shagrat

The thing is, when introducing people to the radios, or simply doing training sessions in general, the instructor needs to explain stuff and talk to the trainee. A simple thing like explaining how the radios in an aircraft work, without the trainee knowing how they work to be able to communicate is a pretty bad idea. When instructing on bomb runs, how to setup the aircraft etc. I need to be able to talk to the guy AND hear questions... Additionally it is annoying to need to PTT for 60 minutes plus to explain stuff and answer questions. So we definitely need the room option to replace Discord/TeamSpeak etc. and especially for training. I just yesterday made the Voice chat setup with a buddy of mine. We would never have succeeded with just radios in the cockpit and given up ultimately. We even required Discord to troubleshoot room mode until we found he had room mode default on "Push-to-Talk" and not "microphone on". Next issue was troubleshooting the radio setup in-cockpit, when setting up keybindings (ESC menu) while in the aircraft. By the way, if you later managed the setup etc. and can confidently use the radios from cold and dark, there is already the option to default to radio mode immediately when you enter the cockpit. It's a simple checkbox in the individual menu of the voice chat window.

I second that! It's vital, if you own a throttle AND a collective, to be able to set individual PTT keys per module! A buddy from our group brought up another issue: if you would use the "real world" keys, it can lead to a situation, where muscle memory makes you pull the trigger in the Huey, to communicate, but the same muscle memory in a Hornet may be detrimental to one of your buddies when you fire a Sidewinder, when you just want to talk... That's where the best solution is to allow us individual comm triggers separate for each module. The problem is, if I need to buy voice attack to make in game VoIP work, I don't need in-game VoIP as SRS and/or Discord are more accessible. That is even more true for newcomers.

The key here is the "weaponeering recommendations" part. The pilot can recommend, not change on his own and most important, not without the JTACs approval. And especially the JTACs are trained in most (if not all) NATO weapons available for CAS, including the typical employment limitations, weapon effects, fuzing etc. It is their job to know. In the Annex E of the JP2-09.3 are some full scenarios for training the whole procedure. Includes game plan, 9-line and all the required radio calls... These scenarios are much easier to understand, than the whole regulations. It took me a while back then, when the A-10C was brand new, to grasp thze whole concept, myself. The typical on call xCAS flow is something like this (very high level, there is a lot more going on): - Troops on the ground get into trouble and need air support. The ground commander tells his JTAC to call the "controlling agency" (typically JAOC or the like) and request CAS to their position - Controlling agency directs nearest available CAS asset(s) to the area - Aircraft arrive in the area, contact the JTAC and "Check in" (Who they are. What ordnance they have, how lonmg they can support) - JTAC calls aircraft and assigns a holding area, IP and gives a short SitRep (What's going on, where are friendlies, where the enemy, what is the opposition, threats. Not in detail just the current situation), this also enables the aircraft to give these informations to additional aircraft arriving on scene or hand over if they run out of gas (Relief InPlace). - JTAC calls aircraft and builds a gameplan with the lead pilot. What threat needs taking care of first, what effects on target are desired (-> type of weapon, that's where the pilot would usually recommend bombs, LGB, JDAM or else, if he thinks it appropriate), if he needs multiple attacks or just one at a time, then BDA, rinse & repeat. - JTAC selects a target and type of control. This dependds on eyes on the target vs. only a grid coordinate, if he is under fire and look around etc.) and gives the pilot a 9-line (or 5-line) brief, including what ordnance, attack direction, abort code etc. and additional/optional info (the "remarks"). - Pilot verifies the 9-line, confirms via readback. if necessary corrects any mistakes, until the JTAC is 100% sure the pilot has the correcxt information. - Depending on type of control, pilot and JTAC make sure they are looking at the correct target. Typically the JTAC will do a tlk on and the pilot will tell him what he sees, JTAC ask questions on details so they don't accidentally look at different "L-shaped" compounds. - pilot begins attack as advised by the JTAC, checks ingress and parameters, JTAC tries to acquire the aircraft (depends on type of control) and if he is satisfied the parameters of the attack run are ok, clears the aircraft in hot. - pilot confirms weapon release and egress from target and gets back to his assigned holding unless told itherwise by the JTAC. - JTAC confirms impact/effects on target and does a BDA, if possible - If necessary JTAC authorizes another attack on the same target, or assigns a new target (new target means a new 9-line is required). This repeats until the ground commanders request is met, the aircraft runs out of ammo or fuel (needs to refuel) or the JTAC sends the aircraft away. I am aware there is a lot more going on, but this is a good basic overview of the workflow. If somebody has more details or more in-depth knowledge, feel free top chime in and correct this.

Another thing is, you need to land at an uncontested airfield of your own coalition. So if you land on a red or neutral airfield, or there are armed enemy units inside the black circle around the airfield, you can't repair, refuel or reload.

So I regularly host the server for our group and I can't see any valid concept that would work. Because of most if not all afore mentioned issues. I can't see any concept of "team balance" that would make our events any better. And from the comments I read, nobody does. So if nobody gets any insight in your concept of team balancing, what should we discuss? A simple "I want" let others figure out the how, may end up in something that is far from, or even contradictory to what you have in mind. As I pointed out above, we could simply add more slots to the opposite coalition, but that doesn't guarantee any "balance". Or we can balance the "number of players", but that that does not account for airframes, weapons, map position at spawning etc etc. etc In the end the most important point is, would players like/accept being manhandled like that, or simply switch to a more convenient server/mission, so they can enjoy DCS?

There were a lot of details to why this is problematic to say the least. As everybody can host a game for his buddies, everybody's opinion counts at least(!) as much as yours. And you brought up the concept of balance, without even a marginal explanation to what it would look like, or how it should work. (...)"enforce team balancing"(...) is a very broad term. It could be to simply add 4 MiG-21 slots for each F-16 slot. Or enforcing the same number of players on both sides, so a "well balanced" 4 F/A-18C vs. 4 L-39C... So the question is absolutely valid: how do you imagine this "balance" should work in DCS? Any suggestions?

The "text book answer", can be found in the actual text book, the JP3-09.3 CAS... and as said by others, already, the pilot mustn't chose the ordnance, unless cleared to do so by the JTAC. He may offer alternatives or add information for the JTAC to consider, though. That's why the final clearance ("You are cleared hot") is done by the JTAC, not the pilot. Keep in mind they still work as a team toward a common goal, to fullfil the ground commander's request for air support. The ground commander (through his JTAC) is the one responsible (!) for the attack and ultimately going to court. For example if two fuel trucks are bombed and it turns out the bad guys, may have been civilians.

Everyone who wants to operate the aircraft while talking to his human CP/G, wingmen, other flights or the like in Multiplayer, I guess?

When you place a new player/client AV-8B in the Mission Editor the COMM 1 V/UHF Channel Preset 1 defaults to 243.0 which incidentally is the Guard frequency. Shouldn't this be any other frequency, but Guard, by default?

We should be able to slew the LST centroid with the TDC when in search mode. Reference TACMAN from 2002, page 2-46, Section 2.4.4 Currently we can switch the scan pattern, but not slew the seeker centroid in any direction.

Currently not implemented. you should be able to 1) select between wide/narrow/HUD scan patterns on the MPCD LMAV page 2) change the pattern elevation by using TDC, if not slaved to a TDC designation, etc. Reference: TACMAN from 2002, page 2-167, Section 2.15.1.7 Scan patterns.

Hmmm, a subtle hint... At least it seems like. (end of the 2022 and beyond video).

As described in the first post under "Portability", or on the GitHub site...

Yes, but after you placed a unit...

Was ist denn drin? Historie/Entwicklung, Technik und etwas Eckpunkte der Einsätze, oder mehr "Einsatzberichte von Piloten" und so? Hab bereits die Osprey publications und die Ed Macy und Co. Ist da im neuen Heft des Motorbuchverlags noch neues drin?

I fixed the issue with the vehicles in the Mission Editor and gave the texture some love... Thanks to Wrench for the initial mod and Bog9y for the concept. Still not perfect, no LODs, does need a mostly flat area etc. but good enough for hover practice and spicing up some airports... padMark.zip

Thank you so much for this! The pickup trucks are brilliant! Over a decade overdue...

Yeah, but it looks very "distinguishable" with the tire on top... But yep, should be good enough. I really hope ED does the same with the Technical shown in Wags AH-64 video.

Just, put a couple tires to mark the "pad" and place the "invisible FARP" object in-between. Spawning objects, on top of other objects, can be "interesting" sometimes, but spawning Helos on the ground works fine and with the "invisible FARP" we can create quite convincing FARPs, Expeditionary airfields and improvised staging areas...

Yeah, german ex-army here, I am woefully aware how much improvement the smoke screen needs. On the other hand I know more smoke (particle effects) = performance hit, so if for example a dozen tanks get under attack and defended with a smokescreen we may end up with single digit FPS. With the VR guys already, constantly whining about FPS, it is a tough decision I guess. In theory, you could script "realistic" smokescreens with white smoke markers... but with the above performance penalties. Smoke Generators (adding stuff into the engine) is mostly used when a Tank reverses out of a position to cover the retreat, rarely to lay a screen in front of advancing troops, but it still is a thing in the modern MBTs.

Could you do one(!) of these as a civilian, unarmed(!) vehicle, may be with liveries (white, tan, desert, colors)? If we have just ONE model, that comes as armed vs unarmed, we could enforce Visual Identification and subsequently Rules Of Engagement!

They disperse away from the road, which is quite ok especially in urban areas. Fleeing the scene (rout) is something the mission creator needs to do based on conditions or via script and honestly I am happy the AI does not flee from combat unpredictable and in a random direction, as it would make reliable results in missions and campaigns even more difficult. That stuff is something for the dynamic campaign feature, we hopefully see one day, together with logistics, morale and tear and wear... but for now the improvements in wayfinding, critical hit damage modeling and granular control a welcome advance for ground forces. I'd rather see more unarmed vehicles, civilians or specifically the Technicals as an unarmed white 4x4 to model ROE and prevention of collateral damage. P.S. ...and APC/IFV/Tanks armed with smoke grenades DO pop smoke, but that effect is indeed too short and not very convincing.

Multi-Crew manning stations should depend on the setting "solo flight" on the special tab for the individual aircraft in the Mission Editor. When solo flight is checked, it should appear as a single slot and you should be able to switch seats. The exception currently being the F-14 Tomcat from Heatblur... The Huey seems to be bugged, indeed.

Need to set alarm state green or they will fight and stand. You can set it to auto or red when they reached their fallback line

Did I miss the new link? Can't find it.