shagrat

Der Web-Editor ist aktuell noch closed Beta, du kannst aber seit ein paar Tagen eine "7-Tage Beta"-Testversion die man "kostenlos" unterstützen kann. Geplant ist der Web-Editor als freies Community Projekt und soll dann demnächst frei verfügbar sein... Im Prinzip haben die Unterstützer halt bereits Zugriff auf die Alpha und Beta Version. So stellen sie sicher, daß die Leute auch Feedback geben und aktiv mittesten. Bin mal gespannt, der Web Editor sollte eigentlich bald für die Öffentlichkeit vefügbar sein.

Stimmt! Mit ẞ also "Heißt Flagge!". Keine Ahnung ob ich was verwurschtelt hab oder das Handy "korrigiert" hat. Da es ein Kommando im Formaldienst ist, geht "Hisst Flagge!" übrigens nicht, auch wenn man die Flagge daraufhin hisst.

Ich meinte schon im normalen Gespräch, nicht Formaldienst... Und ja, absolut korrekt, es heißt "Heisst Flagge!" und "Holt nieder Flagge!". Aber "Los Leute, absitzen! Zügig!" oder "Gib mal die Mumpeln rüber!" ist eher alltäglicher Sprachgebrauch. Was bei der Übersetzung in der GUI etwas anders ist, als bei Sätzen in Schriftstücken, etc. ist der Platz der zur Verfügung steht und die Tatsache, daß mit .PO files gearbeitet wird. Deutsche Bandwurmbegriffe in den Platz zu quetschen, der im englischen Original gut passt, ist manchmal nicht so einfach und erfordert Kompromisse. Ein Begriff in einem PO kann auch keine zwei verschiedenen Bedeutungen haben...

Da wäre ich mir nicht so sicher... Ich kann eher vom Gegenteil berichten.

Sprachausgabe ist garantiert noch von der A-10C damals, als Raku die vertont hat. Wenn sich das TACAN hinterher geändert hat, passt das Audio nicht mehr. Die Timings sind in der Tat durch die unterschiedlichen Längen, aber ich hatte die Trigger dafür mal angepasst, vor Ewigkeiten. Kann gerade nicht selber testen, aber normalerweise sollten die Texte/Audios wenn man nicht Leertaste drückt, oder Joystick-Trigger, durchlaufen. Die alten Trainings haben noch zeitgesteuerte Trigger, was nicht immer mit den langen deutschen Audios passt. Wenn ich die Tage Zeit finde, schaue ich mal, ob das einfach zu fixen ist.

I step out. The Early Warning Radar sites (TF Normandy example) were not only unaware, they were basically incapable of defending themselves against an attack. The Air Defenses of that site were not SAMs... they were AAA with no radar and some APCs etc. Comparing apples and oranges doesn't make sense. As I said we can do as we please in DCS, but just because it can be (easily) done in DCS doesn't make it viable in the real world and thus if one wants a modicum of realistic tasking, it is a good idea to look at the real world.

If possible evade and go around. If your target is that specific column, request support by SEAD aircraft. If neither is possible make a decision based on the briefing and contingency planning. If the fate of the world depends on you killing that one tank in that column, sacrifice yourself for glory! If it's just a normal task to delay enemy advances to prepare for an assault etc. Save the multi-million dollar asset and two highly skilled pilots to fight another day and get the hell outta there.

The important difference between an EW-Radar and a SAM battery would be the fact, that one of them shoots actual missiles at aircraft, the other doesn't... A small but significant difference, at least in my book.

Thank you, that's what I am trying to get across for quite a while.

It is how DCS keybinds work. The actual real life switch has 3 positions (ON-OFF-STOW) available as 3 separate keybinds. In addition DCS provides two alternative keybinds to move the switch up or down (searchlight switch UP and searchlight switch DOWN) to the next position. Basically you safe one physical button on your HOTAS using only two physical buttons to move the switch up and down.

There's a basic role and mission set defined for the Army Air helicopter organization. It is defined in FM 3-04.111 and FM 3-04.112 (unrestricted). SEAD/DEAD is not a mission profile for an AttackHelicopterBrigade. Should an AH team encountering a sneaky SAM battery defend itself and may attack the threat in self defense if opportune? Definitely yes. Should an AH team evade and sneak around known enemy air defense to reach a battle position from which it can attack the target(s)? Definitely yes. Should an AH team actively seek out enemy air defenses and SAMs? No! Not unless a dire situation calls for a strike on such a target that cannot be done by any other assets, with less risk. One sentence in the Field Manual that for me was key to understand, why in DCS it often feels wrong when we roam around to find "worthy prey". (...)"An ATKHB never fights alone. Attacks are coordinated with other maneuver, combat support, CSS, and joint forces to form a combined arms team. This team surprises and overwhelms the enemy at the point of attack. Attacks may be conducted out of physical contact with other friendly forces but synchronized with their scheme of maneuver, or they may be in direct contact with friendly forces."(...) Again, this is my take on it. I am sure as with all good plans, in real life they don't last very long if the <profanity> hits the fan, but at least the design consideration for a realistic mission should try to reflect the basic role and doctrine for an aircraft, not that a "special situation" can't call for a creative solution... I mean, they even used Apaches to evacuate downed pilots, in some case, though the AH mission profile isn't exactly CSAR either.

Absolutely, but not as a task for the helicopters... Or let's say only as a desperate measure. In DCS we have this way too often, that a flight of two AH-64D is "supposed" to slaughter its way through a thicket of air defense units often a whole brigades worth of IADS "to make the mission more tough". I get that it's just a simulation and we can create whatever suits our preference and have fun, but it is often leading into bad habits and taking risks, that at least IRL would be deemed "unnecessary". Just my personal opinion here.

Just remember, there are clear mission profiles and tasks for Attack Helicopters and SEAD/DEAD is not a task for AHB or Cav. Army Air is part of a combined arms force. In DCS you have the luxury to risk a multi-million dollar asset to play wannabe SEAD, but it doesn't mean it is "a good idea" to be in the thick of an IADS. If you play realistic missions you should evade those threats, not engage them, focus on your mission and if necessary even abort and fight another day.

Depends on the equipment/TGP and range of codes it can use. I think that Eastern jets use a different range of codes than western. In the end there are of course workarounds, even now, but I would love to see ED changing the JTAC to realistically adjust HIS Laser designator to the code on the bomb we drop.

Well we do set different laser codes on the AH-64D per aircraft, so we can shoot laser guided Hellfires all the time. It's mostly because of this unrealistic restriction and the JTAC not being flexible, that I almost never used it. In the AV-8B or F-15E you need to set the bombs laser code on the ground. Take two of those aircraft and set bombs codes to 1688 and 1687 on the ground to keep it simple. Now, the mission pops a task and the message from the AI JTAC (that I would really love to use more often) says "Marked by laser 1588" because that's what the Mission designer scripted/set... Ooops. That's where I would love to be able to communicate a different laser code for the JTAC to set his equipment.

That's exactly how they operate in real life. Most GBU have a set of dials on the bomb, that are used to adjust the laser code by the ground crew. It cannot be changed in the air. That's also the reason, why most aircraft can deliver LGBs as a bomb truck, simply drop the bomb and let the JTAC lase. The pilot will tell the JTAC the bombs laser code. JTAC sets the code on his designator (it's actually implemented this way in Combined Arms, where a human JTAC has the option to adjust the laser code. The AI JTAC is currently limited to the default laser code of 1688. In some SP missions/campaigns, the mission creators go through a lot of scripting to basically build their own JTAC...

On the bombs, but not the JTAC. IRL the code is fixed on GBU-12/10/16 etc. It is dialed in at the bomb and can't be changed from inside the cockpit. More and more modules simulate this real life limitation, by allowing adjustments to laser codes on loadout only on the ground. Now, if you have multiple aircraft armed with LGBs they will deconflict the laser codes between aircraft or flight according to the mission. Now in DCS the AI JTAC will always use 1688 as his laser code, whereas IRL he will get the code from the aircraft he is working and adjust his laser code accordingly. The only way to do this, currently, is to either script a "laser point" with a frequency with out using the AI JTAC or manually with Combined Arms and have a player do the JTAC role. If we could get an F-menu-option to tell the JTAC our bombs' laser codes, it would be fine. It could simply read the available codes from the loadout and let us select the appropriate one for the JTAC, just as an idea.

The Laser Code implementation is a real problem in Multiplayer, as it more or less makes it impossible to use more than one AI JTAC in an area, or actually use the laser codes on bombs, as ALL bombs and TGP are required to set 1688. I know we have lua scripts using different codes, but that doesn't solve the basic issue, that you have a code set on the individual GBU-12/10/16 etc. and the aircraft tells the JTAC what code to lase, IRL.

Yep, totally! I think I pointed out that I am making assumptions from the obvious (omission of Bahrain), but not "knowing". I am really stoked for Afghanistan, after all. Happy to getting closer to release.

They don't. And as I pointed out, I have a pretty good idea why they, at that point in time decided against an Iraq area, removed Bahrain and omitted certain key infrastructure... Edit: also, I am not "angry". I just think it would have been the more versatile map after NTTR.

Thanks! This is a very useful brevity code. If I've seen it somewhere, before, it definitely slipped my mind. Great conversation, by the way, I am learning a lot.

Not only for helos! Lots of current DCS fixed wing jets will benefit from a real life scenario, as well. The AV-8B Harrier, the F-15E, the F/A-18C, the F-16C, the A-10C Warthog(!) and even the Mirage2000C with a bit of leeway saw action in the war on terror and OEF.

Does not change the decision to make the wrong part of that area... Any place of the earth had its couple of days "conflict", but Iraq/Iran border down to Kuwait, with the 80ies Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Southern Watch/Northern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the recent war on ISIL in Iraq, that saw engagements with a lot of available DCS' aircraft is definitely(!) more interesting than Operation Praying Mantis, a one day long naval engagement sinking some rusty Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz with the upcoming AI version of the A-6E Intruder... Just saying. P.S.: I personally think the reason to NOT create an Iraq map is connected to the fact, that the Persian Gulf map has the whole island of Bahrain missing, as well as the key locations of Kharg island and Busheer in southern Iran... but I might be wrong on that one.

You can actually use the old .diff.lua files and load them into the "new" device ID, like you would with a backup. Fastest way I know, apart from command line script magic, with the benefit, that anyone can do this. Only if Keybinds changed drastically, you may need to sort some orange lines.

The majority of Afghanistan is not remotely(!) a Desert. Eastern provinces are lush mountain valleys with timber industry as a major income, northern areas are a mix of mountains, hill and uzbekian steppe. The only desert is the Dasht'e Margo South of Kandahar and the region west of the Helmand valley. I personally am mostly interested in real life locations with well documented conflicts, which both Afghanistan and Iraq maps would provide. The decision to create a map in the Persian Gulf and deliberately omit Kuwait, Iraq, Iran's western border to Iraq was "interesting". I think I have a pretty good idea about the reasons, but as DCS maps can't really be used to plan a specific target run, I would have preferred the whole Persian Gulf Map moved some 500km to the west. My guess for the "other map" is strongly in the Pakistan/India Border region, though, as it would make a lot of sense.