MagnumHB

Rarely? More like never. Mainstream media outlets and the general public are completely clueless about aviation topics. Luckily we have sources such as this current ANN article to go by.

The last video was posted way back in May when 97s were still capable of killing armor. That ability was only removed as of the most recent patch as an intermediate step to proper implementation of the 97 and 105.

The TGP could be close to getting masked. Try pointing your nose directly at the target and ensure that the TGP has a clear line of sight.

Sounds right up my alley as well. I'll give these a shot next time I get a chance.

Yes, we saw it. You know, in the original post of this thread.

Haha, I've found that tanks have been getting an easy ride for a while thanks to the SAM/AAA heavy environments that mission builders seem to be so fond of. I can't get enough Mavericks to deal with the battalions worth of Tunguskas, Strelas, and Shilkas that seem to be in every mission I play. Standard armor is an afterthought once you've been clearing out SAMs for hours.

I just wasn't amused that you contradicted yourself 3 posts apart, that's all. In any event, the main thread on this issue has received the appropriate attention, so I'm satisfied.

Subtle changes in the game (and presumably features, not bugs) sure, but not subtle comments that conflict with your own insistence on certain systems behaviors.

What's that supposed to mean? Is this intended behavior, or a bug, or what?

Thanks for this. I just played my personal longest sortie on the server, even though I was usually the only one around. Looks good so far, hopefully it will continue getting more traffic in the future.

I pretty much lost it at your exclamation of "got it" upon collapsing your gear and skidding sideways down the runway, and again at "that's a win" at the end of that unique gear-destroying, no-runway, edge-of-stall (not to mention dry land) takeoff. In all seriousness though, you would benefit from learning some basic aviation fundamentals that apply to more than just DCS.

Make sure you call "in" and "contact the smoke" once it's fired and you see it, and the JTAC gives you a "cleared hot" message before engaging.

I do it slightly differently: Targets 1 and 2 (trucks/infantry) - Guns. Target 3 (bridge) - GBU-38 (JDAM) - I don't like to waste an LGB on the bridge that I will need for a moving target later. Target 4 (tanks) - Order wingman to engage tanks with Mavericks and ignore the air defenses. Target 5 (column) - Hit AAA/SAM on first pass with Mavericks. Use remaining Mavericks, GBU-12 (LGB), GBU-38 (only when the column is stopped) on tanks. Use guns and remaining wingman ordnance on BMPs and any remaining tanks. To solve the issues you mentioned, make sure you have a solid point track on your target with the pod, and set that as your SPI. When you use GBU-12s, be sure to lase the target (somewhere around 15 seconds lase time is good) without obstructing the pod's view. Only use GBU-38s on stationary targets.

Any sort of formation flying including AAR generally involves constant subtle control adjustments, so I doubt anyone would be able to differentiate any significant weight effects from the inputs required for standard station keeping. In any case, my experiences with AAR so far remind me a lot of the comparison between good and bad boom operators brought up by Ed Rasimus in Palace Cobra. I doubt he would think highly of the AI boomer in DCS.

Essentially, yes. Regardless of the depth and detail, at its heart, this is still a game that we play to have fun. The player has a mostly direct influence on whether they receive battle damage or not. This makes avoiding and handling battle damage part of the accepted risk and reward (and by extension, fun) inherent in this, or any other good game. In contrast, the game randomly deciding that you should be combat ineffective before you even get to the combat area is outside of the player's control, and therefore perceived by most people as the game giving you the finger instead of a reasonable gaming challenge.

Double check that you have the JTRS switch set to on as well.

Nice shots. I was there myself (right on about the sunscreen by the way) and took a good 230 pictures or so, but only with my little point and shoot so most just don't compare. Actually, based on your angles it seems like we were standing in the same area for the later portion of the show. Maybe I'll post some highlights once I get them online if you don't mind the thread hijack.

See, you say that, but the reality for most people is that unless you are super-masochistic, random failures simply are not fun. Even more so in situations like coolts described. Besides, this is a combat sim which should give you plenty of opportunities to practice emergency procedures. Just fly a few high-threat missions, and you're bound to encounter some, and ones where an MFCD failure will be the least of your worries at that.

Thirded. Frankly, I'm not sure why this hasn't been an option from the start. I would be surprised if the code doesn't already have a way to turn it off for debugging/testing purposes. Anyway, I'm happy to see a clarification on the Maverick Slave all to SPI issue.

I'll probably give this a shot tonight if I have time. Looks...educational.

Related, and more interesting in my opinion (particularly the first): http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-navy-p-3c-usaf-10-and-uss-barry.html http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-10c-combat-missions-in-libya.html

Looks like a ZPU-1 to me. See here: http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/zpu1.htm

Great choice of music. I wish more people would do the same. The last thing we need is another poorly edited video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor".

Another problem related to the disappearing instructions is that they can also be superseded by a reminder to maintain a flight parameter and don't return afterward.