Robin_Hood

Missiles generate smoke only as long as their rocket engines are on. So that if you see smoke coming from the msisile (especially air-to-air varieties), it has probably been fired real close, and chances are you are already a dead man (Ctrl+E might be the solution), unless maybe you're engaged in dogfighting (but you seem to imply BVR combat). If the missile has been fired from further away, and smoke is not visible as it is closing in on you, my experience in FC1&2 has taught me that you can usually see it maybe 1/2 second before it hits you - which is too late. So no real chance of counting on seeing the missile, but you know where it's coming from. You can try to break the lock by beaming (placing the missile in your 3 or 9 o'clock and getting lower so that it will hopefully mistaken you for a ground return), 'snaking' or some equivalent maneuver intended to make the missile lose it's energy (ie. speed) and maneuverability before it reaches you, or if you feel lucky, try a last chance barrel roll (for fox3 (active radar) missiles, try to make a high G barrel roll towards the missile when it is 1 to 2 seconds away from you - estimate time to impact with the SPO). To be exact, SPO gives you the power of the received radar radiation. It gives you an indication of the distance, but it depends on the power of the radar (a F-14 radar will appear 'closer' (ie. more powerful) than a F-4 radar). However, it will give you an indication of the closure of the radar. I don't know if SPO modelisation has been changed in FC3, however

Or maybe a trigger via radio menu ? That's interesting, a tanker changing orbits depending on the receiving aircrafts. Sounds good. Just have to plan ahead, because if you're gonna do 15K/220KIAS for A-10C and 30K/315KIAS for F-15, the tanker may take some time switching between the two orbits

Sorry guys, that's because I screwed up and misread. It should read 220 knots (150 (*100 ft) was the altitude)! Post edited ;)

Check out ATP56, AAR Procedures. The appendices have optimum refueling parameters. For the KC-135, it gives: A-10C Alltitude: 15 000 ft IAS: 220 kts Mach: 0.48 F-15 Altitude: 30 000 ft IAS: 315 kts (just as GGTharos said) Mach: 0.82

It's more like, covering/uncovering the eject switches, not ejecting the covers ;)

From what I understand, they aim to release the UH-1H with multiple positions available, but no multi-player on same aircraft at first (intended to be added later).

Exactly. It would be nice it the AWACS controller used standard wording and procedures. But I suppose a complete picture would be hard to do (even Falcon 4 doesn't do that, BTW), with group labels and formations (Champagne, Box, etc...). But at least correct BRAAs would get people used to the right procedure. Anyway, I'd add: if number of contacts is not called, 2-ship is assumed. For anyone interested, standard USAF calls are described in AFTTP 3-1.1, Attachment 1. It matches up nicely with Red Flag comms that you can find (that is... except when the controllers/pilot screw up :doh: - I have a really cool audio clip where an F-16 is pissed off and tells the controller that he must have a Bullseye call on the hostile, not a BRAA)

Is it not the other way around ? Plane-to-plane A/A TACAN giving range and not bearing (except on a few select aircrafts like the KC-10 which has a fully functional TACAN). I think that's the way on fighter-to-fighter TACAN, at least. BTW, does anyone know if A/A TACAN between A-10C is implemented ? I haven't given it a try, but could be worth it.

Interesting topic, I wondered about that too For multiple BVR shots (though this is actually off-topic), there are: 2nd FOX THREE** Simulated or actual launch of multiple active radar-guided missiles on the same target and FOX THREE (X) SHIP** Valid missile shot against (x) separate targets (assumes 1 missile per target). Source: Multiservice Brevity Codes, June 2003

The behaviour you described is the way things were in FC2. I don't really expect this to have changed (since it is not on any change list), and must therefore assumed that you described the normal behaviour for the F-15 in FC3. So, the F-15C cannot refuel in a turn, and the refueling is under autopilot once the contact is made. This is not so in the Su-33, where the refueling is entirely manual. As for refueling in a turn, I have observed opposing behaviours. Some times I have managed to refuel in a turn, and other times the tanker would go wings level as soon as contact was made (which, since they used to be very violent in their maneuvering, would almost inevitably end up as a disconnect). Do tankers still make insane maneuvering ? (I know they don't in A-10C, is the behaviour ported to FC3, including for the Russians ?) Also, what I would like (including in the A-10C) is the tanker giving a heads-up call before entering a turn. I don't like how they don't bother to tell anyone to prepare for the turn :doh:

Thanks GGTharos for the confirmation that the laser is IR. I suspected that the pointer is in a different IR frequency range (namely, near-IR), that makes sense (since NV goggles are near-IR ; also explains you can't see the targeting laser with the NVG). But back to topic, the thing is, while it is highly probable the pointer has less range (ie. intensity or 'usefullness' fades more rapidly) because (as stated) of the higher diffusion and (probably) higher divergence (the cone spreads quicker), the matter is not actually very relevant, since they serve a very different purpose, and they are quite different animals, one would say. I have to say, though, that if in-game the pointer just disappears suddenly at a certain range, that doesn't seem like a realistic behaviour. It would more probably fade away, but maybe that would be too hard on the framerate or something, for too small an achievement.

That would be the one http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=73864

By the way, isn't the "normal" laser Infrared also ? It is certainly not in the visible range, and I doubt it is a MASER. My guess would be (but it really is just that, a guess): the IR pointer might have less range because it diffuses in the air (that is why you can see it), si it should lose more energy and attenuate more quickly than the other one. There might be more to it, though. I'd actually be curious to know more about exactly the types of lasers used and their characteristics (academic background in laser physics talking here)

As far as theaters of operations are concerned, there was something like a couple of new ones in developpement by modders a while back. Afghanistan (I'm pretty sure of that one) and Mandchuria (not so) come to mind. However, it has been a while since I saw news about these, so I don't know whether they have been abandonned (which would be a shame), or are still actively developped, or are on hold (like, waiting for EDGE to continue). Don't know if anyone has any more news on this

I would imagine the discrepancy comes from the fact that while the Su-25T uses an old simplified ILS code from the Lockon series that works with any airbase, the A-10C uses a new realistic radio-based ILS system that can work only if implemented on airbases - same with TACAN. That said, I would personnaly love to see more ILS & TACANs implemented in DCS. PS: I have not looked into it, though. The A-10C flight manual has a list of radio frequencies for VHF, ILS & TACAN, that should tell you right away if ILS is available at Maykop

And I too now can confirm that it works, now. Thank you for this final release of DCS World, it looks amazing :)

Hey, I'd like to know if the issue is fixed in DCS World 1.2.0 (else I should download 4.92 Gb for nothing) ? EDIT: I just took a look at the release thread, and apparently, it should be fixed. I will try it

Also, one could use two computers at the same time for different roles. Would it be a problem then if two different serials from two different games bought with the same account are connected to the Master server at the same time ? You have to log-in, and that would mean the same account logged-in twice simultaneously. Just wondering

I think ED is aware of this, and are constantly working towards a better immersion. Already with the A-10C, we can finally hear other planes communicate with each other, and that helps a lot. I'm sure they will keep on working on this kind of things. They are also working towards Dynamic Campaigns, one piece at a time (think Mission Generator and Ressource Management with DCS World's warehouses)

I think that's the plan. Flyable when you have purchased the aircraft, and if you haven't you still can see, fly with and fight other humans who have, or AI aircrafts. Just like it is with A-10C, Ka-50 and P-51D now. Of course, this means that the free DCS World core would have to be updated to include new aircrafts (external model, AI behaviour, weapons, etc...)

Hmm, they might.

AIDS in DCS ? Oh my, the sim is really getting realistic :D Seriously, though, IADS would be nice

Sure, but as it is at the moment, it is not working at all. Maybe I should have made that clear in the opening post. DCS: World 1.1.2.1 does not work beyond the GUI in WinXP 32Bits. It crashes as soon as a mission or the multiplayer is launched. I am not necessarily expecting a perfect working software, but if it is going to be officially supported, it should at least work, however 'shortcomingly'. I do intend on switching to a Win7-based config, but that'll take some time (months, probably), and there might be others even more reluctant than I out there who would expect DCS to work as advertised. Please note that this certainly isn't a rant against ED or anything, only a reminder that it would be nice to fix the issue, or else to ban the OS from the min required config.

Well, maybe it wouldn't be useful as a communication means, but still nice to have in my opinion (would like to see pilots head down in their cockpit doing their checklists :))

Actually I fear it would be a little bit complicated, with believable animations for the ground crew (presently infantry animations are... Let's say you don't want to see them from less than a hundred yards away). But, sure, it would be great. I would totally love anything improving immersion on the ground. Also, I don't know if arming areas are still used before the jets line-up on the runway (I know they were used in the 1970's), but if they are, that would be nice also. Ground crew removing security pins on bomb fuzes would make you feel like you're actually going to war.