shagrat

It's a dedicated function of the TEDAC control, managing the IHADS, not a cheat or something. The thing is designed to do exactly that IRL. You can either flip the tube assembly aside, or dial the brightness of the FLIR overlay on the IHADS down. You will notice the symbology changes if you switch between HMD and TADS, as well, you simply dial down the image overlay from the TADS on the IHADS/HMD.

Well, the JTAC view was accidentally implemented in the DCS: A-10C Warthog beta (and immediately removed in the next patch). This instigated the whole requests and pleas to include the JTAC again. ED's answer at that time, was along the lines of "they are not allowed to implement it, for contractual reasons". When they added CA, it was a bit different from the accidental JTAC view, had more features and if I understood correct was not just an implementation, of the previous leaked beta feature, but a new development with different and more features.

Because it is nice to have the symbology, especially the gun-cross, to point the "line-of-sight" with your head, to slave the TADS while your view is not cluttered with the FLIR image, whereas hitting "I" removes the monocle with everything on it...

This is sad news. RIP.

I think we desperately need a couple more buildings as static objects, that integrate with the new maps. Basically a couple of the one and two story buildings, walled compounds, huts, sheds, etc. from each map. So we have a way to add a specific "target building" in missions in places where no generic buildings are generated and which don't look obviously like added from the old Caucasus map times. The generic civilian airliner from the airports as a way to add civilian air traffic without C-130, IL-76 and KC-135s as "stand-ins" would be great and while we talk about neutral units, as in ROE "only shoot confirmed hostiles", the addition of civilians, basically insurgents and technicals (HL Dshk), but unarmed aka without a weapon so a pick-up without the Dshk and a guy without the Ak-47, would open the possibility to create believable scenarios where ROE are enforced and identification of targets is required and you are penalized, when "killing everything that moves".

Who would like to jump into a tank, ride a good 20-30 minutes towards the objective to get hit by a Hellfire, Vikhr, Maverick or LGB? Typically DCS MP missions cover pretty big areas, if they involve planes. That means long travel distance for tanks, or "spawn points" near objectives. The 3D-RealTimeStrategy aspect could be interesting, but that desperately needs at least a simple, more standard RTS interface that allows for "select by rectangle", "Set as control group 1-4" or similar.

The reason for that "module", was an accidental release of something similar to the JTAC/Ground Commander feature, in the DCS: A-10C Warthog beta-phase. Everyone was instantly hooked, but unfortunately the contract with the Air National Guard did not allow to use this. After a lot of pleas and requests, ED basically created Combined Arms from scratch, with the main focus on providing a human JTAC option, control over artillery fire missions and as an add on, rudimentary control over ground units. Another most underrated feature is to allow pilots to issue commands (waypoints, attacks, etc.) from the F10 map. That is very handy when capturing airfields, or in combination with CTLD and dropping troops/APCs with helicopters or C-130s... It never was intended as a "DCS: Tank Simulator".

...but the AA-Machine Gun on top can (and will). Same for the other enemy assets in the vicinity.

Joint Fires Observer - Army personnel trained to call in fire support, either by artillery or CAS. I don't no the details for the Air Force, but USMC JTACs need to be pilots that are then embedded with ground troops as JTAC. So they know both perspective, the pilots and the grunts. https://www.army.mil/article/88014/joint_fires_observers_make_battlefield_impact

Interesting. Would be an interesting addition. Still my biggest issue is if cities that are noted by name on the flightmaps are missing.

AFAIK Razbam has implemented click zones and keybinds in a way, that allows to basically map a single stick to flightstick, left and right handgrips respectively. I personally will use my Hawk-60 collective grip as left handgrip and only switch flightstick and right handgrip (using a modifier), but it should easily be possible to manage with even a single stick.

Already, does by about 4km weapon engagement range... Hellfire vs. HOT. Plus the ability to engage multiple targets with Hellfire and guide them in sequence, if grouped close enough. Gazelle can only guide one missile at once, then acquire the next target and fire again.

Well, the real "Killer feature" isn't the FCR, it is the Longbow net, to quickly divide targets into groups or areas to prosecute by drawing areas on the TSD and transmitting/distributing this information between a flight of four AH-64D. FCR is the cherry on top, but for its full potential it needs the network, as well. Meanwhile, we still have most features already that made the AH-64 famous in "Desert Storm" and "Just Cause". Still learning to be good in both seats...

Ne, leider nicht. Dazu müsste ein FARP, auch der "Unsichtbare" eine normale Zone oder sonstwie Spawnable Object sein. Aktuell, wäre es maximal möglich, in der Mission an definierten LZ einen invisible FARP zuplatzieren und wenn der Transport in der Zone gelandet ist, die notwendigen Einheiten (Truck/Humvee/Tanklaster, etc.) zu spawnen, bzw. mit "späte Aktivierung" zu aktivieren. Da wird ED etwas entwickeln müssen.

What's the base missing? Khmeimim? That airport's name is Bassel-Al-Assad (Khmeimim/Hmeimim is the city name). The Helicopter base is east of the runway's northern end. The only other russian helicopter base I heard of, is Qashmili in north-eastern Syria close to the turkish border, but that's outside the modeled map area. Tartus is the port for the russian fleet in Syria. Is there any additional base near the coast?

East coast(?!) of Syria??? What are you talking about?

The thing is, Afrin as a landmark is on the MFD/F10 flight map for navigation(!) Unfortunately there isn't even a bunch of procedural generated city blocks, where you try to find a whole city. It's mostly about putting a couple stock City blocks on top of the road and river, than creating a "true to life" representation. Putting in some detail and maybe the ruins, south of the city would just be icing on the cake. My real gripe is, that an important visual landmark for orientation in that area is missing.

TacView ist nicht so cool zum anschauen, aber super hilfreich, gerade am Anfang, um sich im de-briefing anzuschauen, wo was nicht optimal gelaufen ist. Besonders, weil man im Zweifelsfall die Parameter (Geschwindigkeit, Sinkrate, AOA etc.) ablesen kann. Auch die Frage "Was hat mich da vom Himmel geholt?" lässt sich mit TacView meist super beantworten. Die Trackfiles der Replay-Funktion sind hingegen für das Debugging von Problemen für ED sehr hilfreich, weil die exakten Eingaben und andere Parameter aus der Simulation aufgezeichnet werden, die intern ausgewertet werden können.

Jupp, guter Hinweis. Es gibt für solche Fälle eine "Ignore List" im eigenen Benutzerprofil / Einstellungen / Ignorierte Benutzer. Dort den Forumnamen eingeben und was alles ausgeblendet werden soll. Extreme Maßnahme, aber manchmal besser für die Nerven.

IIRC they do "see" 360°, but(!) the factor to determine LOS is the detection time. The DCS database of course "knows" the location of every unit, so the detection is a calculation of factors, part environment (time of day, distance, weather, etc.), target size, angle and movement, and finally the time a LOS exists. Ultimately after a long enough wait you are detected if you are close enough. One of the factors should be front/side vs. rear, though the GROUP "communicates" targets and if you set a group spread out and facing all directions it should "see" 360°. I am not 100% sure this covers all aspects of detection/targeting, though. The real "issue" is the inhuman accuracy of non-AA-Units. A Zsu-23-2 with optical sensor is pretty ok in terms of air defense, its accuracy and tracking ability fair and sound. The IFVs and Tanks, basically all armed ground units not labeled air defense, on the other side seem to use waaaayyy too precise lead calculation for air targets. I suspect they use the same calculation they use for ground targets?

In general there are some basic rules for ground troops when training anti-air with small arms (self defense), which should be reflected in the AI. 1) Only fire on approaching aircraft - Everything without a targeting computer (calculating lead) shall only fire on approaching targets until they pass the "gunners 3-9-line". You must not waste ammo trying to shoot past an aircraft flying away from you! This was drilled into our heads. The chance to "eyeball" a correct lead in three dimensions on a target flying away from you are slim to none. Currently the AI uses pretty accurate lead calculation as it is not limited by a human brain, often firing at you after you already passed and are flying away. 2) Small arms fire denies airspace through massed fire, not accuracy - the goal of defensive fire against aircraft from Ak-47, M-16 through Machine Guns to .50 cal/Dshk is to throw enough bullets and tracers into the flight path to force the pilot to evade and abort the attack run. Not to precision kill aircraft over the battlefield. That doesn't mean there are no lucky potshots, but the idea is to throw up a lead curtain. That's not something to "show" in a track, but to consider for the AI decision making and maybe adjust accuracy for lead calculation at angles to target greater than 80° etc. Hope this helps a bit.

It likely wouldn't. But that's not the point. The reason is, the russian Government has made some strict policies that apply to "military equipment"... A professional company will abide by the legal implications and that's unlikely to change in the near future.

Oder ein anderer 3rd Party... Oder ein neuer Partner... warten wir doch die offizielle Ankündigung einfach ab?

Alles gut! Solche banalen Fehler passieren allen am Anfang. So eine Hornet oder A-10C etc. sind ziemlich komplex. Dafür wirst du es vermutlich nie wieder vergessen...

Kurze Anmerkung: am besten A/G bzw. AG für Air-to-Ground (Master Modus) nutzen und MAV für die Maverick (AGM-65x). Sind beides etablierte Abkürzungen und vermeiden Missverständnisse.