DD_Fenrir

And it's been said that ultra low-level navigation is no walk in the park; sure DCS has a host of gaming assists that users can use to render the navigator superfluous, but for those of us who wish to fly as authentic as possible a good nav can - and will - be an essential asset in not only navigating around those areas full of nasty things that could very well snuff your virtual life from it's virtual existence, but also getting you to the right spot to drop your bombs at the right time, whilst they concentrate on dodging topiary and architecture. You tried map reading and correcting navigation errors or wind drift whilst also flying at 50ft? The one thing that most DCS flyers don't tend to worry about is Time on Target; you go out, dice with some Air Defences, blow something up and go home. In reality, military missions are often coordinated so as to saturate or distract Air Defences and Time on Target is a critical parameter to ensure the strikers are able to exploit a window of opportunity.

Correction: all of the units with 400 numbers were Commonwealth, in the RAF.

I fail to see what the point of yet another one of these discussions is. A whole host of the community would love to see high fidelity Non-western hemisphere aircraft, both as operator and adversary. But how many times do ED have to say their hands are tied? Given the demand from the community do people actually think ED deliberately choose not to develop modules that would clearly sell? Do people actually believe this lack of Redfor HF DCS module arises out of some spite or bias?

Gents, this has been associated to missions created in a legacy version of the game - apparently if you have access to the mission where this occurs, simply open it and resave in the latest game version to mitigate this issue. This comes from Nineline via Discord. If you're reliant on Multiplayer missions hosted by others then try and contact the relevant hosts to bring this issue to light.

... or people are just getting on and playing DCS WW2 content whilst patiently awaiting further developments and fixes without histrionics or hyperbole. ... or it's summer in the Northern hemisphere and many are spending their time on holiday in the sunshine with family and not skulking internet forums. Of course it could be the death rattle of the DCS WW2 community but I suspect that might be a mildly melodramatic conclusion to race to.

Wow. I love how sure he is that he's right! That's just funny. Guess he knows more than someone who's actually flown a the F-14 AND fired the gun...

The "Zoom is Unrealistic!" argument again... *shakes head* Lets say a 24" screen. Given the recommended distance a monitor of from user for that size, super-impose that set-upon a cockpit and in most cases you'll be lucky to see more than the HUD of most of the aircraft in DCS. If you want to fly around locked in such a soda straw view then be my guest, I look forward to dogfighting you in multiplayer as your WVR SA will be horrrendous. Short version; having no peripheral vision is as unrealistic as having super soda straw telescopic view. Having both wide and narrow FoVs imitate the eyes ability to have focused clarity and a wide field of view at the same time ... just in DCS you can only have one, the other or a compromise between the two at any time.

Probably nothing. Could have been as simple as asking permission from Deka to use their JF-17 3D model in an advertisement for Heatblur/TrueGrit.

Give it a rest chum. A line has been drawn in the sand because it has to be. If you don’t like it, tough. Dealing with situations that don’t always go your way is called being an adult. I suggest you start trying.

Petty. Bull.

Ok fair enough, this isn't something I've had first hand experience of as our squad tends towards PvE in smaller numbers; if ED have acknowledged your particular issue then I'll stand down, but I suspect some of those jumping on this particular bandwagon would be well versed to heed my response to Kapa before assuming that getting threat warnings from a radar that is engaging a different aircraft is automatically a bug.

1. Side lobe - Wikipedia - this means you don't even have to be within the localised azimuth of an engaged target for your RWR to pick up signals that it could interpret as threat. 2. Outgoing radar energy travels far further than you'd expect. A radars output energy has to take the inverse square law into consideration. It's got to push out a signal than will weaken by the power -squared every time the distance doubles, and still have useful signal to noise ratio left for it's receivers to pick-up. You could be twice as far (or even further depending on how sensitive your RWR is) from a threat radar as the target it is engaging is and still pick-up a threat warning. Look at it this way. It's night, and you are being hunted by a man with a flashlight - it may seem like he has the advantage but you can detect his torch beam at far greater range than his light beam can reflect a useful amount of light from you into his eyes. 3. To quote Cobra847 of Heatblur: All this means that just because you are not the engaged target doesn't mean that your RWR cannot detect the emissions and identify them as a threat. Some peeps got far too comfortable with the (inaccurate) RWR behaviour from FC3 generation aircraft. The reality is far less clean cut.

Some here need to do some research on how radars and RWRs actually work….

For those wishing to recreate the operation, here follows the secret planning signal for the raid as sent by No 2 Group. I have highlighted the more pertinent navigation and attack run details.

Still unresolved: 1. Hangars on the Allied ALGs 2. Incorrect orientation of ALG B-3 St Croix-sur-mer 3. Chain link fencing and guard towers around Allied ALGs Could you at least, Ugra, have the manners to say if you will attend to these issues and if not, why?

Most did not have FFB on initial E/A however... though it has come later prior to coming out of Beta.

You're clearly not familiar with carpentry... There's a huge amount in wooden airframe construction that is still common to metal; they are still modular in their construction, there are ribs and spars and the skin can't be one big, piece, it is still broken into panels for maintenance access. Patching would be done in a similar way to metal, but with the added benefit that glue could be used, either to reinforce or even in lieu of rivets/screws. The photo you reference shows some significant headaches, sure (as would a metal airframe), but is nowhere near as much of a write of as you would make out.

Good point, I was thinking in regards to speed changes in a conventional aircraft... However, in this specific case, regards holding formation, as long as all pilots hold their position on their leader, if he holds stick position and allows turnrate to drop as CL moves aft rather than adjust the control column to maintain turnrate, it should not matter... the nett result would be the same.

Bear in mind that IRL only the stick forces change not the stick position...

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. However, there was a contingent round these here parts who seemed to think that simply the very act of them being in a fighter aircraft should cause the Phoenix to miss them, and were quite incensed that it refused to adhere to this unassailable logic; it is to them and any other neophyte to DCS, the Tomcat or any aircraft obliged to face it in virtual combat that this thread is addressed.

No going round again required; given the purpose of the VX4/9 squadrons anybody who listens to that and still has a contrary argument... ? Well, 'nuff said. Should be in the right place, but 1:33:22 is the spot it should start....

Eric "TUNA" Martins, ex-Tomcat RIO and Air Test and Evaluation Squadron pilot with VX-4 and VX-9 says different: Here's hoping this puts those cross-eyed & ranting members of the anti-phoenix brigade in their place...