bmbpdk

I dont know if you have a off day, but you sound a bit annoyed, i could be wrong. It sounds like you have people working only on campaigns and missions, excluding 3rd party campaigns and missions, right? I do not expect campaigns and mission to be updated after every update as you said, and i did not ask for that and i did not imply that. Updates are always welcomed and i dont think anyone would be mad if something broke after a update, as long as it gets the needed attention within reasonably time.

The community have been reporting FC2/3 bugs and issues for some years now, some of them are minor, some of them are game breaking. I thought i would ask, because i was hoping that since the Hornet is very close to "functions complete" state and the Viper is getting some good attention perhaps some resources was planned to be allocated to the said campaigns. Thank you.

Hello all. Does anybody know if the campaigns from FC3 will be updated/corrected? Some of the campaigns are too buggy to play through so i wont waste anymore time if the campaigns wont get any attention bringing them up to date.

As Majik states, RDAF had the Block 1, first airframe was E-174, also, a natural step since we helped develop and build it. I asked the RDAF last year which versions we have in stock at the moment, and the answer was that we have Block 10´s and Block 15´s. The block 10´s can be easily recognised by the black radome.

Yes, F-16 and F-15 was part of the low/high doctrine, but that was more a salespoint for more platforms than what was really needed. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and Belgium was only interested because it was multirole. Look into why it was chosen; it replaced many other platforms requiring multirole from the beginning to be even considered, and in Denmark, it became the only combat aircraft we have, now we have two F-35 that are used at training in the States. You must confuse my statements with someone else, since i did not participate in the SDB discussion directly.

The Danish F-16A´s where, from the very start, from the design stage, form the very beginning meant to be multirole, with multirole being defined as being designed for and effective against both air and ground targets. And i highly doubt that the F-16 would be a success if it wasn meant as a multirole plane from the very beginning. If the Danish F-16A where not meant to be multirole, then, F-16 was the absolutely worst plane we could help develop, build, and operate. If the F-16 was not meant to be a multirole plane from the very beginning, then buying the F-16 would take away any and all fixed wing A/G capability for the RDAF, which i doubt, considering our role in a European WW3. Being multirole from the very beginning, also explains why the YF-16 have dedicated A/G controls in the cockpit. Look at the platforms the F-16 was supposed to replace and that would be another proof that the F-16 was meant for A/G May i ask you from what information you have that argues that the F-16 was never meant to be multirole platform?

HAWG63 Thank you for the link to the publication. Its interesting that they do not mention DEAD (I did a search and only one instance came up, in a different context). And its interesting that they define SEAD as: "Means of SEAD Execution. SEAD operations are accomplished through denial, degradation, destruction, and disruption." The word itself contradict its own definition... I guess that SEAD have different terms depending who you ask, since the books ive read about the subject, the pilots themselves and their squadron clearly differentiate between SEAD and DEAD. Two very different missions and two very different strategies. But im not surprised, i have been in the Royal Danish Army myself for 2½ years with deployment to Iraq, we quickly realised that command beyond battalion level is borderlining couchcommanders and they live in a dreamworld and they are never wrong and should be obeyed blindly... we didn...

Hello Fuelburner. You are asking a VERY broad question. To answer your question i would need the following information: 1: Which platform are you flying? 2: Which airdefence system are you up against? 3: Which munition are you using? 4: Are you a single flight or a whole formation? 5: What are the terrain? These are just a few of the questions someone would need answers to, to just give you a hint on how to defeat a airdefence system. SEAD/DEAD is a combined arms operation, with multiple platform performing their own role in the entire machinery. Escorts, AWACS, shooters, spotters, tankers, EW etc. are all needed to defeat a modern airdefence system with a trained crew. Their are several books about the subject, primarily from 91´ Gulf War and the 73´ October/Yom Kippur war. If you read them, you get a idea of just how complex SEAD/DEAD operations can be and then how difficult, if not impossible, your question is to answer. That being said, try Youtubing "How to defeat xx sam system" and sometimes a rather good video comes up on how to defeat a particular system. But again, that perhaps only apply to that particular scenario under those conditions. Defeating a Tor in flat desert is not comparable to defeating it in a valley, thats why soldiering requires more brain than many people think; you need to re-invent the spoon each time in a different way. Brian.

Hello Sir. Thank you for your reply. Its always interesting to hear from the other end of the products life. Yeah, the uncertain 90´s, they turned many things up side down, and many things changed from day to night, so i fully understand why you chose a different career path. I now understand better why the missions are build as they are, and yes; technical and coding limitations can sometimes change things, i understand. Tonight i will fly mission 4, no doubt it will be interesting and challenging. One thing i must add, is that for the very first time in years, have i actually used the A-10C and its systems as it should be used. Reading the books i mentioned, and real life experience, no plans survives first contact with the enemy, makes adapting and broad knowledge of the A-10C much more vital in your campaign. I quickly realised that i had become complacent with the "Rail-campaigns", standard missions and instant missions, where nothing change outside the ATO, your campaign is a healthy reminder that you need to train, even though its a simulator, you need to train. So the requirement to used othervise "forgotten" functions of the CDU and UFC, OSET, TOT came once again alive with your campaign. Im in no doubt that after completing your campaign, if i dont die :-), i will be a much better Hog driver. Thank you.

Hello all. Ive set myself a goal in 2021, to complete all the campaigns i own, and now is the time for TEW 3.0. SPOILER ALERT! I have the following comments about my experiences so far. Mission 1: Apparently flight did not listen to me when i told them "landing with a three minute interval", for me the mission should have scripted them to hold at the wet waypoint, and then go for landing when told. Mission 2: A: DCS´ Comm´s are to underdeveloped for escort missions; the escort have authority and therefore there should be a "Start" "Stop" command. I have done several escort during my tour in Iraq as a MECHINF, and the escort leader is God, and if you have a problem with the speed or the escort, then find someone else. I have no way of controlling the escort which i need to to be able to control them, at least some kind of checkpoint, lets say at each sector, then you can thoroughly routecheck up ahead. B: I dont know if the campaign makers have ever served on deployments, but the escort NEVER EVER leave the convoy before the convoy is inside "the fence". In this mission i was allowed to leave the convoy while they still had one town, two bridges and 2 roadcrossings to pass. Since ive been the escort and the convoy in real life, i stayed airborne until the convoy was inside "the fence", just leaving them out there was against everything i learned and experienced in real life and against good escorting procedures. Mission 3: The enemy never fired back, never moved, never reacted to our shooting, kinda lame. So far is a very mixed experience. But i love the huge amount of voiceovers, even though "two" seems.... immature..., for the lack of better words. From what i read in the two "Osprey, Combat Aircraft" i have about the A-10 in Afghanistan, the missions seems very realistic and well made.

Weapons development is a symbiosis, a kind of "agreement", between the opposing forces. All military is useless if one have no enemy, no enemy = no point of ones existence, therefore all military have a interest in having a enemy, although a completely controlled enemy, a enemy who dare not to threaten one but one enemy that also slowly advances, so ones reason for being and receive continuos funding is secured. Look through history: When ones enemy is beaten or fades, military funding is dramatically cut back, then a enemy is found or made and voila, billions and billions are released and military development takes giants leaps forward and then becomes powerfull enough to affect politics and choose which hands to "feed" them. And dont forget that anything that can take the stress and workload of a pilot or soldier, and make said more effective, is, depending on how you look at it, money well spend. Some spendings that is in the interest of "national security" and "classified" dont have to be accounted for to the public, opening new doors for many "industries" and "career paths". Its much like the tech industry: Apple needs Android, Intel needs AMD and vice versa, they are fierce enemys, but each one knows that they need each other so they have a reason for further development and funding. Perhaps thats why Microsoft helped out Apple with 150mill USD back when Jobs left Apple. People said it was stupid of Microsoft helping an enemy, but was it really? Ill bet you that Gates got those 150mill back several times by now, one way or another. With the tech industry being so big and every one so addicted to their cellphone, no one cares if 100 million USD in the entire industry goes into private pockets or funding "private projects", and its no different in the defence industry, same wine on new bottles. Never kill your golden goose.

Fun fact: When the RDAF (Royal Danish Air Force) received their first F-16A´s, every coordinate had to entered by hand on the ICP, including every FREQ to every channel, every TACAN, every ILS and so forth. With the F-16AM they have a data cartridge making that job much much easier. Source: The book "F-16, på vingerne med danske jagerpiloter" ISBN 9788711917855 Personally i dont mind having to manually enter coordinates, i have always admired maps, compas and the coordinates system (Primarily the MGRS system).

Arh ok, thank you for noticing me

The ATC also calls it "28", so its must be the markings thats wrong. https://ibb.co/1LST8vr https://ibb.co/wQhV3G9

Hello Cantankerous. Have you tried the training missions? They are well made and highly recommended and often they explain everything you need.

Hello. A few minutes after take off, "45" keeps reporting "Passed waypoint x". He reports it continously in rapid succession, and i stopped him (Exit to desktop) when he reached waypoint 22. I have tried without any mod but no change. Im running the mission in the newest Open Beta, as of 3. june. Those old FC campaigns are great fun but needs massive overhauls, since many of them are broken beyond playability (Which i fully understand taking their age in consideration). Thanks. Brian.

Hello Sir. How is this project going? Im very interested in the throttle. Brian.

Do you have the frenchpack mod installed? If so either delete it or update it to the newest version. If that does not help, sorry.

Thank you, that did it for me!

It seems that we disagree on some points, but that is only healthy for us all. I fully agree that he Sea Harrier is often overlooked with the more "fancy" jets getting all the credit and limelight. Let us all hope that in the future DCS will be more diverse, ie. less know modules such as the Sea Harrier and Sea King, logistics, infrastructure will get more attention, be it from official partners or private/mods. The Falklands map could open the door for such mods.

The argentine army on Falklands was mostly forced conscripts, the British professional soldiers including SAS and SBS. The UK worked closely with the US which gave them intelligence, the British, allthough not AEW, had plenty of warnings from aircraft carriers and their support. I would bet you that any captain and crew of HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes would be offended to be called "small carriers". No doubt that many Argentinians, army, navy and airforce where brave soldiers, but as many books says, written by the pilots and soldiers themselfes, they said that they had no choice; either go in when ordered or be courtmartialed. The Falklands campaign was a VERY coordinated campaign between the Marines, RAF and Navy. In war you just dont "do" something just because, you coordinate, combined arms response. When where there a realistic threat of a Harrier being outnumbered 10 - 1? Is that just numbers vs numbers or where there actually a scenario and place where the argentinians had literally ten times as many planes in the air as RN Harriers?

Tables and "Top Tens" like that are useless, the pilot, his training and tactics deployed and sometimes old fashion luck, have a much bigger impact than platform specs. And dont forget that every single platform performance and capabilities are based on perfect scenarios, perfect weather, lift, thrust, weapons delivery envelopes and so forth. You should read up on every single scenario that are used in that table, eg: NATO/west never ever goes into a war if they arent massively outnumbering and outteching the enemy, they love "spamming" and NEVER goes 1-1 with the enemy, was it 500 planes that took of 17. january ´91 against a bombed out, wartorn through 11 years (counting Iran-Iraq war), international embargos and almost bankrupt country. Oh, and read up on Operation Allied Force, that bombardment showed just how overhyped and arrogant NATO had become, which mean they failed hard at destroying serbian AD. Weather, mountains, an enemy not playing by NATO rules and a very skilled air defence force apparently surprised NATO planners. NATO planned for a three day air campaign, after 78 days, all they got was: United States Joint Chiefs of Staff quote: "Degraded, but functional", "...significant capability to engage with SAM´s" end of quote, book "Air defence artillery in combat 1972 to the present ISBN 1526762048. After the war only 23 vehicles could be confirmed destroyed if i remember correct. 90/91 gulf war is overadvertised because it was the perfect scenario for the coalition, and was a "perfect storm", for the lack of a better word. And if you read up on how Israel wages war, they rely heavily on jamming, deception and EW, which raises the odds for their forces, so its not the platform itself, its every single weapon, soldier, piece of electronic etc that makes the outcome. No doubt that western and now Russian technology gives them an edge, but relying on it instead of "stick and rudder" abilities in the pilot, makes you very vulnerable and in the end "stupid". If you dictate which theater, which scenario, which fight to base your "research" on, they you have dictated a biased results that in the end, have no value. Its my believe that its impossible to find "Most successful", "Most dangerous", "Best plane/helicopter/tank/ship/cannon etc" in the world, there are so many variables that its every little bit, in each situation that makes the outcome, not a single variable. Im sorry if this sounded like a rant or anything like that, it wasn my intention. I can only recommend you to NOT rely or put to much weight on those stat-charts. I can highly recommend you to buy books that are either written by the pilots themselfes or from a highly unbiased and objective sources. Take care Brian

Good to hear buddy. Remember that RGB gives 1 fps per LED #fact Does DCS take advantage of crossfire and if, are the load equal among the two cards?

Define "Most successful". In-service numbers, number of operators, air-to-air kills, air-to-ground-kills, kills in total, loss vs kills ratio, most variants, most diverse roles of one single variant/type/family, longest service life, most value for money, etc. Without a clear definition, the "most successful" phrase have no value and cannot be answered. And if the amount of kills is the determining factor; which source are to be believed? USAF, NATO, Russia, Janes, Aviation magazines? And who is to determine "most successful"? Discovery channel, History channel, some youtube "expert", wikipedia? Your question is a very deep one, that cannot, with any value at all, be answered just as a hip shot, it takes research and clear definitions that is not affected by politics, religion, culture or "side".

Hello BigNewy, thanks for taking time to look at my report. You press and hold before release while i just pickle for roughly 0.5 seconds, dont know if that would make any difference. In my track you can clearly see the the "pickle-blinking" with the pipper directly on the target, yet the bomb falls long.