SFJackBauer

To be fair I noticed some of my ripple bombing runs falling short, but I didnt went and test it again, probably because I didn't used such a large spacing. Will do some testing now. EDIT: Nope, can't reproduce. Pair, 6 pulses, 500ft spacing. CCRP on the runway crossing. The 4th pulse got there.

True, but we work with the weapons we have, not the weapons we wish. Now I wonder if a low level terrain-masked toss would also work with JDAMs, or if it will require DTOS bombing mode to be implemented on the F-16, which gives pull-up cues.

Loft a JDAM.

Afterburner

Clear canopy

I still don't get it. How do you obtain coordinates to input in the Hornet? If you have the coordinates, then create a new steerpoint in the Viper and use it to deliver the JDAMs. No TGP needed. If you have multiple targets, then create multiple steerpoints, then at the delivery moment just cycle through them and pickle.

Sry, Man, sometimes this is not working as it should, too... Care to elaborate?

Is DCS installed on a SSD? I have the exact same CPU, but 32GB RAM and a SSD, it takes exactly 30 seconds to join Growling Sidewinder server after a fresh start of DCS. At that point DCS is occupying 12GB of RAM (working set on task manager, normally its a hidden column). I know it doesn't help you much but it is a benchmark.

If you have a HOTAS like the Warthog which has at least the Joystick identical to the F-16, the enjoyment is greater because you can map the buttons as in the real jet and follow the same workflow as the real pilot (as close as possible). Although I have modified my bindings a bit to be able to perform some things you would need to reach for the cockpit, like changing radar azimuth, bars, auto-pilot. Honestly what I am mostly looking forward is some implementation of the data cartridge... re-configuring MFDs every single time I get in the jet gets old quickly.

Press LAlt+Y two times while on F10 map to get the precise coordinates.

I know I am not answering directly your question but... do you have a realistic mission to accompany your realistic loadout? For example, if you are a single ship against a column of 6 tanks which are in the imminence of overruning a key position, then 6 Mavs would be warranted. But most of the missions the F-16s around the world flew would not be like that, and certainly not a single ship. So even though I could use realistic loadouts, mostly I stick to what the mission requires... either all-out anti-tank Fulda Gap 6 Mavs, or a mix of LGBs, clusters, even plain Mk84s if the target is a huge barn. I find that I enjoy more being present in the mission at hand and using an appropriate loadout than using a "realistic" one and being frustrated because it didn't worked well for that particular situation.

- Be able to flag units with "Infinite ammo" - Be able to flag ground units with "Invulnerable to ground units"

Just for clarification, are you asking what happens if you slew the TDC over the DDI labels for bar, azimuth and radar mode and press it while in TWS? (I dont know the answer, just wondering if that is the question)

He didn't said that planing link and trailing link are the same thing. He didn't contradicted anything Mover said. He just acknowledged a fact which corroborates Mover experience, which is that trailing link landing gear makes for a smoother landing due to its geometry. Keep the finger off the trigger mate. Also I didn't realized you were the designated carrier of Mover credentials. I absolutely respect real-world pilots participating in DCS, but I don't think putting them on pedestals would foster a healthy culture in these forums, since at the end of the day they're as human as we all.

That's the issue, "by a rocket". There are different types of rockets, and there are different amounts and configurations of explosives in said types. The correct assumption should be that there is an appropriate ammunition for a certain type of target. For example, in a HEAT warhead, a key factor to its penetrating ability is the diameter of the shaped charge. All modern anti-tank missiles (Hellfire, Vikhr, TOW, Javelin, Brimstone) have a diameter of 130mm (Vikhr) to 180mm (Hellfire, Brimstone) and carry a similarly weight charge (about 10kg) to be able to punch through 800-1200mm of RHA equivalent. How would a rocket of a smaller diameter and a smaller warhead have a similar performance? Why would someone even bother developing those larger and heavier missiles in the first place?

Wait WHAT? How the hell could you be identifying a tractor in that image? And that's why one of the rules of product development is: Listen to your customers, but don't listen too much (or too literally). Otherwise your product will end up absorbing all the crap that uninformed people loves to spew about things they don't have a clue about.

Its out of production for a long time though.

In any case it seems that ED decided to go through the route of not letting SAM generate a lock indication on adversary radar, per Wags comment on youtube:

Do not act like you are some kind of spokersperson for the entire community. I am an ED customer for 10+ years now, and I don't see what the fuss is about (maybe because I used to flight simming in the era of VGA resolution and 9600 baud modems). There are always fanbois and critics, but then there is a silent majority who pays silently and enjoys it in their private time. I know a couple of people like that. Me myself I extracted immense enjoyment of every dollar I spent on ED products (compared to eh... Battlefield games? I have some regrets there...). Be sure that if the fundamental promises are broken, I will too raise my pitchfork, as I'm not a blind loyalist. But until then, I don't see any reason for hysteria. But "yeah well, that's just, like, my opinion, man".

These guys did a great job making public something they wouldn't have to as it was originally for internal consumption within their own group, with the intention of helping newbies coming to DCS who have no idea the very basic concepts of intercepts and BVR combat. How about instead of just criticizing (which is fair), offer your own contributions on how to approach A2A combat in multiplayer so we could retain more new players and keep growing our entire community?

Not taking away from the effort to put it into video format, but can you guys acknowledge and credit the source of this, which is the P-825 course available at the CNATRA website?

Pretty sure these are threat circles (the A standing for AAA), so nothing new here.

And it has a clickable cockpit? Awesome job dudes! Perfect for some "CIA-style" missions :thumbup:

Meanwhile, you could follow some simple rules: - If there are no long-range SAM threats, fly as high as possible to conserve fuel while maintaining adequate forward speed. I use Mach 0.75 as a ballpark cruise speed. The heavier and draggier you are, the lower you must fly to maintain this speed. Also consider that above 30k ASL you are immune to most short-range SAMs, including Strelas, TORs and Rolands. - If there are airborne threats you want to hide from visually (especially online with human opponents) fly below or above contrail altitude. This means flying either under 24k feet or above 40k feet for regular conditions, but this could change depending on weather. - When the approach to the target is heavily defended, you may need to fly NOE (nap-of-the-earth, hugging the ground) in order to evade SAMs or other aircraft. Beware this will consume a lot of fuel and leave you exposed to IR SAMs and MANPADS along the way. We could talk in length about different flight profiles and its uses (HI-HI-HI, HI-HI-LO, HI-LO-HI etc) but that would be a subject for another day (maybe in a virtual bar drinking virtual beers?) Cheers!

I know where does that info comes from given that I fly that simulation since the first versions released in the 2000s. However that simulation cannot be used as a reference for DCS due to various reasons. You did an interpretation yourself when you said "should not trigger". However the text you referenced uses the expression "reduced chance of being detected or considered a threat - especially when compared to STT". Reduced is not zero. ED so far has chosen to model as a 0% reduction, so it always trigger the RWR, and I cannot argue that they are wrong in ths regard.