OutOnTheOP

^^^^^ This. You may fight an enemy with no tanks, in which case HEI-only is nice. You will NEVER fight an enemy with ONLY tanks. Every enemy will have infantry, supply trucks, artillery, fuel depots, etc, etc, etc... AP is all but useless against infantry, and a lot less effective against soft-skin trucks than you'd think. So if you give up that 1-out-of-5 HEI round, you lose almost ALL effectiveness against infantry and soft targets, in return for a 20% increase in effectiveness against tanks. Not a good trade.

Old joke is old. Also, doubly badass if that's a picture of the fighter in question: he's carrying absolutely nothing air-to-air. Guess he's gonna take on the world with his cannon?

Aw, c'mon, GG; I could argue that guys leaning out the cockpit to shoot at opposing pilots with bolt-action rifles, or dropping darts at infantry could be included because "it happened in the Great War", but that hardly makes it the average modern military experience

Not really; the Apache would eat the Ka50 for lunch. In A2A, your primary sensor would be the naked eye, and the Apache has two sets and better fields of view. Unless we're talking Longbow', where radar would be the primary sensor, and it would give the AH64D a HUGE advantage. And the thermal sensor on either the AH64A or -D is far superior to the simple LLTV on the Ka50. Apache will spot the Ka50 first, full stop. Hellfire is semi-active laser homing and therefore better against high-speed crossing targets than the semi-active command-line-of-sight (passive laser) Vikr. Still, neither missile is a good choice against an aerial target. The (edit, because I was an idiot: ) Apache's cannon is mounted with much, MUCH greater traverse limits. All the Apache has to do is force a left turning fight and he wins; he can bring his cannon to bear over-the-shoulder to the left, while the Ka50 can't engage targets beyond a few degrees. ...but let's be honest, neither one was built for A2A; helicopter dogfights just don't happen.

Against single tanks (or those clustered tightly together), I would recommend 1000 RPM, 500 feet, paired release, steep diving delivery Against a column, try 1000 RPM, 300 feet, ripple single at 100 foot interval. ...I wouldn't expect great things against T80s, though. The real thing is perfectly capable of taking out tanks; I think the CBU87 might be a bit underpowered in the game, but it CAN kill T80s.

Black smoke? Sure, for MiG29s, and *maybe* Su27, but modern western fighters burn their exhaust clean. Not sure if the difference is in the fuel mixture or the engine designs, but western jets don't leave visible smoke trails.

Oh, I am quite aware. For that matter, I don't really like the F/A-18, either, and would much rather see the F-16, F-15 (C or E), or even the F-111 before the F/A-18. However, that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to give it (or the F-14) a fair and unbiased (well, as unbiased as I'm capable of) treatment.

re: Absolutely kickass video... the choice of soundtrack and the editing work is positively top-drawer. That said, Frosty, unless you can now see radio waves, I don't think you can fairly say the aircraft in the video are actually aren't accomplishing anything- from my viewing, about half of the footage was Growlers. They might have been jamming the living bejeezus out of everything in the hemisphere, we'll never know (unless you can teach us the trick to visualizing EM emissions, anyhow)!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still buy DCS:Tomcat, and I even think it could be an interesting simulation just because of the quirks; I just can't fathom where the cult of personality (for lack of a better phrase) surrounding it came from. Frankly, other than carrying the Phoenix (and a bigass radar), it really didn't have much spectacular about it- it just featured in some movies and had some sexy variable geometry wings that made it look unique and therefore be an easily identifiable aircraft that I think became iconic to a lot of children of the 80s. I just think that all told, while it might be an interesting choice for DCS, it would be a particularly BAD choice for DCS. Too limited in mission profile, too limited in deployment, too limited in historical engagements, and too limited in performance (though the same can certainly be said of the A-10).

Why so much love for the F-14? Really? I mean, what meaningful engagements did it EVER conduct to justify "legend" status. Is it simply the fact that it's retired that makes it a legend? I would actually argue that it's retired status is more of a black mark on it than a plus; it was retired because there was no need for it. After all, the F-15 only entered service a few years later, and it's still in service. And the F-15 to date has, what, 104 aerial kills? And produced a top-notch strike variant. And they're STILL keeping it in service and in production. The Tomcat has a record of 5:0. 2 Su-22 Fitters, 2 MiG-23s, and an Mi-8. I'm not certain the ratio of bombs delivered by F-15E vs F-14D, but I'd wager a SUBSTANTIAL part of my life savings that the F-15E blows the Tomcat away there, too. So the Tomcat is so beloved because, what, it starred in a vaguely homoerotic Tom Cruise bromance flick? Wait, what? You would say the P-51 is just a "Warbird", despite thousands of sorties over occupied Europe and Imperial Japan, despite hundreds of kills, despite active CAS employment in Korea? And yet the F-14's whopping three aerial engagements qualify it as a "Legend"? Wow. I really hope that was sarcasm.... I mean, I don't particularly like the F/A-18 (the A-D in particular), but I can at least understand why others might be interested in it; it has broad multi-role capabilities, and is used by numerous nations. .....though it's combat record isn't any better.

You know, all joking aside, I would LOVE a realistic space combat simulator. I mean, something that actually took gravity wells and Newtonian physics into account. I haven't seen a "realistic" space combat sim since XF5700 Mantis in the early 1990s; that game was truly something different- your fighter had all of 30 seconds of thrust- once you applied a short burst of thrust in one direction, you just kept going until you applied counteracting thrust. And of course, if you applied a one-second forward thrust burst, in order to then turn your course 45 degrees, you had to pivot 90 degrees, apply one second thrust, then pivot back to your new heading. Was glorious. ...of course, I would say that something like this is well outside the scope of the DCS series. But someone really needs to make a new space combat game like that. (There was a Babylon 5 space combat game in the works years ago that promised Newtonian flight physics, but the game was cancelled...)

Lots of promise, but: 1) They need to improve the damage modelling for that 40mm! I remember back in IL2 FB/AEP when 20mm cannon were instant death and .50 cal were woefully underpowered... but now we've gone complete flipflop, and aircraft handily survive direct hits from a 40mm (?!?!) 2) I'm a bit undecided about whether I'd rather see crewable tanks or more aircraft first... the stable of aircraft available in CoD is a bit limited... though I suppose that's just because I'm comparing it to the ridiculous selection available in IL2 1946. At any rate, it'd be nice to have 3-4 each Russian, US, Japanese, and Italian fighters... on second thought, I like more TYPES of combat more than I like huge selection within each type. Bring on the tanks; more planes can wait!

Pffh, why kidding? That's EXACTLY what you should do if you know an area's packed with hostile infantry (assuming you have sufficient clearance from the target area, and there's low risk of collateral damage). Before we pushed into an area we were pretty sure AQ was using as a strongpoint, we had a preplan B-1B mission fly over and put JDAMs along the treeline, into every fordable point on the river, every major high speed avenue of approach (road intersections), and along the areas they had previously used as mortar firing points. If we'll do it for suppression effects against someone that might not even be there, why not against bad guys we KNOW are there?

Agreed; SB Pro PE would be a better partner; among other things, the level of terrain detail is closer to DCS. Also, DCS:A-10 and DCS:BS players spend a lot more time interacting with vehicles (either shooting at them or shot at by them) than infantry, which are only occasionally targets, damn hard to spot, and very, very rarely threats. SB Pro PE may not have playable dedicated AAA assets modeled yet, but they DO have a number of IFVs with rapid-fire cannon, to include some with airburst fuzes with AAA fuze modes; it would at least give the ground players a way to fight back.

Well... not exactly. The F-117 was lost to volley fire of SA-3s by a command-guided system. The missile itself was not homing on a radar return, it was manually guided onto a known flight path. NPOSuperhornet, you make it sound as if the F-15E itself, or USAF pilot training, has some kind of inherent flaw that leads to crashes. Last I checked, pretty much every combat aircraft type has had error-induced mishaps. At least when the USAF has a crash, they don't do so into a crowd of spectators...

Since when does the Hornet have anti-submarine capabilities? Also, Hornet-to-Hornet AAR is a cute trick, but it's not as though the procedure is significantly different from refueling off a KC10 (or 135 with the adapter)... unless you mean flying the tanker Hornet, and that would be *almost* as tedious as an SR71 simulator (another aircraft whose appeal I cannot fathom) I will grant that the Hornet does open up one (just one) additional mission profile you wouldn't get with most other fighters: standoff anti-shipping. I won't comment on whether the Hornet is attractive to some gamers; I only know whether it's attractive to me, or not. Personally, I go with 'not'. As has been pointed out before, nothing about it's performance or capabilities is exactly unique, nor is it the "best" at much of anything. It does everything, but it does it in a mediocre manner. And "carrier operations" may be kind of neat for a minute or two, but frankly, there's not that much procedurally different from a standard landing run-in, except you're coming in steeper and leave out the flare. It's nothing I'd get excited about. Especially if they model the automated approach systems. At least in the A-10, you have to fly your approach for yourself!

For that matter, I would have (sort of) paid $500 for DCS:A-10C. That is to say, I would NOT have actually ponied up the cash on a whim on the chance it was a good game, BUT, if I knew beforehand how good a simulation it is, I could have easily justifed it being worth it. After all, I play DCS:A-10 easily 20 times as much as my next most liked games- if I spend 10 times the time and derive 10 times as much enjoyment from DCS:A-10C as I do from any other game I spent $50 on (and I DO)... well, then $500 wouldn't really have been unreasonable. That said, if I'd seen it on the shelf for $500, I wouldn't have been willing to risk it; that's too much to pay on a gamble.

I would presume the logic is that while you may fly in an environment with no hard targets that require AP, you will NEVER find yourself flying in an environment that does not require HE. (*edit* of course, I'm talking real-life here. There's plenty of missions in DCS where the only targets are tanks and IFVs... but that's not particularly realistic) That, and it's only, what, one out of every 6 rounds? The 17% increase in anti-armor performance by running all AP instead of CM wouldn't be worth the 99% loss in anti-soft-target performance by losing those HE rounds.

Wolfie, I don't think you understood my point... the point is that many players out there would (allegedly) complain if everything was purely realistic, because players playing as a rifleman would be completely impotent against aircraft. My reply is that even if a singular rifleman is (as they should be) impotent against an aircraft, if you assign the infantry player a squad or platoon of bots, they then have access to appropriate weapons to deal with aircraft and tanks on even footing, without having to break realism by making ridiculous supersoldiers who magically carry 500 pounds of inventory in their Holster of Holding +1. And while bots may not be the perfect solution, human-managed bots controlled by a squad leader are still better than pure AI control. In short, it allows for both game balance and realism.

Also, regarding game balance issues and infantry players whining about not equalling a fighter aircraft in combat power: there are perfectly functional workarounds to this "problem" without sacrificing realism. Simply scale the quantity of units the player controls. If he choses to be a pilot, he controls a single aircraft. If he wants to be a tanker, let him control a 4-tank platoon (or in the case of the older/ less survivable Russian tanks, a 10-tank company). If he wants to play infantry, make him a platoon leader (with 30-50 soldiers; likely including at least a few ATGM and MANPADS operators). If the individual soldier/tank the player is playing is killed, automatically switch him to the next one. Of course, to make this really work, you need to have a very fluid, user-friendly command interface to order your subordinates around! It does work; Steel Beasts uses that type of arrangement, and it is absolutely functional. It does take some getting used to, though... you have to learn to adjust your expectations of what you consider "losing"; a lot of players get really frustrated every time they get killed.... but in Steel Beasts, it's not unusual to lose a platoon or two of tanks and still win the battle. Frustrating as it may be to die a half dozen times, you're still ahead of the game. Scaling the forces available to a player as a means of game balance has been around at least since the old X-Wing vs TIE Fighter games (good thing, because it would have been really frustrating to play a TIE fighter in 1-on-1... even having three of them was hard!)

I agree that it's not very likely given that there probably isn't much commercial gain to be had from the companies involved (particularly considering that Joe Public the gamer seems perfectly happy with "A10 For Dummies" as portrayed in games like ARMA, Battlefield, etc) However, it IS technically possible, and everyone here complaining that the tiny map used by ARMA would limit the area the DCS:A-10 pilots could fly... well, I suspect you don't fully understand how this kind of gateway works. The games both run on completely different engines in this kind of arrangement. They also run on completely "different" maps (IE, one set up for the ARMA graphics engine and one set up for the DCS graphics engine). Those maps are made to look identical, but are not the "same" map. The two pieces of software then populate each other by transmitting coordinate locations for where "players" are on the map. All each piece of software knows about what's going on in the other piece of software is "there is an A-10 at coordinate X,Y,Z, pointed direction A, travelling speed B". That's it. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever preventing the ARMA portion of the game from playing on a 5x5 kilometer chunk in the middle of the DCS map. The ARMA players would simply see nothing from the DCS world outside that 5x5 chunk. The DCS world would still be played on the full DCS map, and the in the DCS world, vehicles/infantry OUTSIDE that 5x5 chunk would be controlled by DCS. If you got really fancy, you could have MULTIPLE ARMA games covering MULTIPLE 5x5 km chunks scattered across the DCS world.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Nothing patriotic about that BS. If she actually cared about the repercussions of a flawed system being implemented, she would have hopped her happy @ss on a train for DC and gone and told someone who 1) had the clearance to know, and 2) actually is in a position to make decisions about that manner of program. Going to the media with that type of thing is at the very least a flagrant violation of your terms of service in a military project (DA civilians and contractors are subject to military National Defense law... and regular civilians are also subject to most of it). At worst, it's outright treason. As to your statement about "if I don't like it, I should pack up and move to another country". Wow. That has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, and is the WORST kind of jingoism. I'll have you know I am IN the military, and on more occasions than I care to relate, I have seen capabilities compromised, Soldiers endangered, and the accomplishment of missions that WE PUT OUR LIVES IN DANGER FOR emperiled because the media thinks that "getting the story out there" is more important than actually accomplishing the tasks the government assigned us. Yeah, got it, freedom of the press. If someone does something illegal, I expect that to be put out there- and it is, usually VERY prominently. I even think the media should be able to report about our specific operations. But only after the fact. And none of that means we just let them poke around in the SCIFs. We don't let them disassemble our sensitive items. And we don't let them publish classified technical manuals. And YES, being a patriot DOES means protecting the secrets of your nation when those secrets are vital to the security of the nation. ESPECIALLY when you swore an oath to uphold those secrets- which I guarantee was the case in this one. There's a right way and a wrong way to address those concerns. She chose poorly, and- at least I hope- is now reflecting on that in a penitentary. When the police start trying to regulate US citizen's firearms rights, or when martial law is implemented, THAT would be something to get all Robin Hood about. But an issue like that... well, it's way above a simple technician's place to make those decisions. Like I said above, even if the system didn't "work", it may have been a strategically sound decision to carry on with it- or even to put it in production- because the affect it would have on threat nation's dealings with the government might in itself have justified the cash spent on a "broken" system. Again, the BFV springs to mind. If the "whistleblowers" had their way, the US Army would have gone without an IFV for the highest-risk portion of the Cold War. And we would've missed out on one of the best IFVs ever deployed. For that matter, we would have never deployed the F-15, because it was an overpriced boondoggle, right?

Does it occur to you that: a) if a "rigged" test is neccesary to get the funding to develop the system working like it's SUPPOSED TO, it might not be such a bad thing. Poor methodology, sure, but when there's a system you NEED, and shortsighted individuals want to kill the project just because it's not perfected YET, perhaps a bit justifiable. Congress wanted to kill the Bradley, and Hollywood had a field day blowing the whole "debacle" out of proportion. If those alleged "rigged tests" were allowed to end the project, the US would have had NO IFV during the bulk of the Cold War; instead, the Bradley has been one of the most successful IFVs ever. b) maybe, just MAYBE the real reason they got her fired was because she "leaked tons of research papers to KPFK Pacifica Los Angeles station, and it was available for anyone on request"? Last I checked, that's a pretty serious national defense crime. Punishable by death, if I know my regs right. And I do. c) The Department of Defense does not owe the general public a full rundown on the precise capabilities of every system they use. It's irrellevent if they "rigged" a test for the reporters; the DoD has every right to keep the very existence of the ABM system totally classified, much less it's performance parameters. The DoD owes citizens PROTECTION, not information on it's weapons systems. They are doing the public a favor by showing off their systems in any way, even if it is a "rigged" test. Next they'll be complaining that airshow demonstrations rigged because the pilots know exactly what maneuvers they're going to be performing ahead of time. d) The public does not seem to understand the value of intentional disinformation. Might the "rigged test" have been an intentionally DoD sanctioned effort in order to deceive foreign nations about the capabilities or readiness status of this ABM system? That could have a HUGE impact on national policy and international diplomacy. Unless, of course, some scientist gets it in her head that "the public needs to know!" No. They don't. They don't need to know just how fast an F-22 flies or how small it appears on the bad guys' radar while it's out there defending them. They just need to know they're being defended. Yes, I hate the current attitude of "we have a right to know!" very, very much. Information is NOT free, just because it belongs to the government does NOT mean it belongs to the individual citizens, and NO, idle curiosity on behalf of a civilian does not justify endangering service members by disclosing capabilities, tactics, or intentions. And Manning should hang.

There IS something to compare it to in the second of those; the F-14 in the background. Of course, most people VASTLY visually underestimate the size of modern fighter aircraft unless they're really standing right next to it, so it would make the gun look smaller. Also, the perspective on both of those is from the muzzle, which makes the bulk of the system (the ammo hopper) look comparatively smaller. Also, why the blazes would a museum curator display a GAU-8 under the wing of an F-14, of all things? I can just see Bubba Public taking a look and assuming "that gun goes in that airplane". :doh:

Agree on all. Though I would add, in the voice acting, there should also be a variety of message variants based on URGENCY. IE, script the messages so that if e.g. there are enemy vehicles within 1000 meters of the JTAC, or the JTAC's target is within 1000 meters of other friendlies, he sounds more urgent and/or nervous (and, of course, calls danger close!) Right now the JTAC will calmly report the tank parked on his foxhole as if he were reading the weather report. Same goes for pilots engaged defensive. Yes, I understand sometimes folk respond to combat stresses very calmly; but some people get all kinds of ratcheted up.