult to implement. Emphasis mine. You wouldn't need that though. While, yes I would agree that approaching a city that has a large amount of it's population visible would be epic, I assume supporting that would probably be a chore...not to mention programming it all would take forever. If the world doesn't blow up in 2012, I'll look for you in 2020. Hopefully someone will have something programmed & released by then :lol:

The topic is primarily for flying the Black Shark with others. But I'm certain that Helios would like to fly the A-10 with others too.

Another auto-hover topic that identifies the DNS as the system that controls auto-hover.

Against what? Current conflicts? You assume quite a bit I think. Military might is grossly tipped to the western side due to the lack of it on the opposing sides. Your blanket statement resembles playing chess while your opponent only uses less than 1/4 of the pieces you do. The threat alone isn't even the same. Did bombers during the Gulf War have an air threat while bombing Kuwait? Not really. Did bombers during WWII have an air threat when bombing pretty much everywhere? Absolutely. Strictly speaking air warfare - A/A engagements since the Vietnam war have been few & far between. In modern operations, US airpower hasn't been challenged on a large playing field (tactically or strategically). You're playing a numbers game based on force-multiplication. Let's shoot from the hip and say a two-ship flight today would be the equivalent to a 10 ship in WWII (both in capability & cost). While the numbers may change, the scope of the battlefield remains the same, and will always remain to be the constant. Management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization. ~Sun Tzu The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers. ~Sun Tzu Mind you, with force-multiplication comes the other side of the coin--losing a two-ship flight would be the equivalent to losing 10 in WWII (assuming, of course, the ratio is 1:1...which may or not be the case. I've never done the math). So with that out of the way, let's put our focus on technology. While improved western technology looks good in the press, the "other side" has certainly been doing improvements as well. Let's talk "modern warfare"... As I understand it, the F/A-18 was made (in part) to counter the Mig-29's capability. Let's compare them. Actually, neither of us are experts in either type of aircraft (well, I assume you're not), so let's see what the actual pilots of each have to say: Operation Red October. That in itself reinforces the point that since there hasn't been a full scale war between armies such as Vietnam, Korea & the World Wars, relying on paper vs practical comparisons doesn't reflect a mirror image. That is THE whole point of that training. As if it couldn't happen in modern times further? Are you aware that the Soviets had invented a supercavitating torpedo system that, had it been employed during the cold war, would no doubt have swept the seas of almost everything they didn't want there? While people would be scratching their heads wondering what happened, they could have strategically, on the naval layer, cleaned house. Intelligence? Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? I mean really, I could give endless examples in counter-intelligence (misinformation) as well as successful intelligence that both worked & didn't. When all the cards are put down, not you picking and choosing which ones to play, I would say WWII is an excellent comparison. We're talking about a full-scale DC, not just limited elements that have you favored for victory. Again, you assume too much & don't take the lessons that history gives you...and couldn't be more wrong, I'm sorry to say. SAMs overlap for a number of strategic purposes. This employment tactic is hardly new. The "huge hole" you're talking about takes a bit more than simply taking out a few SAM sites. During Iraqi Freedom, SAM locations were strategically targeted to allow (open up) a series of "alleys" for bombers to fly through to reduce detection. The Iraqis simply failed miserably to do anything about it (tactically or strategically)...not that they would/could really do much. Since we're on the subject of SAMs, let's talk big money - stealth. Technically, stealth isn't as "safe" as it's perceived to be. Tactically, all it takes is a matter of time to exploit it. . A quick read for you... I like how you worded your sentence. You used "singlehandedly". When a layer of the battlefield is pretty much unopposed, it's a given that you will reign superior within it. Once again, you're using the lack of resistance on the opposing side to support your conclusions, then say "it's a fair comparison" when it's hardly not. If I show up at your house, point to your computer & say "That's mine now" and you don't object to it... Military might is not only reflected in it's proven capability, but how much of a deterrence it provides. On a strategic level, this is where the US stands now. At the same time, it's also where a lot of other powerful countries stand as well. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. ~Sun Tzu To expand your own point - during Iraqi Freedom, it took visiting Senators to raise holy hell about the lack of armor on...everything & everybody. Now? . That's the cost of having complex force multipliers. If you don't have strong industrial might to obtain & maintain military might, you may succeed in the short-term, but in the long-term you will probably be defeated. Your opposing side wouldn't have the burden of strategic risk--it makes no sense to gamble on the battlefield when they know they can simply chip away at your assets. The burden of risk will ultimately rest with you. Now, for a DC, these points could be transparent, depending on what level of detail you really want to make it at. There was one mention of improved experience in a wingman, but throwing a dynamic economy & industry into a campaign would be a bit much I think. Now you're thinking strategically. Here, you're honing down on industry specifically. While, no, you can't spit out a F-15 as fast as you could spit out a Corsair, you're not looking at it AS a force multiplier in the context of production. Not only that, but the advances of technology is also it's greatest weakness logistically. Production time, costs, etc. So, DC specifically, how do you reflect that accurately? Do what the Commanders do - risk assessment. Do you really want to employ a F117 at _____ to go for the big win with high threat, or do you want to use ____ first. Ah, thy 'ol burden of command. It's the lessons learned from WWII (and every other conflict for that matter) that provide us the base strategies & tactics we employ this very day. Comparing a DC to WWII examples is more accurate than modern day conficts - at least during WWII there's a legitimate army fighting back. Then again, if you want a DC that has you fighting insurgencies, then yes, I would completely agree with you.

This, a thousand times.

+1 for the dumbed-down version including a Chuck Norris reference.

Well sure. History is rich with individuals who have marked their place in the grand time-line. All I'm saying is it's not that simple to say "one person did ____" as the norm. I think we can agree that Manfred von Richthofen was quite the over-achiever. But I'm starting to wonder how individual achievement in history applies to dynamic campaigns.

That's listed on the linked page.

Semantics. That's like saying Paul Tibbets ended the war in the Pacific.

You're completely missing the point. He stated that the grand scheme of things (entire campaign) doesn't rest on just one or a few pilots. It takes a collective effort (each doing their own part) to ensure success. As a pilot, you don't have the burden as well as responsibility of the politics (greater good) involved. If you're a Warrant Officer flying helicopters, you have even less burden. You're an operator with a job to do. In the sim world, could you realistically do everything? Maybe, given enough time (days maybe?). He also stated that during WWII, the training sucked (not only for airmen, but for ground pounders actually). My comments are real world examples of how piss poor training equate to crappy results. Those pilots sent after the carrier were a long shot that obviously didn't work. I highly recommend you research USAF pilot training restrictions say, from 1950 on. I think you'll be shocked at what you'll find. I'm saying that ;) Read above.

I would want the guy who is focused on his mission, not the one who wants to be the hero or seeking some kind of chest-beating rights.

I believe it was the battle for Guam during WWII. An entire group of green pilots were sent chasing after a carrier and got cut to pieces. It actually could have been a turning point (which later, it was) but due to their lack of pretty much everything besides basic tactics, the chance of success was pretty low. Vietnam is another example. That, of course, gave birth to Fightertown, USA.

Oh man, that is fantastic.

I would have to agree that it's incredibly subjective. For some, "more realistic" is simply having the maximum amount of switchology possible. For others, it's something as simple as FFB. I too have had a soaring rating and I simply can't imagine any current desktop simulation package coming close to real-life experience of actually being in the pit, as I've stated before. Procedures, indeed...but that's another topic. Slightly on topic - I think we all have read posts (or have heard someone) state how slow it feels in _____ sim...how the developers have borked up ____ (aircraft). What people don't get is the developers probably have it spot on (or darn near it) but since you're staring forward at a flat screen, you don't "feel the speed". Anyway, DCS (mainly BS) seems to be realistic enough...though I'm not an actual helicopter pilot. Having had some feedback from an actual Ka-50 pilot, he seemed to be quite happy with it. It has almost all the elements it can provide to be "realistic" while not losing the entertainment value it needs to maintain for the greater target audience. Not many would like to sit on the apron for long periods of time as systems align/spool up. Again, it's subjective. I'm glad you mentioned CG Yo-Yo. Last night I tried a flight with just 6 Vikhrs in my loadout. That turned into an unexpected chore upon entering a hover & at low speeds. I loved how much I hated it.

It is a nomex flight suit. It's obviously not something specially made just for SEALS, as your post suggests. Most operators in the SOG community prefer it as an operation uniform over any other type for missions not requiring a traditional camouflage pattern. In the case of the picture you linked, they are conducting VBSS training. Nomex gloves (cut fingerless) are also preferred by many, although the heavy gloves you see in the picture are worn while fast-roping (rapid decent from a helicopter via a thick rope line...think Blackhawk Down).