near_blind

Most of my sim experience has been B-scopes that are laid out pretty similarly (F-15, F-16 and F/A-18). The 3 line grid make it much easier to determine the target's range and bearing without having to lock him up in STT. With the TID you only get the artificial horizon and the radar gimbal limits as indications for range and bearing. Range isn't that much of an issue, but I have a heck of a time trying to figure out what the actual bearing in degrees to a brick is on the F-14 without being able to look at it in the DDD. All of this can honestly be filed under the category of whining because things are slightly different. I'm sure I'll make due when the Cat is out. Do you happen to remember where you read that? I'd feel much more assured of this opinion if I can find a source independent of the one I've got now.

Thanks crew, I'll give it a look after work tomorrow

DDD displaying rate jives with most of what I've read. My concern here is that in just about every "simulation" of the Tomcat I've flown (a list that is by no means exhaustive), the TID seems to present information in a form that is more vague than I'm used to with the B-Scope. I'm not sure if this is because most developers haven't had the access, time, or motivation to properly model it's finer functionality, or if fitting with the strange intermediary time which the F-14 was developed, the TID/DDD combo really was just that funky compared to the systems that would come a short time later. I'm like 90% sure the author misspoke and the DDD is rate only, but this forum seems to be the current F-14 brain trust, so I thought I'd ask.

Howdy, I'm trying to make a scenario where the pilot has to stop an elyna by making a low altitude, high speed pass. However I can't help but notice that naval units don't have hold or switch waypoint actions. Is there an alternative way to stop a ship, or failing that, is there a way to deactivate the moving ship once a condition is met, and spawn a static one at it's position?

Another random question. Most materials I've read indicated that the DDD could only be used to display target rate information. However while reading Tomcat by James Perry Stevenson, he seems to indicate that while in RWS mode, the DDD will display target range information instead of rate (Page 81) , in effect becoming a B-scope. Does anyone know if this is the case? Am I reading too much into ambiguous wording?

The AIM-54 was probably the first operationally deployed active radar air to air missile. Even if it weren't this still isn't the question. Most western Gen 4 aircraft will indicate either on the hud or the radar the estimated time of flight for a missile, and the estimated remaining time of flight for a fired missile, regardless of whether it is SARH or ARH. Given that engaging targets at great range is a core mission of the F-14, Id be surprised if this functionality were not present. However I've cannot find any reference of it existing.

I'm curious, how did the RIO determine when an AIM-54 had gone active, or for that matter estimated TOF of their AIM-54/AIM-7 shots? I have yet to find anything that points to TTA and TTG being indicated on the TID or elsewhere in the A or B.

Really? It does air to ground. It can do a large subset of air to ground, but it's still air to ground. The A-10 is not, and never will be a capable air to air platform. Ergo, it is not multi-role as the term is widely understood: being able to accomplish both air to ground and air to air missions.

Su-27S or Su-27SM The Flanker we currently have in game is an Su-27S. If I remember correctly the SM has updated avionics and the ability to fire the R-77, though I could be mistaken on this last part.

for 775,000 votes will you release the mod, the APG-79, a ground crew, a working aircraft carrier, and the Taiwan theater?

It was my impression that both VRS and A2A do this as well with the F/A-18E and Accusim respectively.

Literally everyone on the forum besides yourself got a download link last week. It's spectacular. AFM thrust vectoring, AA and AG radar, accurate 3d model down to the rivet... But really, all of their DCS talent appears to be going towards the T-2 at the moment. Once that is completed and released Razbam will probably give us a more definite timeline regarding their other projects, Harrier included.

You should be able to change your mission waypoints, weapons loadout, and skin on the briefing screen in the mission planner section.

It's an M-117 750lb bomb. It's the predecessor to the current Mk-80 series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M117_bomb

Neither the hook nor the A's landing gear are up to withstanding a carrier landing, and there is no emergency ground arresting equipment in game. Why spend valuable time modelling something that will be entirely useless?

It's western, it flies faster than an A-10, and it's not an F-15C. I'll give him money.

yes http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92197

The FC3 aircraft are no less realistic than they were in LOMAC or FC1 or 2. If anything between the new cockpits, and the new missile physics, they've only gotten more realistic. That being said, the FC3 aircraft do feature simpler avionics and flight models than the DCS aircraft so far. For instance you can't control the F-15Cs radar by clicking buttons in the cockpit, nor does it's MFD have multiple pages that can be accessed. Compare that to the A-10C where there are multiple MFD pages and everything can be controlled by the click of a virtual button. Most FC3 aircraft (The Su-25A being the exception) also use the Standard Flight Model, which is a simplified, less realistic alternative to the AFM used by the DCS modules. That being said the F-15C and Su-27 will be receiving AFMs in an upcoming module.

I've noticed in recent patches that the AI has stopped using anti shipping missiles in a way I would consider logical. For instance, using the settings in the attached image in 1.2.3 the two F/A-18s would ripple fire their missiles upon reaching their attack waypoint, and then continue along their flight plan. In 1.2.4, once the aircraft reach the attack way point, both will fire a single missile, and continue along their flight plan. If the missile is destroyed before hitting it's target, or if it hit's the target but fails to completely destroy it, the F/A-18s will turn back towards the target, and fire another missile each. This process will repeat until: A) The F/A-18s are out of missiles B) The F/A-18s are out of fuel C) The target is destroyed. I would consider 1.2.3 logic the correct approach to anti-ship missiles. When facing enemies like the Ticonderoga, and especially the Kirov, Slava, Kuznetsov and to a lesser extend the Neustrashimyy, the goal is to overwhelm their multi-layered defenses by filling the air with as many missiles as possible in a short time. With the current implementation this is extremely difficult to do. note: I'm only using F/A-18s as an example I've also observed this behavior with Su-24s, Tu-22s and I presume it applies to anti-shipping missile logic.

I've noticed this behavior seems to be more frequent if you change the escort position from the default (x: -3821, z: -3821, y: 0 feet)

Have you tried making it so the C-17 doesn't react to threat in the way point options?

It depends on whose in the front seat. It could be a lot of fun working with another person to blow a bunch of stuff up.

Very, very nice skins as always Jack.

That is correct.

Also I feel Naval AI in general is lacking in the department of missile defense. Whenever a ship is defending against incoming ASMs, it selects one target, and fires two SAM. If those two SAMs miss it fires another two until the target has been destroyed. Once the target it is destroyed it reacquires another target, and repeats this process until all missiles are destroyed or more likely, it is sunk. This is a fine model when defending against aircraft, but it's woefully inadequate against cruise missiles, the ships aren't able to destroy missiles rapidly enough to protect themselves. Instead the ships should be engaging as many targets as possible simultaneously. Also, at least for the US ships, they some times goof when selecting weapons. I've noticed the Perry and Ticonderoga will attempt to engage inbound missiles with their 25mm Bushmaster cannons instead of the CIWS. I don't know if this is because they've depleted their CIWS ammo, but it's frustrating to watch the AI trying to hit a supersonic cruise missile with 180 rpm chain gun. I really hope some of these things get addressed when ED switched focus to the F-18.