RIPTIDE

The IFF works in FC3. What doesn't work for the F-15C ONLY, is the NCTR for the A-10C. All other target aircraft it works.

^^ The Irony, I saw the OP video 2006, when viewing the 1.2.4 video the other day. PS: That's the Su-27 3D pit for 1.2.4 I hope. As for the original 2006 office video, those guys have it easy... swaning around there having coffee and too much smiling and games. HAHAH

This is a bug. All other aircraft types are ID'd at close enough range in the F-15C MPCD, but not the A-10C.

Diehard. That's unfortunate. And it happens. As with the 104th, any tracks or names or anything you can always pass on to us privately. Some of these are accidents and some not.

I'm not sure about the context of this question... in reality, No. IN the game you can edit files to allow it.

What sort of bugs are you finding a bit intolerable, mate?

No. Going inverted to keep the OLS in line of sight. So if you do loose Radar lock, the OLS picks him up. There is a hand over from Radar lock to IRST Lock. Same as when a target goes defensive/cold from ~45km+, there often is a hand over to IRST lock when the radar fails.

:huh::doh::helpsmilie:

GO inverted ;) Like I said keep him above nose to keep the OLS in line of sight.

You shouldn't loose lock WVR unless the target has physically moved out of sensor range. Now, if you're in a Su-27 that should not be happening with it's manoeuvrability, and if you keep the target above nose (above nose means that the OLS can see him if he's below you and notches the radar lock) they'll be a hand off. IN this version of FC3/DCSW 1.2.3 you can acquire a target with IRST vertical for example. You'll get a flashing 'LA' or 'NP' when R-27ER's are selected. That means when you shoot the missile the radar comes on and locks and guides. As with a lot of BVR capable missiles, they are a bit sluggish at close range and may fail to pull their body around to chase down a target that has a very fast changing aspect and ~90degree angle off..

Raped? lol I want him to thrash out all these ideas so we can have them answered. If there is anyone wondering why things are the way they are or have any ideas and are wondering why they don't see X, Y or even Z, then we can talk about them. I simply answered the question about why it's best to have most airframes on both sides. And I countered his reasons as being not sufficient enough. The pro's outweighed the cons from our point of view.

Yeah. We realised that the Ground Strikers were populating the servers initially, and that then snowballed into other airframes. The A2A ONLY server wasn't getting the strikers obviously so the A2A guys were buggering off somewhere else. Damn strikers. Always complicating things. ;):D

This is no reason to remove the aforementioned self balancing nature of all airframes on each side. Not good enough, Speed. You should read it back. Because what you're basically saying, from a Striker point of view, that a server should have seperate airframes (counter to ED's provisions of different Country Coalitions) batched off on each side, because some ground pounders get panicked a bit because of poor communication? No, that won't do. The fact is it isn't the A-10's job to be flying around trying to ID aerial targets. If you see a MiG-29, why don't you know what coalition he's with? Has he just took off? Is he on Comms? Can you chat on MP chat? Have you checked the pool? Has other A-10's on your wing reported losses or harassment? Or maybe, it IS a friendly MiG-29, which BTW is Realistic. More realistic than A-10Cs with the Red Star of the Motherland on it. :music_whistling: But, there's realism and then there's realism. Creating danger zones above otherwise unimportant Urban areas in a mission is realism that I'm interested in. Creating an accurate level of difficulty inside a cockpit is the realism I'm interested in. Forcing Strikers to adhere to hard decks is realism. Not really too bothered about US Army markings on Ka-50s though. ;) That's gameplay. Point taken.

Who did you talk to Speed? Numbers? The significant portion of the community speak as individuals or small monothematic groups. Let me put this to you .... The F-15C guys would rather this simply because they can categorize things on their TEWS display unit according to 29 and 15 nails. In fact speed if I was a betting man, that is the prime motivation of those you spoke to. Though you can tell me I am wrong if you like. ;) Mission designers have to think beyond that sometimes. For things like balance. When it hits 6pm Eastern time and all the Yanks come on looking for F-15C we'd like some of them balanced out on each side. When the RedFor guys come on 12hours later, likewise. Your ideas are great for closed sessions where everyone arrives on time into their assigned slots and war breaks out. It's not really practical when the eb and flow of the server dictates what airframes are mostly in use at a given time. Also there are squad considerations. Some squads are multi platform squads with pilots who spend most of their time in certain airframes. Sometimes fanatically so. Personally I don't understand such mentality but it's there and has to be considered. I know one of the <51> missions used to be like this that Case made. I know also that Tyger made a mission called Op. Rebellion for the 104th back in the day. While the latter was a fantastic mission from my point of view (my point of view meaning that I have no problem with airframes or useless ideas such as red or blue), much of the online community spent half the time trying to Rotate Vote it. That tells you something. Nothwistanding my previous assertions about trying to forge expectations of our online customers to a more professional level, still we can't move so fast on this.

Is that a new airframe 76MD or a modernised one? Do they still have Navigators sitting in that glasshouse under the nose?

The Argies didn't have enough fuel to stay in any fight, though. It's a poor comparison really.

Never had any of this in FC2. I think it's that Falcon crowd blowins into DCS that brings the bad element with it, for shame. ;)

No, even better: S-8KOM rocket pods. :D

Supposedly the R-37 had a 300km range hit during testing. Probably at ideal conditions.

Nah it's not. It's 2 pages long. That's just a mind trick, because the posts are long, and condensed. I've seen some fora with 1500+ page threads. That's a long thread. :D

Osram. I think you should be more specific as to what valleys. Some of the flats you might be talking about are already 400-800m Above Sea level, around Tblisi for example. Then there's the raised valleys. The Valley that runs into the Roki Tunnel starts at about 1,000 metres and ends up about 1,600 metres, just as an example. Now if you're trying to achieve a hard deck of say, 4,500 metres AGL... in a Su-25T loaded to the gills, that extra 1,600, on top of already 4,500 is substantial. So my advice to you is to carry appropriate payloads and fuel, more suitable to high altitude valley manoeuvring. As for the Altitude, the 25T uses Radar AND Baro. Radar works to 1,500.

Because they don't have a lot of energy and will miss in many situations.

Does anyone notice a large transonic drag now with full payloads in FC3?

2x Batallions of SA-11/Hawk Sites. 4 SA-15 4 SA-13 4 Shilka That should keep them ~15miles away. You could use some older stuff aswell, 2x SA-6, 4x SA-8, 4 x SA9 aswell.

Do it at night. with them loaded with 16x Hellfires a piece. Now that is fun. :D Watch the tacview afterwards and they really pump them missiles. lol