Crescendo

My speculation is that the "T" symbols are there to visually indicate when the RWR is powered on. The one at 3 o'clock flipping up and down is probably another means of confirming the powered-on state, and/or a means of telling if the RWR is functioning normally when there are no threats to display (i.e. to confirm that the display is not 'stuck', if such a thing is even possible). As for why the T's look the way they do, I have no idea. Of course all of this is layman guessing. Maybe someone who has real knowledge can comment.

Thanks for taking an interest. I tried your tweaked script and it worked great. Cheers buddy! :beer:

I know this is off-topic, but I sincerely doubt that BMS will be dying any time soon. Certainly not at the hands of DCS in its present form. BMS and DCS are very different games. DCS simulates individual aircraft very well, but what it doesn't do is simulate the total experience of being a fighter pilot. BMS is much better in that regard due to its briefing and mission planning tools, the DTC, the dynamic campaign etc. BMS is showing its age, sure, but it was built from the ground up in part to be about the experience of being a fighter pilot doing fighter pilot things in a fighter pilot's war, and that shows. By contrast, DCS is not about the totality of the fighter pilot experience. DCS gives you well-modeled aircraft with immersive graphics, but at the cost of a lack of mission planning tools and a sterile world that is dependent on scripted missions to create its feel. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. In my view, how can DCS "kill" BMS when DCS still has so much to learn? DCS is steadily improving year after year, but it's no killer yet.

I play multiple times a week by myself and on Sundays with a friend for ~4 hours or so. I rarely see people from the forums either. It's not unheard of. I don't know everyone here, I don't pay that much attention, and besides, no one in this forum would recognize me because I don't fly online with this forum name. Furthermore, there are different timezones to be considered. That's why I find it a bit funny when eXPeRT says he doesn't see anyone else online, when he himself blanks out his in-game name when posting screenshot of his scoreboards. In any case, what does it really matter? It seems to me that this "I've never seen you around" attitude is not helpful. My own impression is that it's code for "because I've never seen you around, you must not know what you're talking about".

Well, I wasn't clear in my post, but the crashes I'm talking about are server crashes. I rarely crash on the client side. I have experienced enough server crashes on all major servers to frustrate me. I've found that the S77th is the worst offender: Unless they've changed their missions/settings in the last few weeks, my friend and I considered ourselves lucky to be playing for more than an hour.

To answer the OP, the reason I don't play as much online as I used to is because I am getting really tired of starting up, taxiing, taking off, reaching the target area or finding a bandit, and then crashing. It's come to the point where I'm hesitant to invest my time in a sortie because I know there's a not-insignificant chance there won't be a pay-off. No doubt this situation is nuanced and the problems are not easily solvable (otherwise they would have been already), but, from the perspective of someone who mostly flies MP, ED has been doing themselves a serious disservice for over a year now. These regular and persistent crashes have inculcated a climate of frustration and disengagement throughout the MP player-base. Some may think the situation is not so dire, but what you don't see are the people who give up and leave silently, those who leave and never come back. No amount of blinkered cheerleading (too often seen on these forums) can make this elephant in the room disappear. It's a sad situation all around. :(

It would be so much nicer reading these sort of threads if everyone left their ego, national pride, politics, aircraft favoritism, and black and white thinking at the door and focused on a fair assessment of the facts as we can best determine them. If there's a problem with the missiles we should be engaged in a collaborative effort that is as free from bias and uncharitable interpretations as possible, and based upon a mutual understanding of what does and what doesn't constitute actionable evidence. That is the crux of the matter: some sort of standard of evidence and argumentation needs to be agreed upon before anything meaningful can be produced. Some understand this, some are closer than others, some are way off. Self-awareness is the key. But, this is the Internet, where of course my plane is better than yours, so screw you!

All of the above can be done if you have the time and inclination, except for the GUI stuff, as you noted. I remember a while back someone posted an AHK script that they used to fully start-up the Ka-50, and it was more than a minute faster than the internal DCS start-up script.

If you’re like me you miss the ability to use custom chaff and flare programs when flying the simplified FC3 aircraft. In this light, the goal of this thread is to demonstrate a simple means of creating custom countermeasures macros for use when flying FC3 aircraft. Please be aware that the following is just one simple method that I’ve found works for me – I’m sure there are any number of ways to achieve the same or better results. Here’s a YouTube video showing a flare script in action. All of this is being done with one keypress (I actually run the flare program twice, so two keypresses really): 1. First, download and install AutoHotKey (http://www.autohotkey.com/). AutoHotKey (AHK) is a small program that allows you to write and execute a script. In other words, you can use AHK to execute a set of commands at the press of a button, i.e. to dispense a specific amount of chaff or flares in a specific pattern. 2. After you have installed AHK, right-click on your desktop or in Windows explorer and create a new AHK file in your filesystem as per the screenshot below: 3. Right-click the newly created AHK file and select “Edit Script”. This will open the AHK script in your default text editor. You should now be presented with your text editor of choice displaying the contents of the AHK script, as per the following screenshot: The text in the file is inserted automatically by AHK whenever you create a new AHK script. In the interests of keeping this guide as simple as possible, suffice to say you can ignore it. 4. We can now begin creating a custom countermeasures macro. What we need to do is enter a set of commands for the AHK script to execute. For example, we can use AHK to automatically dispense 10 flares at a rate of 1 flare per second, all at the press of a single button. The example of this script is below: 1Joy16:: Loop,10 { Send, {DEL} Sleep 1000 } ReturnHere’s how it looks in the script editor: In this example, I have set my Joystick Button 16 (“1Joy16”) to execute a ‘loop’ command. Upon pressing my 1Joy16 button, AHK will take whatever commands are in the brackets and run them 10 times (“Loop,10”). The commands in the brackets are “Send, {DEL}”, which presses the DELETE key, and “Sleep 1000”, which waits for 1000ms (1 second). Because the “Send” and “Sleep” commands are within the loop structure they will be executed 10 times, after which the script will finish. Therefore, the above script works as follows: When I press 1Joy16, the AHK script will automatically press the DELETE key 10 times, pausing 1 second in between each keypress. Because the DELETE key is the default FC3 bind for dispensing flares, this means that whenever I press 1Joy16, 10 flares will be automatically released at a rate of 1 flare per second! (Note: if you want to dispense chaff, the default FC3 bind is INSERT, i.e. "{INS}". However, there is no reason why you can't set up your own key binds accordingly.) 5. To execute the AHK script, simply save and close the text editor, and then double-click the AHK file. If the script has compiled and executed properly, you will see a small green “H” symbol in the taskbar notification area, as per the following screenshot: If you see this “H” symbol the AHK script is running. As long as you have the script running in the background, whenever you press 1Joy16 (or whatever button you have selected) the countermeasures program will run. If you don't see this "H", the AHK script was unable to compile and execute because there is something wrong with your programming. Most likely you used an improper command, or forgot syntax such as a comma or bracket etc. If you have everything configured properly and the script is running in the background, you should see the following in-game when you press your countermeasure program button: 6. You can also write more complicated countermeasures programs. For example, the following script is the one I used in the YouTube video at the start of this thread. This script dispenses 4 bursts of 2 flares 100ms apart, with a 500ms pause between each burst. 1Joy16:: Loop,4 { Loop,2 { Send, {DEL} Sleep 100 } Sleep 500 } Return 7. Something to keep in mind is that if you place both your chaff and flare scripts in one AHK file, your inputs will likely get 'stepped on' whenever you activate one countermeasures program while the other is running, so it's best to have two separate AHK files (one for each program). Also, be aware that your joystick buttons will be different to mine. You will have to discover the joystick ID numbers on your own. The easiest way is to download a premade AHK script that when run will display the relevant joystick ID when you press a joystick button. You can download it here: http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/scripts/JoystickTest.ahk 8. Now experiment! AHK is a powerful tool. Your countermeasures programs can be as varied and as complicated as you can stand. I myself keep it pretty simple - I only use two AHK scripts: one for flares and one for chaff, each bound to a different button on my joystick. I tinker with them as I see fit and change the timings and burst quantities as desired. And just so we're clear, there's are no 'magic settings' here. Program what you think will be effective, or what you would have used manually anyway. Think of AHK scripts as a time / mental energy saver that lets you focus on actually flying the jet, rather than worrying about how many times you need to press a button - there's a reason why modern aircraft automate this stuff. ------ A final note, while the information I've provided here is very basic, it does represent essentially the entirety of my AHK programming knowledge. For me, there has been no reason to learn anything extra because the knowledge I do have is sufficient to configure things to my satisfaction. So, if you do have any programming questions beyond this guide I may not be the best person to ask.

I mentioned the concept of "burden of proof" in my first post in an attempt to diffuse this criticism. The problem is that your default position, your claim that "all missiles...work as they should", is logically absurd, to the effect that you have your own burden. You will be proved wrong when new patches are released and further adjustments to the missiles are made, all of which shouldn't occur if the missiles indeed work as they should. The wasteful loft trajectory of active missiles in their 'pull down' phase is just one example of something that will need to be addressed in the future. It's interesting that this is the only part of my post you chose respond to. That said, at least "20 years" of missile development has now transformed into "many years", although the problems with that still remain.

Don't "+1" and smack your forehead just yet. That advice goes for you too.

And you defending the status quo so stridently without corresponding data is just absurd. You say that everything regarding missile performance is correct ("All the missiles...work as they should"), yet you don't present any data to back up this claim. Sure, there is such a thing as burden of proof, but saying that the missiles "work as they should" means there's no room for improvement or refinement. That's a bold claim, one even ED will disagree with. Where's the evidence for that? The problem here is that the arguments you are using to hold other people to account apply to you too, yet you fail to consider this. You deride other people for "com(ing) in as if (they) are the expert", yet you fail to understand that you give the same bad impression. Moreover, you need to stop with this "20 years" of development argument. It's nonsense. Just because something has been worked on for 20 years doesn't necessarily make it better or correct. You say that missiles "work as they should" after 20 years, but by own your logic, wouldn't 21 years of development be better? Why not 25 years? Or 30? Why, after 20 years, does ED just happen to have it correct? Furthermore, if we accept your claim that more time in development means better performance (not always), can you provide evidence that there actually has been "20 years" of development on the missiles as you claim? Or is it more likely that this is the amount of time ED has been developing games, as opposed to missiles. Finally, the tone of your posts does not help your rhetorical position. Your sarcastic use of smilies to poke fun at people's positions doesn't endear you to anyone, and it is simply boorish to imply that someone is too young to be taken seriously ("probably before you knew that simulators existed"). A little humility and respect for others is in order.

Tek, I totally agree when you say "you can not get totally scientific approach to how colors affect mood because we all slightly different." This is why it's problematic to talk about blue cockpits calming/soothing pilots. The pilots are all individuals with their own set of characteristics and will react differently or not at all to the cockpit colour. --- Just to be clear to all reading this thread, I am not talking about contrast, ease of transition from cockpit to sky and back again, or anything like that. Blue might be useful for these and other reasons, but it's a stretch to say that mood is one of them. My only goal is questioning the often repeated claim that blue calms/soothes the pilot. It's clear that this is a subjective matter, and in my opinion the only reason this claim won't die is because people just feel that 'duh, it's blue, of course it must be calming and soothing!' Anyway, I feel sorry for all the Russian pilots that are overcome with sadness, and then sit shivering from the cold, because they are sitting in their BLUE cockpits. Those poor miserable cold Russians. ;) ( <-- blue smiley)

Completely wrong. I don't have any problem accepting it whatsoever, provided there is evidence to back it up. No one has been able to produce anything so far. Please supply an actual scientific study that says people find blue calming/soothing, and supply a document that shows Russian designers selected blue to calm/soothe their pilots. It's a reasonable request. Anything else is a 'just-so' explanation that makes 'intuitive' sense, i.e. it must be true because blue is calming, we all know it, so that must be why the Russians use it. I could just as easily say that blue is depressing. Maybe Russia is filled with sad pilots who don't want to fly anymore. :lol: I don't think people around here really understand how science works and how conservative scientific statements generally. You don't get to make sweeping statements like "blue is calming/soothing" without a massive amount of qualifications and caveats, because it depends on a whole host of complicated factors that need to controlled for including biology, personality, culture, upbringing, education, environment, marketing, subjective opinion, and many many others I'm sure I'm forgetting. Nothing in that link you provided is anywhere close to scientific evidence for blue being soothing. It's just a series of assertions, and assertions are not proof. There are even statements on that page that argue against your position, e.g. "Of course, your feelings about color are often deeply personal and rooted in your own experience or culture." As for it helping your "eyes adjust from observing the outside of cockpit", that is an entirely separate claim, one that I am not talking about. If they are numerous, show them to me! Don't just post a link to an about.com page and say that it's "proven". Why are you insisting that I have some ulterior motive to prove that black is the best? I have not even mentioned the colour black. This is purely a creation of your own bias. You think that anyone asking a question about a Russian plane must be out to make Russia look bad and some other country look good. I don't appreciate you implying that I'm playing favorites or disingenuously trying to badmouth another country for my own satisfaction. Is asking for a link to scientific studies and documents about Russian cockpit design a bad-mannered question? It most certainly is not. I find it very telling that pepin, and now you, are trying to turn this into an us versus them fight, a Russia versus America fight. Why? You are muddying the waters by doing this and exposing a nationalistic bias. This talk of nations is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. All I'm asking for is evidence, yet you didn't provide any, you just boasted about how sensible the East is and how foolish the West is. If you think that I am only asking for evidence so that I can 'stick it' to Russia and reassert American pride, you are sorely mistaken. Read my posts, nowhere did I impugn Russia or imply that Russia was foolish for using this colour. The fact that this is about Russian aircraft is purely incidental. It could be any aircraft from any nation. I just want evidence that verifies the claim that blue is soothing, and that Russia used blue that specific reason. If it's such common knowledge, it should be easy to find such documentation. I shouldn't need to say this because it's irrelevant, but I'm not American, I am Australian, so I have no nationa agenda (but I suppose I will be accused of supporting America because my country buys American aircraft!). Again, I shouldn't need to say this because it's irrelevant, but I actually like the blue colour in Russian cockpits because it's a fun little quirk and a splash of character that let's you know you're flying a Russian aircraft. This is not about national pride! Don't make it a fight about irrelevant details that serve only to make people upset. --- Am I not making sense? Have I miscommunicated in my posts? I just want the facts. I am not picking fights, I am not trying make Russia look bad, I just want to clear up this long standing question once and for all. Whenever this topic comes up people always talk about the colour blue calming and soothing the hypothetical pilot, but no one has supported that with any studies or documents. If you think that intuition and pop-psych articles are sufficient evidence, then you might as well start giving pilots placebo pills telling them that it'll make them calmer in combat.

Tek, what particularly are you drawing our attention to? If you're talking about mood, I don't see anything in that section that supports the claim that blue has a calming or soothing effect. In fact, one bullet point says: This supports my opinion that talking about mood and colour is problematic. Another question I would have is why does the Wikipedia article say "some" studies when supporting this claim? There is only one study footnote referencing this claim, not multiple studies, and that one study cannot be read without subscribing to that journal. Where are these "some studies"? What's the evidence and how was it gathered? At least give me the abstract to read if you're going to put it behind a paywall. Turns out these studies aren't so easy to find and read. And aussieboy said we should all just Google It. :megalol: In my opinion there is hardly any evidence for a specific colour eliciting a specific mood(s). The few studies that you can find (good luck), only make the claim that colours can affect mood, which I am not arguing against. The majority of articles on the Internet about colour and mood can be classified as folk tales, as 'conventional wisdom', as 'common sense', as things that 'everyone just knows' to be 'intuitively true'. Sorry, but intuition and common sense is not the equivalent of scientific evidence. Until someone can provide evidence to the contray, saying that Russian cockpit designers use blue to "calm/soothe" their pilots is very likely rubbish. I think it's just a 'common sense' fairy tale that someone made up years ago to explain the colour, and people just latched onto it because it felt correct. Then, whenever the topic comes up in the future, people just automatically remember that "it has a calming effect" and the cycle continues.

Courtesy of pepin, we have another Rorschach test response: nationalistic pride and bragging rights for being the first to use a cockpit colour. Really? This thread is a joke. "Who cares if the commies used light blue first? Us 'MURICAN's don't need no girly colours in our jets!!!!"

Until I see evidence of the intent of Russian designers, I think the "blue Russian cockpit" question is just a Rorschach test for flightsimmers: everyone interprets it in the way that makes sense to them. Case in point this thread. Some speak of mood, some of contrast, some of sky and environmental conditions, and others of physiological qualities of the human eye. People think what they want to think and fill in the details later.

:doh: You don't think I've done that? Keeping in line with your dismissive tone, try following your own advice, mate. I have looked through five or so pages using your search terms and all I see are a bunch of pop-psych articles and human interest filler stories littered with unsupported 'common sense' claims. You can even see the same phrases and sentences copied and pasted from article to article. I couldn't find any actual studies, but the articles that seemed to have some scientific legitimacy suggested that colour affects mood, but importantly made no real claims as to which colours do what, and, in fact, suggested that the subjective nature of colour may affect people differently in different contexts. As for you having "better things to do with (your) time", you're the one making the claim, so the onus is on you to back it up. That's how argument works. If you don't back up your claims you're just parroting potential misinformation for no other reason than it makes intuitive sense to you. Furthermore, when I called you on your unsubstantiated assertion, you suggested that I should be the one to do your legwork (!), which is clearly contrary to the burden of proof. I would welcome confirmation of this claim and would consider it a learning opportunity. I am willing to change my mind if the evidence warrants it. Are you? So far you don't seem to be very interested in the spirit of argument. Go ahead and dismiss me as making something out of nothing and typing too much I guess

I see permutations of this assertion over and over again whenever this topic comes up. Not to pick on you specifically, but frankly, where's the evidence? Firstly, I want to see these scientific studies on colour and mood. I am suspicious because human psychology and emotion is notoriously messy and dependent on context, and because saying that the colour blue has a "calming/soothing effect" is dangerously similar to a 'common sense' answer (which, as logic dictates, is no indicator of the truth and therefore has no place in science). Secondly, putting aside the quality of these scientific studies, I want to see the evidence that Russian aircraft designers were actually influenced by these studies when they selected blue for their cockpits.

Regardings flares, it all depends how you define "preventative". If by preventative you mean delaying a missile launch by denying a lock for some period of time, 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 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. (I tested this over a year ago, and the results should still be valid as I don't think the SAM logic has changed. Check here if you're interested: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1381167&postcount=11) However, if you pump out enough flares around the time you think the missile is going to be launched, there is a chance that the missile will track the dispensed flares and be thusly defeated. So, what does this all mean? It means that running a typical 'preemptive flare program' that dispenses one flare every second or so will not prevent a SAM launch by delaying or denying a seeker lock. It will also not protect you against a SAM launch that occurs while you are running this program, because one flare every second or so is not a sufficient number of flares to reliably fool the SAM seeker. Rather, in the DCS World game environment (as opposed to the real world), you are much better off not wasting the flares on a typical preemptive program. It makes much more sense to run a missile defense program (lots and lots of flares per second) when you think you are in a vulnerable phase of flight. To reiterate, this is because the SAM is going to be launched no matter what, so it's best to save your flares while you can, and then use a whole bunch at the critical time. To sum up: 1. It depends how you define "preventative". Remember, you cannot delay or deny a launch, but you can make that launched missile track your countermeasures if you have dispensed enough ahead of time. 2. We should all be very careful when we talk about 'preemptive flare programs', lest we confuse ourselves into thinking that we are somehow delaying or preventing launches. We aren't. So it might be better to think in terms of 'preemptive missile defense programs', that is, programs that run preemptively but with large numbers of countermeasures intended to defeat a launched SAM, not delay or deny or hinder it in some fashion before it leaves its tube.

First of all, I wasn't criticising the technique you wrote about in post #11 (if that's the specific technique you're talking about), because when I started typing my reply you hadn't edited in that part of your post. In fact, I wasn't even criticising Viper's technique (beaming - which is a good tactic), only the statement that this technique would make you unhittable. I objected to that statement because it was an overly simple, black and white statement that glossed over the complexity and messiness of the issue. Things aren't as clearcut in unknown situations as they are in a simple mission editor scenario. That was my ONLY point. My point is that I essentially want to add an addendum to the quote "Do what I do in the vid and you'll never get hit". The addendum would be something to this effect: "but only in this specific circumstance against an Rmax launch, and assuming there are no other threats". When I said "that's a very mechanistic, gamey way of looking at things" I wasn't talking about your technique in post #11, I was referring to your statement about Viper's video that "it is, in fact, that simple". I agree that it is indeed that simple to avoid the SA-15 in Viper's video, but only in that specific mission editor scenario. It is not necessarily that simple when flying in a mission that you haven't designed yourself to do testing in. I am only saying that if the lesson starsky396 takes away from Viper's video is 'if I do this maneuver I will not be hit', then he is being done a disservice, because the subject of missile evasion is not simply limited to beaming an Rmax SAM launch, as you and I know. Yes, it is trivially true that starsky396 could avoid an SA-15 doing what he sees in that video, but it won't help deepen his understanding of how everything fits together. I don't think characterising me as "slamming" people is a fair intrepreation of my posts. My tone has been neutral and to the point, which may be viewed as standoffish depending on a person's expectations, but I have not slammed anyone. I also never claimed to be a subject matter expert, so I don't see what saying "few if any of us are experts in real life" has to do with anything. (Regarding the quote "(Deleted, but it did feel good to write it out)", I can only assume that this was some sort of refrain against me - otherwise what is it's purpose? That's a nice trick there, allowing you to take a 'jab' at me but making it look like you're the reasonable one who restrained himself. And I'm the one doing the slamming?) Further, I didn't provide a technique that I insisted was "beyond reproach", certainly not at the level of a video documentation of a specifc maneuver (beaming for example). What I did do was to take the black and white statement of "Do what I do in the vid and you'll never get hit" and make the point of saying "hang on, there is actually X, Y and Z" to consider. This XYZ What I find baffling about this exchange is that based upon your posts in this thread, you yourself are clearly an advocate of 'bigger picture' missile denial/evasion, i.e. the things you do before you even get to the missile dodging stage. Things like being aware of threats, minimum/maximum altitudes to fly, not overflying unsanitised areas, intrepreting RWR correctly, understanding how high alt SAMs and low alt SAMs can create kill zones, selecting non-energy-parasitic loadouts et al etc etc. It's clear from starsky396's track that he needs to take all of this onboard, not just to refer to a video that, while demonstrating a valid technique (against predicatable AI in a controlled environment), will notmake him unhittable in all 100% of circumstances unless he has an actual understanding of and appreciation for the many variables which you, myself, and others have talked about. In any case, I've said my piece and made my points, I won't hiijack this thread anymore.

Sure, so don't say "you'll never get hit". My point is that no qualifications or caveats were offered with that video to address its inherent weaknesses (one specific mission editor scenario, no other threats, predictable AI etc.) - it was just do 'this' and you'll be untouchable. Some may dismiss me as nitpicking and arguing semantics, but in the context of the original post, I don't think I am. The OP asked about reliable techniques to dodge SAMs. But what does he mean by "dodge"? Does he mean defeating a missile purely kinematically at or near maximum range (in which case the video will do)? Or does he mean defeating a high-energy missile that will intercept his aircraft even if he turns and runs or beams? Or is he asking how to avoid being shot at in the first place? By providing an answer only to the first instance (and an answer that relies on predictable AI logic), we gloss over the complexity of the issue to the detriment of those who don't yet possess the knowledge and experience to know otherwise. I'm not disputing the usefulness of the video. I'm only saying that it should be put in its proper context.

That's a very mechanistic, gamey way of looking at things. Figuring out and exploiting predictable AI logic is no substitute for sound tactics realistically applied and for a thorough understanding of how all the variables fit together. What happens if and when the SAM logic changes, which it should? People would use that technique and then wonder why they keep dying. It's like those who figure out how to defeat incoming air-to-air missiles by performing barrel rolls at exactly the right moment - that sort of game logic crutch will ulimately hurt you in the end as the sim progressaively becomes more realistic. So, I reiterate that the statement " (do) what I do in the vid and you'll never get hit" is misleading, albeit trivially true in that exact scenario.

No, it's not as simple as that. If the SA-15 was smarter and didn't turn it's radar on until you were within it's no escape zone, you could do exactly as you did and still be killed. The scenario in your video is very controlled with a known threat that gives itself away immediately, and there are no other threats around that might punish you for flying at low altitude. No SAM defense is 100% effective. The only way to make a defensive maneuver as close to 100% effective as possible is to adopt conservative tactics like never overflying an unsanitised area, respecting a threat's position within the RWR threat rings, flying with a minimum/maximum altitude floor/ceiling, flying with smaller payloads that reduce drag and energy bleed when maneuver to defend, and so on, such that any SAM that even gets a chance to launch at you will be a low-probability shot that should be defeated by beaming or extending. The reason most people get shot down (including myself) is because they either don't respect or ignore the things I listed above, or because they were too aggressive and pressed in a situation that was unduly hazardous.

Thanks for the tracks and Tacviews. Nice to see stuff like that released.