OutOnTheOP

wow... yeah, so the "skeet shooting" bit...? Totally fake. The MG bullet holes are obviously fabricated (likely with hollywood-style pyrotechnics), and the Karl Gustav had a) no backblast, b) wrong launch signature (sound), and c) waaaaay too slow in the air. Karl Gustav and AT4/ M136 are pretty amazing; they really launch out of there like a bullet, not so much a rocket. They MOVE! ....they'll also really fsck up the cameraman if he's behind the launcher like that *lol*

Oh, great. Thanks, Shu. Now every time I take a minor hit and lose an MFCD, I'm going to imagine it exploding in a shower of sparks and some nameless redshirt pirouetting theatrically from it to their demise. It will be distracting. But also hilarious.

The good news is they only REQUEST a weapon. They don't order it. Though there might be mitigating circumstances that calls for it (IE, if there's friendlies close by, they'll tell you it's danger close and might demand gun only or Maverick). In the game, as in real life, they don't dock you points if you choose to employ different ordnance. Though in real life, they'd generally want to be advised of it beforehand.

Pave Penny doesn't carry a laser; only a spot tracker. It cannot designate, illuminate, or image anything, it can only detect the laser spot from another platform (JTAC of AFAC). So all it's used for is detecting targets designated by someone else, in much the same way as one would use WP smoke to guide you to a target- only, more accurate. And, of course, the same laser spot that can be seen by Pave Penny can be used to provide terminal guidance for an LGB or laser Maverick

+1 for the field landing strips. You should be able to drop a dirt or one of the "puzzle piece" strips down anywhere as a FLS. You should also be able to template a FLS onto highway sections. Would be awesome for Cold War type scenarios

Thanks, Hassata! I figured it had something to do with the duplicated "purpose" line. I had tried commenting out the line at the bottom, and deleting it, but neither of those had worked. Got it running like a champ now. Like. A. Champ. :D

Ok, so I have the RWR and CDU screens exporting just dandy. Most excellent. However, I can't seem to get the CMSP or CMSC to export. Yes, I made sure I turned on the countermeasure system to ensure it would be actually displaying something. I initially thought the issue might be because I had accidentally overlapped my viewport with the RWR viewport by a couple pixels, but I resolved that, and still nothing. Could you kindly show what editing needs to be done to get the CMSC and CMSP to display?

No, Lordwolf, I do believe YOU are the one missing the point. See, each unit in Medevial 2 was unique in many ways; beyond the simple "more of the same, only better". Yes, there are some that are merely stat boosts to previous renditions, such as the peasant crossbows> militia crossbows> pavise crossbows. However, there are also cases where a unit adds complete abilities, as in the case of the English Longbowmen or the Aventurine, who are bow/ crossbowmen, but with sufficient armor and melee weaponry to play a dual role as close in combatants as well, and therefore enabled different tactics. Or the difference between, say, pikemen and halberds? Pikemen suck in the attack (by and large), and their stats look like crap. However, their pikes are so long that they "tap" enemies out of attack range, and can tie up an enemy melee unit for a very long time while you maneuver on them with other units. However, pikes are only effective if they stay in formation, which makes them SLOOOOOW. Halberds aren't that great in a spearwall, but they're good used as the "hammer" to the pike's anvil; particularly against cavalry. Some units have armor-piercing capability, and may be good against heavily armored foes, but inferior against mass levied (and poorly armored) enemies than another unit WITHOUT AP capability, but a cheaper cost and higher attack. Good example; poleax units are great against dismounted knights, but against lighter militia, it's hard to beat two-hand swordsmen So, yes, there IS a difference beyond just pretty units on the field, and that's really my point.

I'm not saying preferential targeting of key man-packed infantry support weapons is irrellevent to the A-10C mission; I'm saying that at the speeds and altitudes you operate (yes, even if you're really in the weeds), you'll never identify a mortar tube among men. So if your mission calls for engaging mortar positions, just put a cluster of 7-10 men in a small area, and have the FAC direct you to the target. Because without the FAC talking you RIGHT onto the target, you'd never see it. Ergo, no need to model seperate mortar teams. Or at least, it's a very low priority

Having been a Fire Supporter (working primarily with calling artillery and mortar fire, but with a secondary tasking of Terminal Air Control, and having attended the Joint Firepower Class for certification) I can tell you that yes, you can bomb through clouds, with some "ifs". Those are: IF the JTAC can give you a modestly accurate grid (the "tracking pattern" can be an oblong to circular shape, and varies in size with the angle the bomb comes in at and the height of the cloud ceiling/ distance from the target the bomb picks up the laser spot), and IF the cloud ceiling is high enough to permit the spot tracker in the bomb to acquire the spot with enough time-of-flight to maneuver for a hit. Now, I've been out of the fire support field for a good three years now, but I can tell you even the lightweight rangefinders, if properly configured, will give you a target location approximately the size of the effective burst radius of an artillery round (50-75 meters), and even if degraded will still give you EASILY less than 200 meters. I don't remember the exact sizes of all the "tracking pattern" templates, but as I recall, they were generally 500 to 700 meters in size. But yes, you CAN blind buddy-lase bomb an LGB through cloud ceiling IF you have a halfway competent target grid and buddy-lase from the JTAC. In fact, we used to practice buddy-lasing for lob-toss bombing and attack helicopters firing Hellfire in Lock-On-After-Launch (LOAL) mode; in both cases, the aircraft would never even see the target. *edit* This all applies to Real Life , I have no idea if it's correctly implemented in DCS; I haven't tried a buddy-lase in DCS:W yet

Personally, I'm more a fan of Medieval 2. Shogun is cool... but there's just not enough variety to it. Every army looks more or less the same (no surprising, it's from the same culture, but still....). The battle system has some nice new additions; one that I PARTICULARLY like is the ability to dismount your cavalry. Oh, how many times playing M2:TW I came across a battle in unfavorable terrain and wished I could employ my knights as heavy infantry... Anyhow, maybe I was spoiled by the vast variety of units and their varied capabilities in Medieval 2. There's lots. ...though Creative Assembly must REALLY hate the Germans, because the Holy Roman Empire really got the shaft in M2:TW - all their late heavy infantry (dismounted gothic knights, 2-hand swords, and halberd militia) cost a good 50% more than the other nations' equivalents, and generally have 2-5 lower attack and 5-7 lower defense. I fail to see why a German guy in maille with a big axe on a stick should be SO much more expensive (and less effective!) than a French guy in maille with a big cleaver on a stick. I know the French (late period) probably get an "experience bonus" for being veterans from the 100 year's war, but c'mon, there were TONS of wars in 14th-16th century Germany; I can't imagine them being raw recruits. ...Suffice to say I fixed that via text editing. -_-

Andysim, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. ...Chuck Norris doesn't need CBUs, he has only to glare at his target and it bursts into flames.

It could also be the elevation data for the waypoint currently pulled up. The fire control computer uses the elevation data for the current selected waypoint to determine the impact point of bombs, so if you have, e.g: your waypoint has elevation data of 500 MSL, and the target is actually at 2000 MSL, the computer "thinks" the target is 1500 feet lower than it actually is, and will release the bomb too early and undershoot the target. This is why the JTAC gives you target elevation in the 9-Line CAS brief, and it's why it's one of the lines you read back to him- the fact that you have to confirm that data (along with the target grid) with a readback should illustrate to you just how important it is! Obviously steeper dive angles will reduce this error since the bomb is coming down at a more vertical angle: yet another reason to get into a 30 (plus) degree dive for unguided bomb deliveries. *edit*: Ha, just noticed you said you WERE in a 30 degree dive. Still, steeper is better... but not always practical with the less-than-stellar climb rate of the A-10 and the need to stay in the weeds to avoid eating a SAM sandwich.

Hm. Oh, well I just figured... they're both adjacent to Germany, and both were invaded by Nazi Germany in the early stages of WW2. Other than that, I guess I don't see the connection to France.... other than they're in Europe.

The idea has merit... however, DCS caters to potential training audiences, and therefore to helicopters in more widespread current use. That, and if I recall, DCS is supposed to be a series of inter-operating simulators for a whole virtual battlefield (eventually). Huey in Vietnam doesn't jive with A-10C in 2010, nor with Kamov-50s, and I doubt with whatever DCS: US Fixed Wing will be. HOWEVER... UH-60? Sure! And the UH-60 has capability to fire Hydra-70 FFARs, Hellfire, and if I recall correctly, can carry gun pods. And how about the MH-60 Direct Action Penetrator version? Eh? *nudge* Ehhhhh? *edit* another good choice would be the CH/ MH-53. In service in Vietnam, still in wide service, often used in SOF insertion, CSAR, and DAP missions. Well armed, but all pintle mounts as far as I recall.

No, I know that... when I say "dirty", I mean with a high volume of combustion byproduct. Kind of like how petrochemical fuels theoretically SHOULD be able to burn down to nothing but CO2 and H2O... but that never really happens. IE, it burns dirty. The point is that the propellant mix used in the Russian rockets seem like they produce more hazardous byproduct than the equivalent NATO rockets.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the occasional "blast everything that moves" game.... I just wish they a) didn't make the pretense of being based on reality, and b) there were more realistic alternatives available. Yes, I've played ARMA, it's... ok. The AI and mission design is pretty blah, and they should have just left the ability to drive anything more complex than a Humvee out, but it's ok. In short, I like Brothers in Arms because it's a reasonable semblance of military operations, and I like Halo/ Borderlands/ Fallout 3/ etc because they aren't TRYING to put on airs of realism. However, the recent CoD, MoH, etc games have been a bad mix of real-world units and semi-real premises with super arcade gameplay, and for some reason that just bothers me. I guess when a game designer makes the choice to set a game in a fictional world, anything they do can just be accepted as "the way that world works". I'm the same way with movies, though. I have absolutely no issue watching outlandish Sci-fi flicks or fantasy romps, or some truly ridiculous anime premises, because they make no pretense of being realistic. Historical dramas, though, often leave me cold because they take huge liberties with the history. That said, I still wish there were more decent historical dramas out there.

Huh... I guess Russian rockets burn real dirty, then? Apaches fire large volleys (20+ rockets) from the hover pretty regularly. Good point about the rotor wash effects on FFAR fins. Knew I was forgetting something Again, forward speed has nothing to do with rocket spin; that is imparted by the fins of the rocket and the thrust from the rocket's engines, not from any force imparted by the helicopter itself (well... I guess the additional forward speed would mean more velocity to the rocket and therefore more airflow across the fins, but I suspect the 70-100-ish knots of additional speed are pretty insignificant in comparison to the rocket's peak speed)

I suspect Riptide knew full well where Poland is, but was attempting a joke vis a` vis invasions and "ze Germans."

Yeah, I more or less stopped playing FPS's around the time of Call of Duty 2 or 3, back when it was still WWII. I liked the Brothers in Arms titles, I guess those were technically later. But I realize I've stopped playing FPS because they've migrated away from the CoD2/ BiA/ Rainbow 6 tactical shooters that required teamwork, tactics, use of cover, and fire discipline, into.... interactive action movies. Seriously, they don't even bother putting a "semiautomatic" mode on the rifles anymore, everyone just runs around at a dead sprint, spraying full auto gunfire like it's a fire hose. Take cover? Why bother, when you're harder to hit weaving back and forth at a full sprint, and the physical exertion doesn't affect your aim. Honest, dudes, REAL SOLDIERS can totally shoot full auto headshots while running backward for a half hour straight. Totally! Don't ever worry about running out of ammo, you can always get more from the copious corpes lying around, which you have merely to brush up against- at which point you instantaneously search them, strip them of ammunition, magically transmogrify their 5.45x39mm ammunition into 5.56x45mm, and somehow cram their AK74 magazine into your M4 mag well. Oh, and did I mention you can drop your magazine, secure another from your rig, jam it into your mag well in under 2 seconds (just try this in real life!) Oh, and thankfully your rifle is equipped with a freon cooling system to prevent the barrel from melting into a puddle after the third or fourth straight magazine fired on cyclic. Yes, it just aggravates me. The games allow you to shoot far too accurately on the move, run perpetually without fatigue catching up with you, and the characters run too FAST (their jog is beyond what I would consider a sprint), making it far more difficult to engage running targets than is realistic. In turn, this promotes silly "tactics" involving running around in circles and bunnyhopping while shooting long full-auto bursts, and turns the game into what I refer to as "twitch gaming". Not much fun at all, if you ask me.

As to needing forward movement to impart spin, that's just silly. There are several ways to stabilize a projectile, and both spin and fin stabilization are used in rockets, sometimes in concert. Neither has anything to do with the aircraft moving forward, but are rather imparted by aerodynamic forces from the fins or rocket motors on the aircraft itself. That's like saying a rifle won't put a spin on a bullet unless you're running when you fire it. I really can't speak for rocket exhaust ingestion, though I suppose in a hover, the rotor wash might lead to some. I suspect the real reason firing rockets from a KA-50 in the hover is disadvised are twofold: 1), the KA-50 isn't as stable in a hover as it is in forward flight (particularly in yaw), and therefore won't deliver rockets as accurately, and 2) as a single-seat aircraft, holding a hover occupies most of the pilot's attention, and it's difficult or even dangerous to divide your attention between hovering the aircraft and acquiring/ slewing/ engaging targets simultaneously. That said, you see AH-64s engaging from the hover with rockets all the time. Pretty standard fare for them, and they also use folding fin rockets (the Hydra-70 series). But with two pilots to share the workload and a conventional tail rotor (which theoretically grants more precise yaw control in a hover), it might be easier for the AH-64. I can't recall if AH-1, Mi-28, or any other modern attack helicopters regularly engages with rockets from the hover.

Personally, I think I'd be more interested in the A-4 or F-111, if we're going mid Cold War aircraft. How sexy would a low-altitude supersonic dash penetration in an F-111 be?

I think it means you're supposed to stop crashing into buildings? :smilewink:

Seen it, got it, love it. ...but still waiting for a SEP v2 Abrams *grumble*

either that, or replacing one widget a billion times. In which case, you'll need to buy stock in "Microdyne Widgets, Inc. 5 ohm resistor, type B" :megalol: