Crescendo

Yes, I know. It's a famous photo of him.

Ah, man, no reasonable person wants to silence anyone. That's not the intent It's just that one would think that the reason for brevity in the first place is to prevent precisely the sort of thing that is happening in this thread. You come up with a term, assign an unambiguous definition, and then publish it in an offcial document that everyone agrees to use and train with. Maybe it's messier than that in the real world, but that's how it should work. I mean no disrespect, and I don't want to come off like a handicap golfer giving tips to Tiger Woods, but some of the things you have said are wrong according to these documents (e.g. "Spike(d): airborne radar searching"). If you use that erroneous definition of SPIKE in the real world, then it throws the whole concept of published and accepted brevity definitions into disrepute. That, or it just doesn't matter that much in the real world compared to what we armchair pilots like to think. For all I know different countries/services/squadrons/whatever all define things slightly differently, which must make joint operations frustrating.

SINGER (type w/direction)—Informative call of RWR indication of surface-to-air missile launch. --- By definition SINGER means the RWR is indicating a SAM launch, nothing more. By calling "SINGER" you are saying "My RWR is showing a SAM launch". Seeing the missile with your own eyes (or not) has no relation to this brevity call.

No problem. I'm just an interested layman as well, but I can say I have read the various brevity documents. You're right, honestly it's not really a big deal. But pedantry is a fiercely competitive sport in the simulation commuinity. :helpsmilie::lol:

Again, in the interest of clarity, the problem with the term "MUD SPIKE" or "MUDSPIKE" is not because it sounds too smiliar to SPIKE and could be confused over the radio. I repeat: it is not because it looks like or sounds like SPIKE. The problem is that MUD is to do with ground things, whereas SPIKE is to do with aerial things. The two are by definition incompatible, and therefore saying MUDSPIKE is like saying nonsense. To argue that MUDSPIKE is bad because it could be misheard, or lost in radio static, or whatever, is to argue that it is bad for the wrong reason. The right reason is that it's like saying "married bachelor". MUD and SINGER are for ground only. NAILS and SPIKE are for air only.

OK, I may need to eat some humble pie myself then. Let me know if I've got it wrong.

See Eddie's post. If a ground-based radar is searching, the brevity term would be MUD, i.e. "Hog 1, MUD 2, Left 10". This would mean that I see an SA-2 on my RWR at 10 o'clock, and he is not launching a missile at me. There is no brevity term for when a ground-based radar spots you. How would you know if a ground-based radar actually sees you on his scope? His radar might be emitting enough energy for your RWR to pick it up, but you might be too far away for him to get a radar contact. If a ground-based radar launches a missile at you and/or is supporting a missile launch, the brevity term is SINGER, i.e. "Hog 1, SINGER 2, Left 10". This would mean that, according to my RWR, an SA-2 at 10 o'clock has launched a missile at me. It would not be correct to use SINGER if you just happen to see a random SAM launch, because this SAM is not aimed at you according to your RWR. In those cases you should just say "SAM LAUNCH". Now, as far as I can tell this is no brevity term for a ground-based radar that is tracking/locking you. Why not? I don't know. Perhaps the military has decided that there is simply no need to make it known that a ground threat is locking you up, because in the real world tactics/doctine dictate you immediately maneuver to avoid that threat. So conceivably a tracking/locking call is not needed: either you are egressing the threat area already and therefore being locked up is moot, or the SAM has already launched in which case you would use a SINGER call. So why does an airborne radar get a combination tracking/lock/launch brevity term (SPIKE), but a ground-based radar doesn't? I've already speculated a little above, but at least one reason why you would be interested in an airborne-specific track/lock call is because the bandit is mobile and can't necessarily be avoided like a SAM. That is to say, a track/lock is a good indication of a bandit's intentions, i.e. "This guy is locking me up and, being moible, there is a possibility he can intercept me. I had better let my friends know." MUD SPIKE is confusing call. As you probably now know, MUD is for ground-based searching and SPIKE is for aerial track/lock/launch. Technicaly speaking, the two aren't compatible. The intent of a MUD SPIKE call could probably be derived depending on the context ("I knew what he meant"), but the possibility of confusion/misinterpretation is high if everyone knows their brevity. Furthermore, if you consider my speculation above, the doctrinal utility of knowing if a ground-based radar is locking you up may be negligable if you're already maneuvering to avoid it.

A couple of things: 1. The brevity term SPIKE does not denote an airborne radar that is searching. A SPIKE call means an airborne radar is locking/tracking you or supporting a missile launched at you. 2. The correct brevity term for an airborne radar in search mode is NAILS. 3. "Spotted" and "Tracking" are not brevity terms. In a discussion where we are trying to establish correct brevity usage, introducing your own terms without explicitly saying so serves only to confuse the matter. Further, how exactly do you know whether or not your aircraft has been "spotted"? Just because you have a threat on your RWR doesn't necessarily mean this threat actually sees you on his scope. 4. FENCE IN and FENCE OUT are valid brevity terms for entering and exiting the combat area, respectively. User Idle/Boards covered this. --- You have posted misinformation in this thread that is likely to confuse people, yet ironically you have presented yourself as a source of truth ("there's a lot of knowledge in these communities, but a lot of it isn't correct"). When it comes to pedantic details like terminology, brevity, abbreviations and so on, it pays to be humble and conservative in your claims. Don't be so hasty to declare what is and what isn't true, especially so stridently. Now, I'm no pilot and I have no military experience, so I can only go by published US military and NATO documents. What I have said is supported by those documents to the best of my knowledge. If I have made any mistakes please correct me.

:doh:

Will there tracks or Tacview recordings of the event? That seems like a good a good way to share the event with the wider community, and to offer some insight into the dynamics of squadron versus squadron combat that most people will never experience. I hope the position of the squadrons involved if not one of 'secrecy', as the various air-to-air tactics that will be employed are not magic. The pleasure as a viewer is not in discovering some secret squadron knowledge or amazing trick (give me a break), but in seeing good tactics well executed. For what it's worth, this is just my opinion as a player not in a squadron.

Just an update: I am now able to join the server normally. The only thing I changed was to disable Tacview recording and then re-enable it. I'm not sure if this is a coincidence or not, because if the Tacview was the problem I should still be receiving the "Connection interrupted" error. I don't understand it, but at least I can join. :huh:

That's OK, your reply helps a lot. Thanks. As you said, it means the problem is probably on my end. I will investigate.

Hi, For the last week or so I've been unable to join this server. I keep receiving the "Connection interrupted" error. I don't think I'm banned because I haven't done anything wrong, so the only thing I can think of is that my ping is an issue. I'm in Australia and I usually ping around 400-500 to the server. I asked my Australian friend to try and join the server as well, but he also received the same error as me despite him never playing there. Is there some sort of automatic ping filter? If so, I understand, but it is disappointing. At the times I play, I often find that WAR is the only populated server with any A2A combat.

If you have issues with pulling too many g's and are finding it difficult to maintain a speed as a result, you could try setting a stronger curve on your pitch axis, say 25 or 30. This will 'dampen' the aircraft's pitching ability around the centre of the joystick while retaining full deflection at the extremes, thereby giving you finer control of the amount of g you will pull. With experience you can accurately control your g without any curves of course, but it will be more sensitive and less forgiving. EDIT: Regarding use of AB, you should use whatever thrust setting is required to maintain corner speed. If you are trying to pull as much as posisble most of the time this will require full AB. However, this is not always the case. For example, if your nose is below the horizon there will be certain times when full AB is undesirable because it will increase your speed above corner too rapidly. Furthermore, if you are overspeed and trying to turn, staying in full AB will delay your deceleration to corner. Essentially, maintaining corner is ensuring the correct balance between g and thrust. If you're too slow, you need to slacken off the g and/or apply full AB; if you're too fast you need to pull more g and/or come out of AB. As mentioned earlier, most of the time you will use full AB, so once you've established corner all you then have to do is pull as much as is required to neither gain nor lose speed. It's not terribly difficult, but it does require practice and self-discipline to pull efficiently when in a stressful situation. If you do it enough you will develop a feel for it.

Well, because no one else has responded I'll link to the curve I use. It was made using the TrackIR 5.1 software for use with a TrackIR 4. I find it works well enough for my room conditions, TrackIR placement, and IR reflector position/distance. It is also set to the kind of speed and sensitivity that I prefer. What I'm trying to say is that you may find it doesn't work very well with your conditions, or that you don't like the 'feel'. It's a crapshoot. The file is attached below. I set "Speed: 1" and "Smoothness: 50" in the "Motions Control" settings when using this profile. DCS World.zip

Until a more user-friendly solution is found, try the following 'hack'. 1. Open the file "...\DCS World\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\KNEEBOARD\indicator\init.lua". 2. Search for the text "is_left = false". 3. Change text "is_left = false" to "is_left = true". All this tweak does is move the default kneeboard position to left side of main monitor. This may address your problem if you are using a profile with multiple monitors, but of course it all depends on your personal configuration. I was having the same issue and it it worked for me.

Do people really find this sort of fighting enjoyable? Considering my experiences on public servers it would seem so. I just don't find it rewarding at all. Almost every public server with an air-to-air component has the player spawns set up to encourage fighting over heavily mountainous areas. It devolves almost every time into lonewolf airquake tactics with people flying around in valleys and in riverbeds turning circles and burning fuel, all the while hoping for some hapless boob to fly overhead or get caught by the AWACS. If you happen to detect an enemyy at high altitude, the second you launch a missile at them they run and hide in the mountains with the rest of the server (and who can blame them when the sanctuary is right there?). If you say "screw it" and decide to play this bottom-feeder game, you take your life in your hands because whoever gets the first tally often comes down to luck (even if you're woking with a team). You can be assured of regular mutual kills, or of getting schwacked by that unseen bandit who stumbles upon your turnfight or who stealithly gets vectored to the area because you had the temerity to show your RCS for a brief second. It's just silly cat and mouse games that almost never serve any tactical purpose because the air-to-ground action is usually sequestered in its own little sandbox elsewhere. To quote the seminal, film-for-the-ages WarGames (:P): "A strange game. The only winning move move is not to play." Better to leave the mountain-quakers to their dirty mostly-pointless business.

OK.

I was about to start a thread to ask the same question. Is there an ECM lamp or not? Is there some other indication of ECM status?

Ah ha, yes, of course. The MFD monitor in the Su-27 is on the right. I've been flying the F-15 a lot lately, so to save desk space I've only been plugging in my left MIMO monitor. Oops. Move along nothing to see here. :doh: Thanks for the push in the right direction. :blush:

Hi all, With the release of the 6DoF Su-27 cockpit, I was hoping that the Su-27 MFD would be automatically exported as a viewport in the same manner as the F-15 MFD. This unfortunately does not seem to be the case. I have my multi-monitor profile set up correctly and it works with the A-10C/F-15, so I know I'm okay on that front. I have also tried the 'trick' of toggling the "show controls indicator" setting on and off (which used to turn F-15 MDF exporting on and off in previous patches), but no luck there either. Has anyone figured it out, or does the MFD exporting simply not work for the Su-27? Thanks. :bounce:

1. Not sure what you mean about the afterburner. 2. The missiles (especially AIM-120 and R-77) do bleed energy quickly and are ineffective in circumstances where they should hit. The consensus does seem to be that they have poor range. This is a known problem with the advanced flight model of the missiles. This advanced flight model is a work-in-progress apparently. No doubt it's a complicated matter to get all the variables correct regarding missile performance, but I do wish the missiles were slightly over-modelled rather than consistently under-modelled after each patch (my own personal preference). 3. I have noticed that some AI aircraft are invincible to missiles and cannon. For example, the MiG-23's in the F-15 quick mission have survived multiple AIM-120 hits and more than half of my cannon rounds, while their IR missiles kill me instantly. This is a new bug in 1.2.4 and the testers know about it. Hopefully it will be fixed quickly. 4. The canopy and canopy frame dimensions are realistic. However, the default view and head position does seem to be 'zoomed in' or too far forward. This results in the frame appearing to be too big. Try zooming out or setting a new default head position in the lua files. 5. Use snap views to view the left MFD (in controls view menu). Otherwise set up a second monitor and configure it to display the left MFD. 6. The narrowing of the azimuth to 60-degrees in TWS mode is a realistic feature as far as I know. It's my understanding that in real life the TWS scan volume needs to be narrowed so that any radar track files will be created and be updated more frequently. Without frequent updates the track files risk being lost. (Someone can correct me here if I'm wrong.) For your information, this is a 1.2.3 feature.

:helpsmilie: You start a thread stating that 1.2.4 is unplayable, yet you make no effort to explain why this is this case. Furthermore, you then ask for other people to post and make your case for you. What? Excuse me, but that's a little hard to take seriously. If you have issues, by all means list them. It helps to improve the product and benefits everyone. Your posts imply that there is a 'conspiracy of silence' on the forums regarding problems with the game. An 'us' versus 'them' situation where information is suppressed. If you believe this is the case, why don't you live by your own words when you say "we bought our right to air our opinions" and come forward? Stating that the game is unplayable is an opinion, yes, but it's absolute lowest form of opinion. For it to be taken seriously you need to explain and justify your opinion. You said it yourself: "Don't be afraid!" Come forward, tell us what the problems are and let's make the game better.

Just to confirm, you are using FC2? If you ever switch to FC3 I would volunteer immediately! :cry: Good luck, I hope you find a partner! This sounds like a fantastic opportunity for a virtual pilot to learn from someone with real-world experience.