Crescendo

Unless something has changed in 1.2.7, preventative flares do not work, so let's not give him a false impression. It depends how you define it, but when people say "preventative" they usually mean delaying or preventing a missile launch by decoying the SAM seeker (i.e. before launch, the SAM operator might hesitate and ask "is the seeker locked onto the flare or the aircraft?"). In this case, there is zero effect. Preemptively pumping out flares will not stop a SAM from locking up your aircraft and firing at its predetermined range. This is a limitation in the current SAM AI logic - they fire at a certain range no matter what, and whatever countermeasures you decide to dispense has nothing to do with it. However, if you run a flare program around the same time you think a missile is going to be launched, there is a chance that the missile will track the flares dispensed by this program, but only after the missile has already been launched. I would call this a missile defeat, not a missile prevention. In my opinion it's a misnomer to call any flare program "preventative" in the current state of DCS. Flares don't prevent anything, but they might save you after the fact.

Hi all, As an Australian, I would like to see an A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22 (et al) in person at least once before I die. Static displays are okay, but naturally I would prefer to see them in action. My question is this: Are there any recommendations for the 'best' airshow, tour, or other event to attend? It can be a major international airshow, a small domestic event at an airbase, a military exercise (I'm thinking of Red Flag etc), literally whatever, as long as it involves these aircraft. I am willing to travel internationally and spend many thousands of dollars to do this, and the time-frame is not an issue (it could be in 2020 for all I care). I'm looking for something that satisfies as much of my criteria as possible, and I'm hoping to draw upon the real-life experiences of you all to do it. I can easily obtain lists of the various airshows on my own, so what I'm really after is a 'vote of confidence', i.e. "I've been to this airshow/event and it was great!" Thank you.

Left to right: current g loading, max g limit of the aircraft. So in your screenshot you are pulling 3.0 g and the aircraft's maximum g limit is 9.0 g. Note: I've never seen anything other than "90" displayed, so presumably it is max g, and is therefore not to be confused with available g.

The existence of this thread, its context, and the general content therein is symptomatic of the very problem. There are few allies to be found here.

Wow, that was quick! Thank you, const! :thumbup:

The default display options of the Flaming Cliffs forum are not configured properly. Look at the following image — this is what a visitor or new member will see when they visit this forum for the first time: Note how there only appear to be two threads in the entire forum! This is because the Display Options filter is set to "Last Day" by default. This setting filters out any thread that has not been posted in in the last 24 hours. I think most people will agree this is too restrictive to be used as a default setting. The "Last Day" filter setting creates the impression that the Flaming Cliffs forum is dead, because it results in informative and interesting threads disappearing prematurely from the first page (unless you have adjusted the filter yourself). Not everyone visits and posts in this forum every day, so it's likely that some threads simply 'disappear' before people get a chance to contribute to them, or before they even realise that that they've missed out on seeing an interesting thread. This process ultimately produces a chilling effect on the amount of conversation in this forum. I think this issue should be fixed by the administrator of this forum ASAP. Every other forum defaults to the "Beginning" filter setting. This filter displays all threads in the forum and gives people a chance to look for recent threads that they may wish to contribute to. There is no good reason why the Flaming Cliffs forum this one shouldn't use the "Beginning" filter by default too. It is in both this forum's and the community's best interest. Please fix this issue.

Sure, that landing maneuver is called an Overhead Break. User 'lobo' described it in the third post. An overhead break allows an aircraft to approach a runway at high speed, at which point it slows down quickly with a series of turns and then lands. Once you understand the geometry, you can see how it's very useful for allowing individual aircraft to fly faster for longer, and for recovering entire flights quickly. In a lot of ways an overhead is actually easier than a straight-in approach, and often more convenient. You can see an F-15 two-ship performing an overhead here: And here's an A-10 four-ship recovering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEfL7BgEwiY

As I said, from the way you described "chasing the FPM", I think you know what you need to look for. From this point onwards you just need to develop the 'feel' for how pitch and throttle affect AOA. I think everyone struggles with overcompensation/oscillation to begin with. For me, I found the trick was to get the picture roughly 'dialed-in' and then only make small adjustments. As you found, there is a noticable lag between making the adjustment and seeing the effect, so if you don't wait long enough to see what happens or your adjustment is too large, you end up chasing your tail. Small adjustment, wait for effect. Small adjustment, wait for effect. With practice you'll just feel it.

It sounds like you understand everything just fine. Just remember: TVV -3deg on the runway threshold, then do whatever you need to do to get the 'donut'. If you can, you should definitely get into the safe habit of flying slightly fast ('donut' plus the '^' caret) and using the flare to get 'on speed' at right at touchdown. Also, it's recommended to use ~40% speed-brakes as well, the reason being in the event of a go-around you can retract them quick which immediately works towards decreasing your AOA (a very good thing). It's easy, you just set the speed-brakes and forget them. The only thing that matters is your AOA.

For a straight in visual approach you can keep it pretty simple. Fly the aircraft to a position such that you'll be roughly on the glide-slope of the runway. For example, a starting point of 10 nmi out and 3000 ft AGL will achieve this (or 5 nmi and 1500 ft AGL etc). From there you'll be able to roughly place the TVV on the runway threshold at -3deg pitch. Then all you have to do is fly the correct AOA using the 'donut'. Ideally you want a solid blue 'donut' (no carets) to be perfectly 'on speed', but in practice it's better/safer to be a little fast (slightly low AOA, i.e. the 'donut' and the yellow 'increase AOA' caret (^) are simultaneously lit). This is because when you flare it increases your AOA, and if you flare badly you could potentially increase your AOA so much that you stall or land heavily. However, if you fly slightly fast and do it correctly, your flare will increase your AOA at just the right moment and you'll touch down perfectly 'on speed' (green 'donut'). You can start your straight in approach at any speed you want, but you'll have to slow down at some point to safely lower your gear. From that point onwards, you simply do what you need to do to maintain TVV -3deg on the runway threshold and a green 'donut' with yellow "^" caret. It seems complicated, but if you practice it becomes second nature. I don't even really look at my airspeed anymore. (By the way, the above might not be strictly correct procedure, but it works.)

It's signal strength, so asking for the "distance" in miles from the center to outer rim is nonsensical. That is to say, you shouldn't think of the RWR as a circle of 100NM radius (or whatever) with your ownship in the middle. That's my understanding of an RWR anyway, those more knowledgeable can correct me. If you want to figure out the distances in miles between yourself and an airborne radar or a SAM using the RWR, you need to divide the RWR scope into as many imaginary inner circles as you think is necessary, and then fly an editor scenario against those threats. When the symbol of the threat in question is 'inside' one of your imaginary threat rings, pause the sim and measure the distance between yourself and the threat. Do this for as many threats as you want, and you now know roughly how far away that Su-27 or SA-15 is based on its position on the RWR. You can use imaginary threat rings, comparisons to the static clock position markers, whatever. Come up with a repeatable system that works for you and test it.

As kk0425 said, the RWR works in the same manner as the Russian one: signal strength. So the stronger the emitter source, the closer the relevant symbol will be to the center of the RWR display (your ownship). The general idea is that a threat is within lethal range when it enters the 'inner ring' of the RWR display. You can see this inner ring (and the outer ring) by looking at the A-10C RWR. However, for whatever reason, the F-15 RWR doesn't have this feature. Maybe someone more knowledgeable knows why. In any case, I pretend that the F-15 RWR does have an inner ring - it's easy enough to imagine where it would be if it actually had one. If a symbol is outside of this imaginary inner ring, I operate as if it's currently non-lethal. If a symbol encroaches inside this imaginary inner ring, I treat it as an imminent danger. It seems to work well in my experience. As for "ascertaining bandit distance by the lighting" in the Russian jets, I think this is a bit of a 'gamey' mindset. We all do it of course (i.e. two bars is within XX miles etc), but I don't think RWRs are so accurate and reliable in the real world. I think the western RWRs are probably a better reflection of the 'messy' nature of RWRs, in the that they make it more difficult to deduce a precise range to the target. That said, due to the simplistic modelling of RWRs in DCS, you can still 'cheat' and use the F-15 RWR to get a range to target. For example, you could pick a non-moving reference point on the RWR itself and compare it to a reference point on a moving symbol, and then use tacview to measure the range between you and the target when the two points meet (e.g. when middle of the "29" symbol is in line with the 10-2 o'clock line, the bandit is within XX miles). Naturally it's harder to guesstimate with western symbology than it is with Russian bars, and in any case, engaging is such 'gamey' behaviour is against the spirit of what an RWR is and how it operates. Again, the only reason why these range-deduction tricks work is because RWRs in DCS are infallible 'all-seeing-eyes' with perfect reliability and perfect consistency/reproduction, which is absurd and a limitation of the simulation's RWR model in my opinion.

This is a much-needed area of development in DCS. The current SAM 'logic' (a generous description) is embarrassingly predictable. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of people will not see this thread, nor will they appreciate what it is and what it can do to improve this series. Please don't be disheartened. We should all applaud your initiative. Seriously, seriously, good work.

Well, it depends what you mean by "putting the smoke there". If you mean physically hitting the target with rockets, then yes, you have similar issues as with bomb delivery. However, if you mean marking the general vicinity of the target, then no, it's not really difficult at all. You just quickly and roughly 'put the thing on the thing' and fire a rocket before maneuvering to set up your actual bombing run. I almost always fly with a single pod of willie-petes just for that purpose. If I see a target or a muzzle flash I quickly roll-in and fire a rocket in the general area. It's a spontaneous action; nothing really fancy or 'on the numbers' about it. Then all I have to do is spot the smoke, which gets my eyes immediately searching in the right area. If you're out of rockets, landmarks serve the same purpose, i.e. "muzzle flash, in a brown field, next to bend in river by a town" etc. You don't even need the rockets for that, but they do make it easier. It works for me anyway. As for "How do you engage a target you can't see", I would say with great difficulty. If you can't see it, how do you know it was there? If you know it's there, you must have seen it, which means you should be able to roughly mark its general area, reacquire it, then bomb it. If you can't see it at all, then you had better hope that you have accurate coordinates or someone on the ground actively marking it, which should enable you to drop a GBU, or at least ripple a whole bunch of bombs via a CCRP delivery.

I stand by what I said. The F-15C modeled in DCS/FC3 doesn't have the JHMCS upgrade.

I don't know much about pilot equipment, but I think the helmet in your "NEW" picture is the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) helmet. You seem to be saying that the F-15 pilots in the "OLD" picture should be wearing the JHMCS helmet, but the F-15 in the game doesn't have that upgrade and doesn't use the AIM-9X.

It depends how you define "preventative". If by preventative you mean delaying or preventing a missile launch by denying a stable seeker lock, there is zero effect. Preemptively pumping out flares will not stop a SAM from locking up your aircraft and firing at its predetermined range. This is a limitation in the current SAM AI logic - they fire at a certain range no matter what, and whatever countermeasures you decide to dispense has nothing to do with it. However, if you run a flare program around the time you think a missile is going to be launched, there is a chance that the missile will track the flares dispensed by this program. However, I would call this a missile defeat, not a missile prevention. In my opinion it's a misnomer to call any flare program "preventative" in the current DCS version. Flares don't prevent anything, but they might save you after the fact.

Good job, MBot. I will use it.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I don't understand what you mean by "I did not make up firing the Aim7". I didn't say you did make it up, and in all my posts I agree that blkspade is describing firing an AIM-7. I don't get that vibe from blkspade's post. He said: This is an ambiguous statement. It seems to imply that he is not firing an AIM-120 at 8NM, but if that's true, what exactly is the AIM-7 "right behind"? If he fired an AIM-120 at long range at the start of the engagement (say 20NM), then firing a follow-up AIM-7 at 8NM cannot be reasonably be described as "right behind", at least in my opinion. To the above quote reads like he fires a pitbull AIM-120 at 8NM and an AIM-7 8NM "right after" it. To be clear, I am not intending to come off as difficult and pedantic, nor am I trying to score points by being 'right'. I hope I don't come off that way. Really blkspade needs to come back and clarify his post. As for going "banzai", I agree, you can do it, but I still think it's a good way to get killed or to ensure a boring mutual kill, especially in typical MP 'airquake' situations. People online have no sense of self-preservation and love to spam their missiles to get that precious kill, even if it means they stay suicidally hot. It's much better to sling missiles high and fast, F-pole, then notch/pump if the bandit insists on flying into your missiles. Even better, have a wingman to bracket/grinder/delouse/whatever with.

I know what hot and cold mean in a fighter pilot context, that's not the issue I'm having. To me, the way you described it is not the way blkspade wrote it. He said "doesn't refuses to turn cold", which is a double negative, so it actually means the bandit is cold. Besides, in blkspde's scenario as you interpreted it, why would someone fire the semi-active AIM-7 at a hot bandit within 8 NM? That's just asking to be killed. At that point you're already too close and should be slinging a pitbull AIM-120, and then notching or pumping.

You really shouldn't expect good results when using CCRP to drop unguided bombs, especially if the target is something small like a tank. Generally speaking, CCRP lacks the accuracy and tactical flexibility of CCIP. If you find that you are getting too close to tanks when using CCIP, you need to start higher and dive at a steeper angle. This can be achieved visually by 'rolling-in' on the target from a right angle, which you should be doing anyway. Alternatively, you can experiment with CCIP consent-to-release mode, which is a sort of CCIP-CCRP hybrid that combines the tactical flexibility of CCIP with the higher altitude 'safety' of CCRP (at the cost of reduced accuracy).

Please explain this sentence because I don't understand it at all. I can't see the connection. What does being within 'off-the-rail' AIM-120 pitbull range have to do with the AIM-7? What is the meaning of "doesn't refuses to turn cold"? Isn't that just turning cold? My understanding of this sentence is that you are saying one should fire a pitbull AIM-120 at ~8 NM, quickly followed by an AIM-7 "right behind it", provided the bandit is cold? Why? Is the AIM-7 a better tail-chase missile? 8 NM is awfully far in a tail-chase scenario, and when missiles are spaced that closely one defensive maneuver will defeat both.

Three server crashes in two hours. I started on 51st which promptly crashed within 30 seconds of me taking off. I then joined 159th which crashed after half an hour. Subsequently I tried =WAR=, but all aircraft on that server were inexplicably warping so I quit. Finally, I joined S77th which crashed after flying for 20 minutes. All in all, a thoroughly dissatisfying chain of events. Bad luck and timing may have something to do with it, but this sort of user experience is not uncommon.

In-game at least, the flipping "T" does not provide relative emitter elevation information. It keeps flipping without regard to aircraft above or SAMs below. It's my guess that this is not a matter of the A-10 not having the required sensors to use this indicator functionality of the RWR. I say that because the flipping "T" is quite a small effect that could easily overlooked. It's better suited to providing a quick and subtle visual indicator of RWR functionality, which can then be ignored without it cluttering the scope.

Nothing in those guides talks about the minutiae of the RWR display.