OutOnTheOP

No, they are not all circular. The thing is, you can put three monitors all next to each other, with their faces parallel... basically like one super-wide monitor, OR you can cant the side monitors inward. Now, the software should be told how far inward they are canted, so it can project the image correctly. If it does not know, it treats it as a single wide monitor and you end up with a "fish eye" effect. To see this in action, set up a three monitor array with the edge monitors canted in 45*. Run the three-monitor display settings in DCS- this accounts for the inward bend. Then try running the single monitor display setting with the resolution stretched across all three. You'll notice a definite fish-eye effect. Much faster framerate, but at the moment I'm happier running 28 FPS with correct aspect ratios than 40 FPS with extreme warping at the edges.

Wow, that Fobbit is getting WAAAAY too excited about being a passive observer to a small mortar engagement. I never got that excited when I was the one operating the counterfire radar, clearing counterfire, and actually taking an active part in killing the dumb mother fornicators that were lobbing rounds my way. ....though I suppose having a job to do has a tendency to keep the adrenaline in check until after all is well and done.

found another non-spinning CBU97 video, but I THINK it's from the same drop depicted in the last one: *edit* now that I look at it again, you can see the CBU97 dispensing in the Textron advertisement video I posted earlier, as well.... it does not appear to spin in that one either. But the fins are clearly pop-out type.

Regarding the fin pop-out on the CBU body, see .... I know, it's Future Weapons starrying Huskyvoice McToolbag, but it still has some good footage. Check 3:20 for fin popout. HOWEVER, the 1500rpm does not seem true; this one has no rotation. I'll see if I can find any other videos where it DOES spin, but off the top of my head, the CBU does NOT spin; all submunition dispersion is done by pyrotechnic charge, as best I can tell.

Textron BLU108/ CBU97 industry promotional video: It does specify a radar altimeter in the BLU108 (though in all fairness, doesn't specify how precise it is or how it functions). I also took note of one clip where a BLU108, firing it's rocket, gets down to probably a couple meters above the ground before it starts to rise again. I think if there has to be guesswork on the proper skeet deployment/ detonation altitude, it would be better to err on the side of "a little low" than "a little high", from what the videos show.

First off; looks AWESOME. I can honestly say I'm amazed by how quickly the guys at ED got that put together, and their responsiveness in continuing to improve the simulation even after release. However, there are still fixes to be made. Which is understandable; it's still a work in progress. If it were perfect, it wouldn't be a "WIP". It'd be a patch download on the DCS webpage. Frostiken may have phrased things a bit abrasively, but I totally agree with him, the skeets do seem to be detonating a bit high. Now, I say "seem", because I don't have hard evidence to indicate they DON'T detonate that high, but like Frostiken, every picture and video I have seen show the skeets detonating at a fairly consistent 30-50 meters. In the in-game detonation pictures, the top EFP "tracer" is at least 70 meters up (going by 9.5-ish meters length for a T72/T80 chassis. Possibly higher; as smoke from the skeet detonation has not yet been implemented, so we can't tell if the detonation occurred higher or if the "tracer" is shown at it's origin. I do base my impression that the skeets should be detonating at 30-50 meters on a few fact-based assumptions (in addition to the photos): 1) the skeets have a laser. This implies a ranging function. It does not preclude high detonations; just means the munition should be able to decide if it is or is not in range and detonate only when it IS in range. As the videos depict 30-50 meters AGL, I assume that is the detonation range. 2) The dispensers have a radar altimeter that activates the rocket when the dispenser gets down to a certain altitude AGL. CBU HOB settings should (from what I can tell) have nothing to do with the skeet height of detonation, or even with the height at which the dispensers dispense the skeets. The dispenser rides the parachute down as long as it needs to until the radar altimeter tells it to fire the rocket and distribute the skeets- again, photo and video evidence indicates this is about 40 meters. CBU HOB settings probably only impacts how early the dispensers are kicked from the CBU (and therefore how far each dispenser disperses). 3) The skeets are supposed to self-destruct at 15 ft AGL if it does not find a target; this again implies each skeet has a ranging function But even if the detonation height is never adjusted, this looks like a pretty smokin' implementation of the '97. *edit* information about the radar altimeters and active laser, as well as visual estimates of detonation height all taken from open-source Textron promotional videos. *edit 2* Seriously, Aaron? That's a little reactive; this forum exists for the sole purpose of letting the fans (us) gather and debate. Why take that away just because someone disagrees? Beyond that, the community is a valuable source of information and feedback to ED to help them improve their product. I would hope that ED considers the feedback and/or criticism they get here, researches the matter and the information forum members post, and THEN decide if they want to change it or not. If they find the forum member was correct, and "fix" the game, everyone wins. If they find the forum member was incorrect, that's fine. If they find the forum member was correct, and decide not to change it anyway, that's ED's perogative. But it's still the forum member's perogative to disagree as much as he wants.

I think it's a bit more than just a "warm" flashlight. I can't really speak for the output of the airborne designators, but the ones we used on the ground were powerful enough to cause severe burns. That story about the taliban fighter getting his eyes burnt from the laser? I can believe it; those lasers put out enough energy to literally boil your eyes (we got to learn all about a rather graphic description of a similar event, related in excruciating detail, from the early R&D days of laser designators during our new equipment training). If the laser is putting out enough energy to boil water in a second or two, I imagine it could (with a long enough laze) cook off a bomb. Obviously, the thinner skinned the munition, the less time it would take.

Saying the Arrow would have had no comparable competitors is a bit disingenous. The F-108 would have been analogous, but was also cancelled; the YF-12 was in development at about the same time, and would have (if it, too, had not been cancelled) entered service very shortly after. The YF-12 had virtually identical projected performace, and unlike the Arrow, YF-12 actually demonstrated mach 3+ performance, to include successful target engagements. It's also kind of disingenous to say Arrow was cancelled purely under US pressure: the US cancelled their OWN high-performance interceptors at the same time, and for the same reasons: the technology of the time didn't support economically feasible large-scale deployment, and bomber formations simply were no longer the prime threat; ballistic missiles were.

Hmm... I'll have to watch more closely next time I'm at Davis Monthan, but every time I've seen A-10s running approaches, they appear to be running straight-in. But then again, it's a dual-use military/civilian airfield, so the FAA may require them to.

No, the A-10B was originally conceived as an all-weather, day-and-night capable A-10. Department of Defense decided it really wasn't needed, as the night role was filled by other airframes, and besides that, a significant amount of Soviet front-line ADA at the time wasn't night capable, so the survivability and NOE capabilities of the A-10 weren't needed for night missions. It's not a trainer; all A-10 first flights are solo, after qualifying on other jet trainers (T-38, I imagine). ...and who says "interesting" and "fugly" are incompatible? =P

Sure, but all that high speed airflow has other ideas. The wing doesn't break down because of inertia, it breaks up because of aerodynamic stress. If it was all inertia, there would BE no wing breaking... the fuselage and wing would both just continue intact... in a straight line.

On a side note, while the -B model would be a cool "what-if", only 2 test models were ever made. Interesting bird, though.

Aye, but the moment of force of the wing producing lift, and the stores, acting on inertia, are in OPPOSITION, not in concert. Heavy stores at the wingtips are an issue in rolling maneuvers because of the same forces you mention in the fishing-rod example, but they should actually HELP in an over-G: the wing is producing lift force that will torque the wing off the fuselage, which is "trying" to keep flying straight under inertia. The stores on the hardpoints are doing the same thing: trying to keep going straight under inertia. So while the wings try to pull themselves up off the fuselage, the wing stores "hold down" the wings. Your plank example ignores that there is a force pushing the opposite direction of the heavy weights. If it were a matter of an overloaded A-10 sitting on the tarmac with too much weight under the wings, sure... heavy weights further from the fuselage are worse.

Phuz, I said nothing about the behaviour in-game. I'm absolutely certain you're correct, and IN-GAME the outer hardpoints induce failure earlier. I am equally certain that I don't have the slightest inclination to waste my time conducting multiple tests of the theory. And I'm terribly sorry for requesting that you ponder the point I was making in addition to your "expected" results. Perhaps what you should THINK about is the possibility I was not implying you had not thought about the issue, but should ponder an alternative view I presented. Would you prefer if I'd thrown in a "selah" instead? Also, being an ass hat about cliches makes you easily as rude as the one who made a cliche. The one making the cliche is typically not INTENDING to be a douche. The one making elitist comments about it is FULLY intending. End rant.

Sounds to me like the bug, if any, is that the jettison switch is NOT dumping the flares when toggled on in manual mode. The whole reason the JTSN switch exists is so if you have to land damaged, you're not carrying a bunch of pyrophoric (self-igniting in the presence of oxygen) super-hot-burning magnesium cartridges ready to light up all the fuel you have on board. It's SUPPOSED to kick out all the flares. *edit; sniped!

Not sure I follow the "as expected" regarding inboard versus outboard wing loads increasing the likelihood of wing failure. If anything, I would expect heavy INBOARD pylons to increase the risk of failure. Think about it; in a high-G turn, the wings are at a high angle of attack and producting a LOT of UPWARD force in the form of lift (I know the lift vector can be in any direction, but let's just say they're providing upward force, for simplicity.) The fuselage, however, is NOT a significant lift-producing body on the A-10, and is therefore producing a lot of DOWNWARD force (in the form of inertia) right at the center of the wings. Therefore, what adds more stress to the wings: additional downward inertia right where there's already a lot of downward inertia, or adding downward inertia at the wingtips, which are producting a ton of upward lift and doing their best to pull themselves up and off the fuselage? After all, the greatest stress is right at the wing root, not at the weapons hardpoints (which are carrying 2000 pounds at best). Adding the extra weapons inertia further out on the wings just reduces the amount of torque they'd be applying to the wing spars at the root. *edit* note this only applies to symetrical maneuvers; obviously the farther out from the center of rotation a store is, the more velocity it has in a roll, and therefore more inertia. To make a short simile of it, what is more likely to collapse a bridge; a 100 ton weight right in the middle, or ten 10-ton weights spread evenly across the whole span?

Personally, I don't see the need for it. You can argue about how much system resources it would require until the cows come home; the fact is it will require SOME system resources. Personally, I don't know many people that have system resources to spare when running DCS:WH. I also feel it is entirely extraneous. Even through the targeting pod, you don't get THAT close a look at your targets, and certainly not close enough to appreciate the fine details of what bits you blew off that poor sap. Lastly, it's not realistic. I have been in real, live armed conflict, and have called real, live GBU38s onto a real, live AQ strongpoint building in Iraq. We checked out the building for intel the next morning. It was a mess, sure; but the individuals IN THE ROOM ADJACENT to the room the bomb had detonated were more or less intact- yes, one was missing legs, but, to spare the details, that wasn't a direct effect of the bomb, it was an effect of being in a building. Most injuries are going to be from fragmentation, not from the blast overpressure. You'd be amazed how resilient the human body is to blast; we had, on at least three occasions I can think of, individuals within 10 yards of the point of detonation of over 500 pounds of ordnance (two suicide car bombs and one very large bomb hidden in the sewers) who, due to the geometry of the terrain were not hit by the fragmentation. Other than disorientation and some hearing damage, they were good to go. Concussions all around, I'm sure, but they certainly weren't blown into little pieces. One of those individuals was on foot at the time, the other two were out air guard hatches on vehicles. Long story short, unless you drop a Mk82 right in someone's lap, you're not going to blow them into Quake-style giblets. Personally, I'd be more than happy with a couple decent "falls over dead or seriously injured" animations. Preferably at least one staggering/wounded and one "Dead Right There" sack-of-potatos drop. THAT SAID, what COULD certainly be improved upon, and is large-scale enough to be regularly noticed by the player, is tbe vehicle damage and destruction animations. Tanks and IFVs should cook off ammunition and burn for HOURS. It should be possible for tanks to throw tracks, or for turrets to lock up. T-72s and similar tanks with unprotected ammunition storage should occasionally pop the turret a couple hundred feet in the air (another good reason not to get too close on a strafing run!) Engine kills should be possible. Killing the TC (and disabling the AA MG) should be possible. Secondaries. Good lord, please give us BIG OL' secondaries for ammunition trucks (at least those attached to artillery units).

If you say so... personally, I've never much cared for the Tomcat. As to never previously offering a good F-14 simulation, the same can be said of the F-15 (A/C). Jane's F-15 was a reasonably good go at the E model, but by no means was it DCS quality. And as to the C model in Lock On... well, I seem to recall US Navy Fighters and F-14 Fleet Defender being at a similar level of complexity.

You're kidding, right? I wouldn't begin to compare the F-14 and F-15. They're 2-engine birds used for air-to-air missions. End similarity. The F-14 is a huge, lumbering beast with a .9 thrust-to-weight ratio, rated to only 6.5-7G. Weapons carriage consists mostly of the long-ranging but relatively low capability AIM-54. F-14 is, at heart, an interceptor. It lofts huge missiles at huge bombers from huge ranges. The F-15 is a lightweight aerial assassin (64% the F-14's dry weight) with a 1.12 thrust-to-weight ratio, rated to 9G and demonstrably capable of 12G instantaneous turns, only 64% the wing load as the F-14 (which partially explains the increased agility) and a lifting body design that allows it to return and land with only a couple feet of a wing remaining (demonstrated in ODS). F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It destroys anything and everything it does not want sharing it's sky. Care to guess which one I'd rather fly?

Happy to help. Good to hear you're having more success with steeper angles. I would recommend aiming for -35 to -45; steeper is almost always better. But then again, usually I do my attacks as low-altitude ingress with a steep pop-up, roll in, and a very short but steep dive (only get three or four seconds to line the target up). Steeper dives are often harder to time from high altitudes, though, so your mileage may vary.

One bit of information I haven't yet seen explicitly mentioned here (though it might be in the IVS that was linked), which probably accounts for the stated gun behavior (consistently hitting above the target): Ensure your IFFCC elevation data is correct for the target. It should either be set to DTS (you'll see "DTS" in the bottom right of the HUD) or else the elevation data for your currently selected waypoint MUST be the correct elevation for the target. If your elevation is set too high, the IFFCC will think the target is higher than it really is, and will shoot high, causing the rounds to land long of the target. Coming in at a very steep dive angle will minimize any errors in elevation data (since the rounds/ bombs drop in a more vertical line), but will not completely fix it. This is the same reason that for real life artillery (I was a forward observer for some 5 years), it's very important to get target elevation for low-angle (generally howitzer or NGF) fire, but not particularly important for high angle fire (like mortars), which drop onto the target at a steep angle.

Mitchell-Hyundyne SA-32 Thunderbolt Starfury for the win! (http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/SA-23J_Mitchell-Hyundyne_Starfury_%22Thunderbolt%22) What I wouldn't give for a space combat simulator with true-to-life Newtonian physics (IE, properly modelled inertia). Some decent footage of what I mean at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb2D331Jn7I. Pugachev's got nothing on the crazy maneuvers a space fighter is (should be) capable of.

Meh, could go either way: either it near(ly) miss(ed), or it was near(by, but) miss(ed). Popular convention: it was a miss (that was near).

Wait.... are you seriously suggesting a smaller payload and shorter loiter time should be seen as a positive thing? Are you crazy? 1) in Real Life terms, any aircraft that can carry 20 bombs 2000 miles can opt to carry 4 bombs 500 miles. An aircraft that can carry only 4 bombs only 500 miles may never opt to carry 20 for 2000. It just gives you less options. Therefore, I can do the same thing in a more capable aircraft if I so chose. F/A-18 gives me no added value. 2) I ASSUME you meant it was good in the SIMULATOR world, because it is more demanding of the player. Even so, longer ingress, smaller payload, and lower loiter time means you spend a higher proportion of your play time flying from point A to point B, and a correspondingly lesser time actually engaging in combat operations. Sounds mighty tedious to me. Sure, deep strike missions where you only make one pass on the target can be fun, but that's generally because they have an interesting ingress pattern (like the F-111 or F-15E). Thing is, with the super short legs of the F/A-18, you'll never do the low-altitude, high-speed dash penetration into the enemy rear areas. You just can't reach! And if you're tasked CAS or BAI, the short legs on the F/A-18 would just get boring quick. Make one pass on target and turn 'er on home. Snore. 3) Um... pretty sure you should ALWAYS be paying attention to the JTAC and ensuring to hit the right targets, regardless of HOW much ordnance you're carrying. If anything, the more ordnance you're delivering, the MORE careful you should be. As a real-life ground pounder, I'd be MUCH happier with a Hornet driver f*cking up and dropping 2 bombs on/near my position than a Mudhen crew accidentally pasting me with a couple dozen of 'em. 4) sure, you can claim the F/A-18 is more challenging for the player because it requires more A2A refueling. Thing is, I CAN opt to refuel just as often in an A-10 or F-15E if I chose to. I don't really see the fun in being FORCED to. (See point 1). If I had to go through the full start-up procedure every time I wanted to drop a single munition, you can bet I'd get mighty tired of the start-up proceedure. Same goes for A2A refueling.

There are ways to make it more exciting; for example, allow the SAM operator to "jump" between multiple sites, so he can stay where the action is. Simulate a more exciting, and more "personal" system like SA-9, SA-13, or 2S6, which are visually/manually acquired or have visual/manual acquisition options. Simulate a multirole system like Bradley Linebacker, LAV-AD, ADATS, Starstreak, or 2S6, which have surface-to-surface secondary roles. This would also be a fantastic segue into DCS: Mechanized Infantry Platoon.