DD_Fenrir

Hello fellow DCSer! If you're looking to join a multiplayer squad with: a strict training regimen and attendance criteria ranks, medals and an autocratic hierarchy with an over-inflated sense of elitism and their own importance Then steer well clear of the DangerDogz! We are a relaxed, happy-go-lucky bunch of fellows whose primary goal is enjoyment in combat flight simming and the realisation that that can take many forms. You turn up when you are able to attend - cos real life get's somewhat inconvenient at times - with nothing more than a forum post from the rest of us inquiring as to your health and well being if you're not around for a while. Training is an impromptu affair with some of our experienced guys happy to help out when ever is convenient to you and them. You learn at a pace that suits you and still get to fly combat ops with the squad. Can't fly formation? No worries! Neither can most of the Dogz! Same for AAR - if you wanna learn then we have some guys who can give you pointers, but there a no minimum requirements - save one. Be a decent kind of fellow. Whilst we have a preference for things Western in both jets and props, we have guys who'll climb into anything with wings and there's always someone willing to talk you through the finer points of operating a particular plane, or at the very least is prepared to find out with you. And if it's a Spitfire, P-51, Bf-109, Fw-190, Sabre, A-4, A-10, Tomcat, Hornet or Huey then you'll likely be talking to me and I'm more than happy to do some 1-to-1 training to get you setup and airborne as soon as possible. That's it. We fly DCS 'officially' on Monday & Thursday Night Euro and USA time zone, other nights being dedicated to other contemporary Combat Flight Sims. That said, you'll often find DCSers moonlighting at other times and I for one am always prepared to flout the official schedule for a bit of DCS goodness. We have players from all over the world, with healthy Canadian, US and UK contingents but also an Aussie, some Dutchmen, Germans, Croations, Romanians, Swedes and Norwegians. Whatever time you are able to find in your life to strap into a DCS cockpit, chances are some of our Dogz will be able to join you. Drop by, check us out, and say hello. If you think you and the Dogz might be a good fit then simply say so and we'll get you on the roster and flying along with us in no time. We look forward to hearing from you!

When adjusting the sight all you are doing is moving the horizontal ranging bars to provide a larger or smaller gap to give you some reference to your range; as far as I am aware there is no alteration of the vertical position of the reticle to account for any changes in the ballistic drop based on a change in range. Ultimately I keep it at the convergence setting so that if an opportunity for a sneak attack from a bandits low six presents itself I can know when the best moment to fire is to land most of my rounds in a concentrated spot. At all other times the gunsight settings are practically useless and I ignore them.

From what I understand LPI radars essentially broadcast static but in that white noise certain select and very tight frequencies are encoded and somehow patterned in a way that only the broadcasting emitter can decipher when the signal returns.

Fair point, however... You and I both know that a an ALR-45 is only half the equation when it comes to defining the early A. Ask yourself why were they developing an ALR-45? It clearly seems like there was an assumption at HB, pre-release that F-14A = ALR-45 and F-14B = ALR-67. It's an easy one to make when reading a lot of the general history stuff on the Tomcat. It so often states that the F-14B was delivered with new engines and a better RWR suite, but rarely states that the -As were upgraded to this new RWR also. Besides:

You act like they aren't; maybe it's not on a timescale to your liking but it's on a timescale that keeps them viable as a business. Whose in a better position to determine which workflows will result in a solvent company, Drac, you or them? The early A variants, yes, essentially. The product as initially advertised stated that both the A and B variants we were getting were from the mid-90s. If you brought it then, you are potentially (pending release of the early-As) getting more than was advertised. If you purchased later on the information that the early-As were going to be included in the modules development then, ok, I'll concede you might be disappointed by the timescale, but if you're sole reason for finally buying in is because you have a hard-on for Tomcats with gun gas purge grills rather than part-venturi then: You are a connosieur You therefore have a level of passion, knowledge and understanding that reflects a better than average intellect That level of intelligance should help you appreciate you are part of a minority, a niche, within a niche within a niche It should also help you appreciate that it is highly doubtful whether your little clique of early-A afficianados (most of whom would probably have already purchased the Tomcat, because, well, Tomcat!) suddenly buying in now will come close to cover the further development costs. Ergo, and given that HB has never baulked from being honest about what was initially included, been transparent regards their later intention to include the early As, shown some development progression prior to work on the F-4 and stated repeatedly that work is still happening but other priorities have had to take precedence, well, then you should have the goddamn nous to realise that if you want an early-A so goddamn much then maybe you better let HB make the F-4 to keep their business solvent and take the delay like a goddamn grown-up else you might not get it at all. As relayed above, maybe a handful of additional sales may have resulted with the announcement that the early-A from some uber-blinkered afficiando who'll only fly pre-1985 Tomcats but I'll bet, as stated before most of them would probably have already purchased the Tomcat, because, well, Tomcat! It could be argued that it makes the DCS: F-14 module more attractive to new entrants to DCS, but in the vast majority of cases people are going to be buying Tomcat rather than specifically an early-A. I really don't see a case for it making or breaking the majority of purchase decisions. So no, HB don't get additional revenue for building the early-As, or if they do, it's so small it pales into insignificance. Well they're supposed to care about you apparently, and your opinion. Nice attitude by the way. I'm sure if HB treated you as a customer with the same diffidence you'd be the first to start squealing but apparently it's ok to treat them like lackeys? You paid for and were delivered an advertised product that is still supported and even being improved; it could well be argued that the latter part goes above and beyond any contractural obligations that tie HB to you. Certainly doesn't give anyone the right to make obnoxious demands and talk down to anyone on the development team. And this is just it. Repeatedly, everytime they have been asked, they have stated that either the work is ongoing or that it's been delayed because of the Phantom. The only time I have observed them refraining from reply is when it's clearly some bozo who has just been spamming the forum or discord every other day trying to prove a point and make himself feel like a hero. What the hell else do you want? Deadlines? Why would they tie themslves to a deadline when as previously demonstrated, other revenue earning work would make better use of their man hours? They would then get repeated haranging from the early-A nuts that they didn't meet the deadline, despite the fact that maybe they had higher priority, actually earning $$$ tasks that needed to be achieved. To which I refer you to my previous statements: want an early-A so goddamn much then maybe you better let HB make stuff that will earn them actual money to keep their business solvent and take the delay like a goddamn grown-up else you might not get it at all. Silly me I thought it might be a good thing that in the neverending war against bugs they seem to be winning? It'll never be truly won though; there's always some surprise changes from ED in the underlying game engine code one patch that'll have the potential to break something and require a fix, quick or otherwise. Plus, what about the improvements to missiles and radar fidelity? Not necessarily bugs per se, but times when HB had to assume or interpret data in one way during initial development but then discovered their assumptions or interpretations were erroneous during later life of the module; repeatedly they have gone back at corrected these, and been transparent to the community about it. Not every developer would be so self-effacing. Neither earn direct revenue either, though it does earn you good reputation, that you are a reliable developer who offers ongoing product support and this may help reassure potential customers, but these would be swing voters anyway. Why? Given all of the above, why? You've got to be a pretty petty, blinkered individual to assume that an F-14B(U) module means your early F-14A has suddenly become Heatblur's red headed step child. It's banal, pitchfork wielding, ignorance of the most pathetic variety and this community can do well without it. Get a grip. And again, you have recieved the product as advertised. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to grasp. Bovine excrement and irrelevant. You opted in to early access and got a reduction in the price of purchase for your beta testing. Your choice, you were not obliged, and Heatblur would have every right to thank you but they owe you NOTHING. Indeed, and they are working their way towards that goal, but as has been repeated on multiple occasions but I'll say it again because apparently it needs to be said repeatedly till some of you get it: Want an early-A so goddamn much? Then maybe you better let HB make stuff that will earn them actual money to keep their business solvent and take the delay like a goddamn grown-up else you might not get it at all.

To say I find these demands - and they are demands, delivered with some very churlish and entitled langauge - for the early F-14A most distasteful would be understating things. When the DCS: F-14 was released those years ago, there was no such entity on the menu. HB stated that both the A and B variants we were getting were from the mid-90s, that was it. They had every liberty to say "no further variants, you have what was advertised and paid for, thank you for you custom, we're done." And you would have had to lump it. But they didn't. They have - very graciously IMHO - through there own passion and interest listened to the community and at no extra charge decided to expand the modules perview to encompass these two additional sub-variants, the Iranian spec A and an early US Navy spec A. A new RWR had to be programmed; some cockpit model 3D changes will be required, in both pits; external 3D will require adjusting. You'll expect some appropriate skins as well, which HB generally seem happy to supply. And a butt load of thankless code editing, cos it's DCS. Meanwhile they're developing a DCS: F-4E module from the ground up with some revolutionary feaures; they are also assisting True Grit develop the Eurofighter. These two are the only things that will generate future revenue. You don't deserve to run a business if you don't think these take priority over everything else (save squashing critical bugs on your existing products). Which they do; they are always working on bug fixing the F-14 and Viggen. If it isn't bug fixing it's correcting some misinterpreted systems functionality. There's no direct $$$ in this part save the knowledge that you are a reliable developer who offers ongoing product support helps reassure potential customers for those older modules. Then there's working on Draken and A-6 AI aircraft. They don't get an extra $$$ for working on those things; they weren't even obliged to provide them. They just did it cos they thought it would be cool and help make more immersive scenarios for their products. The fact these have repeatedly been delayed only goes to show that HB have a good business model. I'm sorry, but does this sound like a developer who doesn't give a sh!t? Does this sound like a developer who is only in it to grab your $$$ for minimal return? So here's some advice. By all means ask the status of the early F-14A variants, but by god, have some goddamn deference for some hard working people who are giving you something for free. Some of you have manners that would make a goddamn street hoodlum baulk.

VF-103 of vCVW-17 is looking for new vNaval Aviators & Radar Intercept Officers VF-103 is looking for new Virtual Tomcat Pilots to enhance our ranks. We have a dedicated workup schedule taking the Air Wing from Basic Training, through Strike Fighter Weapons and Tactics into Tailored Ship's Training Availability. Our Naval Aviator Syllabus will first take you through your Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) where you will learn the basics of flying the jet. That is formation flying, tactical formation flying and Carrier Qualification. Aswell as the basics of Laser Guided Bombing, BVR and BFM. After that, the wing transitions into Strike Fighter Weapons and Tactics (SFWT). After the wing has gone through its workup schedule we will deploy to the Mediterranean for our 2025 Cruise. If you are looking for a realistic Naval Aviation experience look no further. Being a Virtual Naval Aviator With VF-103 doesnt just mean you know how to startup, land the plane, shoot missiles, in VF-103 we execute real procedures and tactics to get the most out of the Tomcat. Here you will learn how to lead a plane, a crew, a section, a division or a Strike package into combat and come how with all objectives achieved and all planes accounted for. We debrief every flight, and get better every time we fly. If you enjoy Virtual Naval Aviation and an Organised Air Wing to be a part of, then join us now. We fly as realistically as possible whilst keeping a light-hearted attitude about it. We have a dedicated SNA (Pilot) and SNFO (RIO) Syllabus. You wanna learn how to Really Fly the Tomcat? JOIN US NOW! The RIO is the fundamental element of the Tomcat, whilst the Pilot flies the Plane, the RIO Communicates, Navigates, uses the Radar, fights the Tomcat, builds Situational awareness and so much more. Without a RIO the tomcat is nothing. The RIO is not just the support role in the backseat, he IS the Tomcat. RIOs make or break the plane. A good RIO can compensate for a bad Pilot. A good Pilot cannot compensate for a bad RIO. VF-103 has developed a 9 flight syllabus to teach you the basics of being a RIO. So if you've ever wanted to lead a plane, a crew, a section, a division or a Strike package into combat vCVW-17 is the right place for you. If you enjoy Virtual Naval Aviation and an Organised Air Wing to be a part of, then join us now. We fly as realistically as possible whilst keeping a light-hearted attitude about it. We have a dedicated SNA (Pilot) and SNFO (RIO) Syllabus. We cover everything from Formation flying, CASE I Procedures, to Basic Radar Theory, Advanced Intercepts and BVR Timelines. You wanna learn how to Really Fly the Tomcat? JOIN US NOW! We fly every Tuesday and Thursday at 20:30 CET. Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/kkyWJa7Fey

Combat is whatever is appropriate tactically at any given moment. For launching Sparrows BVR I would recommend being as close to or above Mach 1 as possible, whereas being that fast at the merge could limit your ability to get your nose around fast enough. In that case you really want to be in the vicinity of your corner speed (~320 - 350 KIAS depending on loadout and fuel weight) if your gameplan is to two-circle your opponent. If one-circle is your preferred then you’ll need to be down at ~250 KIAS at entry. For the launch, if you’re flying a case I departure (flying along brc for 7nm at 500 ft) then you get to 300 KIAS as soon as possible and then adjust power accordingly.

In RL lights should be off on deck; you turn them on only to signify ready to launch and turn them off as you taxi out of the landing area once you have successfully trapped.

These are the parameters used by us in VF-103 (part of virtual CVW-17) and have been gleaned from discussions with former Naval Aviators, specifically an ex-Tomcat pilot and former RIO. Bear in mind some procedures could vary slightly from squadron to squadron or changed during the Tomcats 30+ years of service.

Assuming that you are looking for non-combat administrative flying? As a rule, 300KIAS @ 5000lbs/hr fuel flow for climb. Cruise we aim for 350KIAS @ 3500 - 4000lbs/hr. Descent is not really prescribed; if it’s a descent to the boat, the max limiting airspeed is defined by whether you have the hook down and it’s Vne is supposed to be 350 KIAS, though this was regularly exceeded according to aircrew accounts of breaking the deck at 400+ knots.

Likely culprit here is that your particular mission uses the Stennis; all deck crew (including catapult crews) have had to be disabled from the Stennis as this is the only Nimitz class carrier available to non-purchasers of the Supercarrier module and where previously it was possible for module owners and non-owners to use the Stennis, but the catapult crews to appear only for the former, a similar functionality for the deck crew director functions could not be worked out in time for the update, so, for now, nobody - even Supercarrier module owners - will see deck crew of any kind on the Stennis.

H-60 Blackhawk of some description.

In previous patches prior to plane directors if you owned the Supercarrier module, catapult crews would appear on the Stennis as well as the other Supercarrier vessels. If you didn’t own the module the Stennis would allow you to cat and trap in the old pre Supercarrier style with cat hookups and launches performed using key commands

Having just completed a PvE campaign with vCVW-17 on Kola map, one thing that could have added to the diversity of targets would have been Army bridging units; many of our targets were bridges to limit or slow the Russian advance. In reality the Russian forces would have had dedicated bridging units deployed to mitigate the effect of these strikes, and it would have been cool to have Pontoon bridge objects available to place next to these after a period of time to simulate the Russian forces putting these in place. For the PMP from my research it appears that the BMK-130 boat and variations on the KraZ-255 were used. BMK-130: https://mortarinvestments.eu/catalog/item/bmk-130m-russian-boat? KrAZ-255:

That was your take away? Seriously?!? Lucky for us we have your razor sharp perspicacity *rolleyes* The fact that you conflate ED and Heatblur tells me you need more time to process and understand what is being said to you.

As an added bonus, one of our Air Wings Hornets was actually hit and the airframe damaged by the flares during last nights ops, so extra bit o' spice for you guys! Avoid getting shot down In Close!

What a mature and considered opinion. Oh, wait….

Was using Phoenix in my squad's MP session last night. Here's the summary of the engagements, all AIM-54C Mk. 47. MiG-25, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 40nm, Launch altitude: ~35,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.95, 30° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-29, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 38nm, Launch altitude: ~32,000ft, Launch Speed: M1.00, 25° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-29, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 42nm, Launch altitude: ~33,000ft, Launch Speed: M1.00, 25° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-23, Hot @ ~32,000ft; Launch range: 40nm, Launch altitude: ~36,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-23, Hot @ ~32,000ft; Launch range: 44nm, Launch altitude: ~36,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Track extrapolated prior to pitbull. Target survived. MiG-29, Hot @ ~28,000ft; Launch range: 35nm, Launch altitude: ~33,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Track extrapolated prior to pitbull. Target survived. MiG-29, Hot @ ~28,000ft; Launch range: 42nm, Launch altitude: ~35,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Target performed sliceback on missile pitbull. Target survived. MiG-23, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 41nm, Launch altitude: ~32,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-23, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 45nm, Launch altitude: ~35,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Target performed split-S on missile pitbull. Target survived. MiG-25, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 35nm, Launch altitude: ~30,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.95, 30° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-25, Hot @ ~30,000ft; Launch range: 39nm, Launch altitude: ~33,000ft, Launch Speed: M0.90, 30° manual loft. Target cranked on missile pitbull. Destroyed. MiG-29, Cold @ ~8,000ft; Launch range: 9nm, Launch altitude: ~12,000ft, Launch Speed: M1.10, 30° manual loft. Target break turn on missile pitbull. Target survived. That's a 58% Pk. Admittedly this better than it has been some evenings, but just goes to show. My guess is that the reaction of the AI has a very substantial effect on PK; this depends on the AI targets skill and evasion settings. I still believe they are too omniscient when it comes to knowing when they are under attack but also exactly which sector the threat missile is attacking from and can be unrealistically precise in defeating missiles.

Wow. It’s this kind of pig ignorance that reminds me why that the world is as messed up as it is. Nice attitude by the way. I particularly like the way you think this makes you some kind of leet operator and somehow better than everyone, when in reality what’s actually happened is that you have biblically failed to understand some fairly basic and intrinsic properties regarding lenses and field of views. But I guess being “right” and feeling superior to everyone else is more important to you than actually understanding something.

Whilst I agree that for objects outside of the cockpit to be rendered to the "correct" scale requires the in game FoV to match the FoV of your own physical monitor/seating position geometry setup, you are neglecting to account for a critical capability of the human eyeball; peripheral vision. By dismissing "panoramic" views your a denuding yourself of sensor scope of aquisition and hence situational awareness. The fact is a single plate 2D monitor will forever be a compromise in gaming; you are stuck between "soda straw" option to allow true scale of objects outside of your vehicle or a "fisheye" view that allows for the true range of human visual perception, or a compromise between the two. Fortunately DCS allows for cockpit camera FoV to be manipulated by a slider so you can, if you have the appropriate hardware, have access to the entire FoV range and choose what is the best balance for you at any one moment. Ultimately only a high resolution widescreen VR headset and the necessary horsepower to run it will provide both true to life visual scaling and a wide FoV at the same time.

There is. DCS has a locked to vehicle free camera that can be positioned anywhere on the airframe using WASDQE. It’s accessed by Ctrl+F2. For fine control press and hold Ctrl whilst using the WASDQE keys

@NineLine Could we have some news on the units that were slated for inclusion in the WW2 Asset Pack at release but are currently still outstanding some 7 years after proposal? These include: Avro Lancaster Hawker Typhoon Bf 109 G-6 B-24 B-25 B-26

To be honest the entire layout of Deanland is ahistorical in Normandy 2.0, it should look not dissimilar from the other ALGs like Chailey or High Halden:

@MAESTR0 Headcorn airfield is incorrectly named - the airfield you have shown has the layout and positioning of the Advanced Landing Ground known during WW2 as RAF Lashenden. It is in the modern day known as Headcorn airfield, however, during WW2 RAF Headcorn was actually some 3 miles to Northeast: