Tom P

This is public information. Point target is 1,500 meters / 4,921 feet. Area Target is 1,800 meters / 5,905 feet. So why is the engagement ring maxed at 1,190 meters / 3,904 feet? That's 610 meters / 2,001 feet less then it's Area target range. You're downgrading the .50 by over a 1/4 mile(1,320 feet) of engagement range. I have engaged truck targets well past 1,800 meters accurately for Stryker gunnery. Side Note, this is the same story for the Bradley and Abrams. You're under performing their engagement ranges by a lot. I know it's not as cool as giving the viper or hornet some feature that 90% of the users wont use but the ground fight is and will always be a bigger role in combat. Aircraft are just supporting them.

I posted this in the bug section on the discord with video as well. The SA-6 armor has been questionable for a long time against anything below a 30mm round. Some examples: - 20mm: F-16, F/A-18 - 25mm: Bradley, LAV I got sick of this and finally did some testing to prove it. I had 2 bradleys set up as the control. The SA-6 Search Radar or Launcher within 4,500feet you can destroy. Past 4,500ft they are pretty much invincible and have a weird hitbox so it looks like a "force field" Ran this same test with a 30mm from the BMPT and was able to destroy the above mentioned SA-6 units within the first burst. I then set up 4 bradleys firing at a single SA-6 unit above 4,500ft and they did not damage the SA-6 unit from the front, side, or rear. So in conclusion a unit engaging an SA-6 with something smaller then 30mm needs to be within 4,500ft to destroy it. Bradleys, LAVs, Any aircraft with a 20mm cannon doing a strafe. P.S .50cal can penetrate the SA-6. So a 25mm APFSDS would go through it like hot butter. Also 4,500ft is 1,372 meters which is nothing for anything above a .50. Also SA-6 doesn't really have an armor rating, I played with one while I was in Poland. Super thin "armor" K I gave you the proof. Now fix it. SA-6 armor more than 4,500ft.trk SA-6 armor within 4,500ft.trk SA-6 Launcher side armor.trk SA-6 SF Rear armor.trk SA-6 armor vs 30mm.trk

Or even just ground unit sectors in general. Can we either assign sectors of fire per waypoint or request the devs to rework the logic? Attached are some examples of what I'm talking about. I know, ground combat is lame and a low priority compared to adding some feature to a hornet. But this does need to be addressed as ground units die often because they're looking in the wrong spots. The orange triangle should be the units sectors of fire. The blue line are where the barrel is pointed. These AI skill is set to excellent by the way. The image with the Brads. The far left one is looking far right even though there is an enemy to it's left about to engage them. The image with the Abrams. The lead vehicle should be looking forward of the element, the second would be looking left or right of forward movement. Both forward moving vehicles are looking behind them while there is an enemy to the front. The rear vehicle should be pulling rear security but is actually looking at their forward movement. Thanks

We do not have time to read through a 30 post thread of two people arguing

Fully tracking there is a randomized weapons failure thread, but this is for weapons hanging on the racks from failing to release. After doing a quick search I don't see any recent or addressed threads. So why bring this up? Currently there's not really any penalty towards this on the majority of aircraft in DCS. We can go mach jesus with GBU 24s or rocket pods without any issues. Or go mach jesus while releasing snakeyes and other high drag bombs and they work just fine. Even though they would be way above their speed release parameters. How does a hung store happen? This can happen for numerous reasons, malfunction in the pylon rack, weapon, or computer error. From reasons such as over speeding the weapons, over G the weapon, incorrect release parameters such as a "short" pickle press. I'm aware the A10C can have hung stores from releasing the pickle to quickly. The M2000 and MiG21 stores can "rip" off from over g. And I think the JF-17 can have a bomb hang. The M2000 simulates drag issues with fuel tanks, I know for a fact rocket pods and other bombs have a mach restriction. I think having these kind of penalties/failures would increase the simulation. "Oh hey Bob, well now you're useless for this mission because you decided to fly like a cowboy and now have to bring your bomb back because it didn't release." Like I said there's no real penalty at this time.

This is a sandbox after all..

We're all in North America. We have a handful of hornet dudes but not a dedicated "squadron" We're a semi-serious group and flights are based on the mission. We only do Fridays as we all voted for that day as most of us work early Mondays.

Didn't see this notification, but you joined and left after being greeted.

@STONE SKY Mission 12: Played it three times to make sure it wasn't a one time thing. The A-10 and F/A-18 went to go land after the MiG-21 was destroyed. The F/A-18 landed south of the objective area at H4, and the A10 landed north of the OBJ near H11. Not sure if there is a second SA11 in the area but I was getting pinged by one. When trying to clear out target area 2 it states you're supposed to clear out the area with the fixed-wing, but they landed. I just declared Winchester and RTB'd. Single ship 64 VS a ton of armor after using a majority of the hellfires at target 1 is no bueno. Ended up with a score of 75/100. Would also recommend maybe putting the SA-19 tunguksa ROE to react to threat or set up a trigger zone acting as a engagement radius as it's missiles are much faster then a hellfire. I can foresee a ton of players being shot down from it.

I didn't see this requested and figured it would be highly appreciated from the mission maker community if we have this feature. Some aircraft like the Strike Eagle have additional waypoint options in the editor such as "navigation target fix points" and "waypoint properties". If we could have something similar and add the abbreviations to the waypoints, for example waypoint 5 property is BR for bridge or gap, waypoint 10 is a FM for FARP Ammo, and the final waypoint is LZ for landing zone. A simple solution right now would be to use the default waypoint name as a free text using the abbreviations such as "SP" so on the TSD is displayed the waypoint with the text. This would be great compared to having to do it all inside the cockpit.

Perfect example. F-16 on a 80s server with JHMCS and datalink.

Yes and I know that this thread would most likely get moved there like it did. Which is why I bumped it.

Bumping since we have currenthill now making in-house units.

Please introduce bombs "hanging" on the racks. Then capitalize it in bold letters in the patch notes that you introduce bomb hangs. Just to point the users back to the update patch notes.

That's good to know. I'm just sick of having to rely on outside material when a lot of stuff should be inhouse.

I think he was referring to the in-game chat that multiplayer has. You can open it and scroll through the messages and close it pretty easily.

Mission 11 feedback: Medevac flight back was around 80-90kts. Which is slower then the flight getting to the IP. Would recommend increasing airspeed to simulate getting the casualty back to roll 1 as fast as possible. At this point the 64s are lighter on ammo and fuel so 120kts the whole way is doable. I think the flight to the IP was at or over 100kts Mission 11 bonus: Was going to post this in the bug/problem. At the start when taking off, the UH-60 AI flies unpredictable and pretty much T-boned me while rejoining on Gunslinger 1-1. (AI am I right) maybe delay their take off until the 64s are clear of the pad. Or even easier edit the message with the clear to take off to state let the 60 take off first.

I checked and didn't see this. It would be nice if we could get a option to assign a key bind to review message history instead of pausing to open it. Not 100% necessary but I think it would be nice to have especially for all the single player base and campaigns out there.

Can we please get something new that's not the same thing we have had for years. KC-10(Highly requested many times), KC-46, A330 MRTTs(MPRS style and used by many countries), YY-20. I'm sure others will chime in with other aircraft. Aerial Refueling has been crucial in aviation for decades, lets add some flavor for the community. Instead of the same thing over and over again.

It's been well known that in recent times search lights have been used to look for aircraft. Baghdad 2003 for example. I'm fully aware there's the purchasable WWII asset pack with search lights but not everybody has or wants to purchase it. Can we just get the search light as a default ground unit that is reskinned or remodeled to fit/work for modern times?

I ran a poll not long ago on my channel to see where people are in regards to buying the MiG-29. It received 649 votes, a majority of players are waiting to see how it turns out. Hoping ED can make it work. But a Fox 1 fighter in a heavily dominated blue air Fox 3 environment is not great. Especially when the Russian fox 1s in DCS are not good compared to a sparrow. I honestly think that's holding people back. Even if we got a modern red fox 3 aircraft the R77 isn't good compared to a 120. The JF-17's SD-10s used to be good.

I thought the whole reason why we don't have many Russian style redfor is because of some stupid Russian law. But yeah making an attempt on the most classified aircraft for DCS so the whole to world to use makes sense. But I would take even a ton of flaming cliff style red air.

August bump to keep it relevant.

I'm aware of using a ksb export but that's to much work in my opinion.