OutOnTheOP

Apparently there IS no orbit task assigned; it is a linear track (and come to think of it, there was one attempt I made where it got to it's second waypoint and called RTB... so I guess there isn't an orbit?) That said, I found the "add tasking" for "orbit" on the advanced waypoint options, but the only orbit shape offered was for a circle. How do I change it to a racetrack?

First, thank you for taking the time to answer the question at hand. Second, I did not create the mission (I've never really used the ME, hence why I am here asking the question), so... give me a moment and I'll see if I can find out!

Edited for clarity: Problem: AI-controlled tanker flies too slow. Question 1: Is the tanker scripted to automatically ignore assigned waypoint route speeds set into the mission editor when under "refuel" orders? Question 2: Is it possible to make a tanker fly at 260-280 knots true airspeed when under "refuel" orders? How?

wait... EAC automatically coordinates turns? Do you know if it has a rudder authority limit (and if so what that limit is)? I know I've had to manually input rudder to coordinate turns before, but that's always been at relatively low airspeed, so.... *edit* I don't know why, Ragtop, but it took me the longest time to realize your avatar is a rear-aspect view of (I think?) Eurofighter Typhoon. For the longest time I thought it was some sci-fi flying wing with a "tail barb" *lol*

Please, no more comments about the flaps. I know. I KNOW you have to manually select "up" on the flap control switch. The actual question: is it normal for the KC135, when assigned a "refuelling" task in the mission editor, to ignore the assigned airspeed and instead fly at ~220 KTAS, and is there a way to change it's speed? *edit* Andyfoot, you are quite incorrect. It is normal to leave the flaps set on "maneuver" for the duration of a mission. There's a reason it's called the "maneuver" setting; it's designed so that if you are maneuvering, and lose airspeed due to that maneuvering, the flaps will automatically deploy to maintain lift. I quite clearly stated that I was making my contact approach with flaps set to "up". So, no. I am not "causing my own problems". The low airspeed of the tanker is causing my problems. If the tanker was flying at 150 KTAS, an airspeed where flaps are REQUIRED to stay airborne, would the root of the problem still be my procedural error in your eyes? Utterly ridiculous. Incidentally, I can still make contact and draw a full tank in one contact. But it takes much more effort than it should

Well... yes, but yhat's not the point. And as far as I can tell, the pilot CANNOT "manually" control flaps (IE, set them to "20 degrees"), you can only select "up", "maneuver", or "down"; maneuver and down both deploy and retract automatically at set airspeeds. I can have the switch set to "down" the entire flight, but the flaps will only deploy when airspeed drops below a certain level. That's the problem; if the flaps automatically deploy at 190 IAS and the tanker is flying at 192, guess what that means? Any slight change of airspeed will cause your flaps to suddenly deploy or retract, which is a bad thing, because your aircraft will suddenly balloon up at a significant rate of ascent, and your trim will instantly go nose high. Neither are conducive to formation flight. The solution to that one problem is obvious. In fact, I've already SOLVED the flaps problem, as I mentioned in my initial post: simply set them to the "up" position instead of the standard "maneuver". My point was that at that airspeed, you MUST select up (which means you will be very nose-high), because if you select any other flap setting, they will deploy and retract themselves at inopportune times. The real issue is that flaps or no flaps, you end up flying a significant nose-up angle of attack, which means that any amount of roll (even a degree or two) causes a very significant sideways slip/crabbing. That's bad, because it makes it much more difficult to stay in formation. Which is the heart of the problem.

Yes, except the fact that the members do not know each other's true names/ personal identifying information does not make it any less an organization; a very (very!) LOOSELY organized organization, but an organization that occasionally uses coordinated actions toward decided ends nonetheless. That aside, where in my original post did I ever even claim Anonymous is an organic "entity"? I said they were a "group", as in "a collection of individuals". Way to put words in my mouth. Either way, your explanation is a bit off the point; regardless of HOW people join Anonymous, they do so because they are attracted to their perception of the nature/goals of Anonymous. As a result, a certain type of people end up gathering there; and I maintain my assessment of those people. IE, NOT a super-organized paramilitary terrorist group; rather, a loose affiliation of misfits who enjoy causing trouble for the sense of power they derive from it. You seem to have missed my point about how Fox was more correct than you give them credit for: my point is that instead of their normal knee-jerk "it's a league of demonic supervillians bent on destroying America", they went with "these people are a bunch of petty online bullies", which is, I would say, much closer to the truth. You're basically saying that it would be wrong to claim "the people at the dive bar down the street are a bunch of folks that like to drink". Is it 100% true for every individual, no. Is it a pretty accurate overall assessment, I would say so. Oh, and PeterP, I appreciate your underhanded support, but no, I do not use Fox, BBC news, CNN, or any of the other news networks as my primary source of information. Nor do I rely on the laughably skewed rumor mill of internet venues. I read/watch as many as possible, and formulate my worldview on the most plausible and factually supported conclusion. But thanks for assuming I am an easily swayed intellectual pygmy. Appreciate it.

So I've been practicing aerial refueling lately, and I've noticed something: no matter what speed I assign to the KC-135 (both initial and waypoint speeds), it always proceeds through it's entire route at approximately 220 knots true airspeed. This makes for a number of problems, I've noticed. At that low airspeed, the A-10 is RIGHT at the verge of flap deployment (if left on the default maneuver setting), so you have to manually set flaps to up, or else it will automatically start raising and dropping flaps, wildly changing your total velocity vector and trim settings when you least expect it. Not Good during A2A refueling. This problem is already resolved. I know. Set flaps to "up". Check, roger, hooah. At this low airspeed, the A-10 also "wallows" around the sky a lot; control inputs have a decided lag from input to actual change in vector, very slight changes in engine RPM lead to large changes in pitch trim, and the aircraft tends to crab sideways a lot I suspect refueling would be much, MUCH easier about 30-40 knots faster airspeed (250-260 KTAS). Questions: 1) How (or can I) increase the tanker's airspeed? 2) On the assumption the refueling boom is only rated for a certain airspeed (which therefore dictates such low refueling speed), what is the real-world SOP speed for conducting aerial refueling? *edit* everything I have found online seems to indicate that 280 KTAS is the "normal" refueling speed *edit 2* everything I have found online indicates 220 KTAS is below the minimum accepted speed for refueling. Probably because it causes the same poor handling characteristics I have described above. The ones that are the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with flap settings.

Something HUGE I saw missing on that video: There appears to be no method for the artillery commander to enter firing coordinates. It's all mouseclicks on a map. This means the artillery commander must guestimate where the fire needs to go. The coordinates only appear AFTER the artillery commander clicks on the map, and even then, it's in lat-long. Artillery does not use lat-long (with the possible exception of ATACMS, but I never worked with ATACMS, so I couldn't really say). There needs to be a text field where the artillery commander can enter MGRS grid coordinates; that way human pilots and JTAC/ FOs can make voice comms calls to the "artillery fire coordination center" (IE, the human artillery commander running Combined Arms), who then tasks assets to fire at THAT grid. Also, it would be nice to see provisions made for adjusting artillery fire. This means the artillery commander would need to be able to designate an Observer-Target (OT) direction and issue adjustment commands (left, right, add, drop, up, and down) to the artillery fire, with "left, right" etc in perspective to that OT line. Additionally, the human artillery commander in Combined Arms should be able to designate how many guns of the battery fire, how many volleys they fire, and what munitions they fire. A battery should be capable of running up to three seperate targets simultaneously (two, absolute minimum); this allows for certain specific type of fire missions such as Coordinated Illumination (where one gun fires illumination rounds to illuminate the target area, while the remaining guns fire HE/ ICM/ Smoke) or SEAD missions (where one gun might be used to fire a smoke mark for a CAS target, while the other guns fire HE/ICM to suppress known or likely air defense positions) If the artillery pieces are going to be directable by human players, it would be nice to have all the munitions available to them modelled. Currently only the HE rounds appear modelled for artillery in DCS. Most US wartime fire missions should be DPICM (high intensity conflict, not things like Iraq or Afghanistan); as DPICM is much more effective, and can kill IFVs and tanks. It should be relatively easy to model in game as simply a downsized CBU87. Smoke rounds are critical, as a mark if nothing else. If the human JTAC in Combined Operations is capable of using the laser designator to mark targets, they should also be capable of using it to provide terminal guidance to aerial munitions- and for Copperhead Cannon Launched Guided Projectiles (CLGP) as well. CLGP should additionally be fairly easy to model, using the algorythms for Hellfire (similar munition shape, size, and warhead yield); the terminal phase should be a similar dive angle as well. Only by implementing these things it possible to accurately simulate controlling an artillery fire mission .... I won't even try to ask for Laser Adjust fire mission capability (though it would be nice!)

Yeah, considering that the Refleks/ Svir system has an operational range of between 4-6 km maximum, and flies at an average of approximately 600 knots, while the Hellfire has a range of 8 km and flies at approximately 900 knots, I think the Apache should really have a completely impervious standoff attack. Not to mention the most US helicopters (and I would presume those of other western nations as well), to include Apache, are equipped with IR dazzlers that would prove modestly effective in disrupting the guidance (less than they could be, since the Refleks/Svir seeker window faces BACKWARD, toward the launcher, rather than targets, but still) Also, I don't believe the pop-up attack profile used by western attack helicopters is modelled properly. Additionally, as trees are still not collidable, the pop-up attack profile wouldn't work in many cases anyhow; the helicopter would drop below the treeline, and the fire seeking on it would just fly right through the trees and hit it anyway. Long story short, the Soviet-designed tube-launched ATGMs should be a pretty minor threat to properly employed Apaches. They are currently simulated incorrectly. (the Apaches, that is... the ATGMs may be modelled correctly, but the Apaches use stupid, STUPID tactics. I used to see them get shot down by 125mm APFSDS all the time... and unless they fly within 3km of a tank, that should NEVER happen.)

Actually, I think MOST of the Fox report was right on the money; while they mentioned the "evil terrorist" interpretation of Anonymous, they spent most of that segment focussing on exactly what Anonymous is: a group of misfits who get their kicks from petty hacks/digital bullying of random folks, secure in the anonymity the internet provides them. It is a form of power trip, and quite frankly, isn't very far from outright sociopathy. Now, that said, they also launch the higher profile attacks against government, industrial, and financial targets.... but their targeting methodology is so scattershot and lacks much coherent strategy; it could hardly be accurately stated that these are real ideologue "revolutionaries". On a completely unrelated topic, I wish Tycho and Gabe would give this treatment to Robinson Arms, with whom I have now had a longstanding dispute of almost the exact nature, except to the order of almost a thousand dollars. But of course, that vendor doesn't fit PA's demographic.

so... you've now proved only that 1) Simulator fans are clinging to Falcon 4 THIRTEEN YEARS after it was made, which would indicate the F-16 remains a popular subject for simulation, and 2) Simulator fans are pouring huge amounts of effort into an attempt to keep a decade-plus game relevant , which is a pretty good indication that THERE ARE NO COMPETING PRODUCTS OUT THERE. The fact that there are tons of forums for F4 mods doesn't mean the market is saturated, it means that there are tons of forums for F4 mods. That said, I'd be plenty happy with any number of different aircraft, but I'd prefer an F-16. I'd love an F-15E, but I think the AI backseater route would leave much to be desired, and while you could "hot seat" swap between seats (or even do it all from the front; if I recall, both seats have access to all the systems), you'd be severely overtasked and it would degrade the true effectiveness of the aircraft. I'd certainly settle for an F/A-18, though I've always thought it was a pretty hideous and hideously lackluster aircraft. I'd be very unhappy with the F-14 due to it's rather one-dimensional mission/purpose (heck, even an F-106 would probably be more fun to play... at least then you get to play around with obscure technology... like nuclear A2A missiles!). But I'd even be more than happy with an F-5E (no, I'm not missing a digit. I mean the lightweight fighter), F-105, F-8, Gripen, Eurofighter, Tornado, Jaguar, etc. Rather stay away from Russian aircraft, because I like my aircraft to have avionics. And the A/C in Russian use are NOT the super badass cool guy new models... those are export-only by and large. I guess the Su30MkI would be kinda neat... but I'd prefer something western. And if you can't tell, I think a light fighter/attack aircraft would be fun. F-16C followed by MiG29? Roger. Jaguar/F-5E paired with MiG21? Awesome.

I'll throw my hat in the ring for the F-16C. More capable than the F/A-18A/C, classified at a level realistically allowing a DCS-grade simulation (unlike the F-15E and F/A-18E/F), multi-role, and, unlike the F/A-18 (all varieties), NOT ass ugly. Yes, I know, there are other simulations out there (from 1998). There are ALSO other simulations of the F-15E and F/A-18, both of which are as recent (1998 and 1999 respectively) as the last COMMERCIAL release of an F-16 simulator. Saying "the market is saturated with quality F-16 simulators" like so many of the Viper-bashers claim is just plain disingenuous. No, they are not DCS quality. No, they do not simulate the latest marks or all the capabilities of the F-16C. No, they do NOT have a flight model even in the same realm of that offered by DCS. Fun games, but not DCS. As much as I'd love the F-15E, the logistics of doing a dual-seater at DCS fidelity means to me it'd only be worth playing online... and if you could find a cooperative WSO. Besides that, it's capabilities- particularly in A/A- are such an overmatch for realistic opposition that I personally would find A/A combat unexciting; it would be mostly long-range AMRAAM shots followed by disengage and putting distance from the threat; the -15E is too valuable to risk in a close fight

I am very interested in flying online with human squadmates. .... I am very NOT interested in flying without my Helios setup. To make it even somewhat manageable to go back to the vanilla setup, I would have to physically move monitors that are bolted to my wall. Problem is, I hear Helios makes the game fail server integrity checks because it modifies the export.lua scripts to enable Helios to run. Are there any squadrons out there running servers that allow full Helios functionality?

Straw man. The article you posted is about STI in a very particular operating environment. Just because it includes pilot's opinions about the use of STI in that particular environment, does not mean they would not use it in other operating environments. Clearly you do not understand that the point of my parable is that I have conducted operations in a related field in Iraq, and am therefore in a position to tell you that the tactics used in Iraq by any given branch of service are not representative of the tactics they would use in a different operating environtment. For example, in Iraq you never see AH64s using standoff hover battle positions; instead they use relatively high altitude swooping attacks at very short ranges. You would never see that on a conventional battlefield. No, I am not an AH64 pilot. However, I do work in a job where understanding the application of high-resolution radar is critical; and I have had plenty of opportunity to use MMW radar before. Really? So any conventional conflict these days will automatically go nuclear? Tell that to Korea, Vietnam, subsaharan Africa (for the past 50 years), Iran and Iraq (three times!), Israel and all it's neighbors, and the former Yugoslavia. I seem to recall other pundits claiming nukes made tanks obsolete back in the '50s. Wasn't any more true then than it is now.

Mvsgas- what, hostile toward pilots much? Whatever; WHO did the painting wasn't the point; aircraft were painted, either by the pilot, on request of the pilot, or by or on behalf of the ground crew. Whatever. Fact remains I've seen multiple pictures of Gulf War-era aircraft with small, subtle nose art. WHO did the paining wasn't what I was getting at

And I maintain that you're comparing apples and orangatans. The radar gives additional capabilities; it takes away nothing. Show me another attack helicopter that can locate and engage targets through battlefield obscurants. And the "reports of how they do things in Iraq" argument is old and fallacious. It's just like all the folks arguing that the A-10 will be used for high-altitude JDAM delivery from now on just because that's how they're used in Afghanistan, where there are A) no tanks, and B) no high-altitude SAM or interceptors to worry about. I've BEEN to Iraq. I'll be the first to tell you that techniques and procedures used there are not a good representation of what would be used in a no-shit real high-intensity conflict (what most of the world refers to as a good ol' fashioned war).

GG, speaking of F-15 stealth, that's one of the thing I asked their test pilots there: they were making a big deal about the slanted fins and internal bays for their stealth characteristics; I asked if there was anything done to the inlets or compressors to help reduce the blades RCS; I was told they couldn't redesign the inlets without a major airframe redesign (no surprise there), but they claimed there were "other things we can do to reduce the fan RCS". Not sure if they meant grates like the F-117, some kind of RAM on the blades, or what.

GG, is this a seperate upgrade from Silent Eagle, then? I guess it must be, if it's an F-15C upgrade... Silent Eagle is an -E upgrade. Speaking of which, got to play around with their Silent Eagle simulator a few weeks back at the Korean ADEX expo. Cool stuff... the cockpit reminds me of nothing more than an F-35, with the single large touchscreen. Got to see the F-35 and Rafale simulator pits too, but unfortunately didn't get to play with them.

...so is it just me, or is the vertical stabilizer on that JF17 not right? It looks to me like an F-35 vertical stabilizer; the JF17 has a single one, rather visually similar to an F-16, but that photo has what appears to be a double, angled set. Photoshop fail?

I think a lot of it comes down to stricter regulations, too. It USED to be pilots could paint customized nose art on their aircraft. Whatever they wanted. In fact, in WWII, the Army PAID for big-name artists (Disney cartoonists, among others) to go paint up nose art FOR them. Considered it a morale booster. Fast forward to 1991 and Gulf War 1. Nose art was limited to small, low-observable paintings (shades of gray on gray), and no more did you see the nekkid ladies that graced WWII warbirds. It just wasn't politically correct. These days, they just don't let the pilots paint ANYTHING on; I guess the thought is "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". So, instead of risking someone pushing the regulations and putting something inappropriate on the side of a plane, they don't let them put ANYTHING on them. So that F-14 picture may well have been taken a fair while ago, and back then the F-16 pilots may well have been putting crap on their helmets too

GG, when you say Golden Eagle, are you refering to the Republic of Korea T-50, the Su-47, a new variant of the F-15, or a toungue-in-cheek reference to an actual feathered bird of prey?

Fifou, I'm not sure why you seem so amused by the realization that sensors have limitations, and I'm even more confused that you seem to think this makes a sensor absolutely worthless, or that somehow having the radar now makes Longbow inferior to KA50. The fact is, the Longbow Apache HAS the radar. It ALSO has the IIR and CCD devices of the "standard" Apache. Regardless of how useful the radar may or may not be, it IS an additional capacity. The IIR and CCD devices may be more useful for target identification and/or terminal munitions guidance. This does not change the fact that WITH the radar, the Longbow has capability for obscurant penetrating wide-area search that cannot be provided by the IIR and CCD devices. So the radar might not be ideal, but if provides the capability for firing through battlefield obscurants like smoke, fog, or dust. Without the radar, you wouldn't be able to see or shoot ANYTHING. With it, you can. So there's a benefit right there. I am also amused by the notion of an enemy sitting stationary for extended periods of time, dumping out smoke for hours on end. I do not think you have any notion of how logistically unrealistic this is, or the amount of smoke pots that would be neccesary to blanket a large enough area. Unless you covered literally square kilometers in dense smoke, you might as well just be announcing "there are enemy troops here". Sure, it might protect them from the Apache's point target weapons systems, but it'll make it really easy to call in area-fire weapons (such as DPICM artillery) to kill everything. And by the way, as you seem to believe that forcing an army to "waste" expensive munitions is a victory, I should note that M483A1 DPICM shells cost considerably less than a Hellfire to begin with. It should also be noted that IIR and CCD is like looking through a soda straw; your field of view is extremely limited. So you have to be looking in the right place to find anything. Radar may only be "effective" against moving targets, BUT it will search a wide sector (360* for longbow, I believe) and automatically categorize those targets. It should ALSO be noted that "moving" does not always mean "driving". Individual moving components might trigger a doppler signature the radar would pick up; this includes traversing turrets or weapons, rotating radar antennae, potentially even the cooling fans of an idling engine. Even if it has issues with spotting stationary targets, if the presence of longbow radars on the battlefield obliges your enemy to stop moving their vehicles, it has ALREADY provided an invaluable battlefield effect: the radar has pinned down every combatant in the area, without ever firing a shot! The longbow radar is optimized for use against moving vehicles, and it's optimized so for a reason. Moving vehicles are dangerous vehicles. Stationary ones aren't contributing anything to the enemy's war effort Lastly, even if the longbow radar gives lots of false positives, since it is a wide area search sensor, it provides a useful "queing" capability; that is to say, it alerts the pilot (or more realistically, gunner) to a POTENTIAL target that should be queried with the IIR or CCD to determine if it is or is not a real target. I have no doubt that this provides faster target acquisition than solely using the relatively narrow field of view of the IIR/CCD sensors. The difficulties the radar may have with target identification can be worked around. You seem to think the pilot/ gunner has to choose only ONE sensor with which to spot, identify, and engage a target, and stick with that one sensor. This is not the case. Even tank gunners habitually use multiple sensors in an engagement: often using IIR (with it's superior concealment-defeating capability) to spot potential targets, and then switch to optical sights (with their superior image resolution) to identify and engage. But, as I mentioned, either way, no matter the limitations of the radar, it DOES provide additional capabilities

You should probably be hoping the US Marines (or, if you're interested in CSAR, US Air Force) notice DCS, then. The US Army does not operate Ospreys

I think we're using different definitions of "circular". Yeah, I don't mean actual curved projector screens or anything. It's kind of a waste to put programming man-hours into that for the two or three guys that actually have such a setup. However, LOTS of people are running a three-monitor setup. In fact, lots are running three monitors with extras running Helios or similar software. What I would like to see, more than support for additional viewport area, is support for exporting displays outside the game rendering viewports (specifically MFCDS, CDU, RWR, CMSP, Clock, etc). Right now I'm running three monitors plus three for control consoles, and I have to tell the game to render in five of them so I can get the MFCDs and all to show up under Helios. Of course, the game doesn't care that 95% of screen surgace on the two control console monitors is blank, it STILL hits the framerate as bad as if I were running the 5-screen resolution.