maturin

Has any A-10 pilot ever fired his GAU-8 at a modern MBT on a battlefield without air superiority and neutered anti-air? Closest you can get is the Gulf War against T-72s. The fact is the GAU-8 can only penetrate the weak points of an even old (T-62) tanks, which is mostly what I was referring to. The tactical consequences for that are open to debate, but it seems logical that a top attack (unless the tank lets you approach it from the rear) means taking your plane off the dock and exposing it to all sorts of fire. In what world does 500-1000m qualify as stand-off? It's within the engagement envelope of every heavy weapon ever. Even in this sim, people talk about requiring that sort of range to take out MBTs because of accuracy and because the API loses penetration power over distance.

Because, err, the A-10 is only a single plane, and this is the DCS world forum. Russian aircraft and choppers carry huge amounts of dumb rockets, and they almost all have shaped charge variants that are very common. The SU-25T is still rare, and the former variant will go after armored vehicles (not necessarily MBTs) with FFARs a whole lot. Secondly, it's not terribly realistic to be killing MBTs with the GAU-8 either, since A-10s have to stick with Mavericks in an AO with any AAA to speak of. Without a vulnerable high angle attack run, you can't take reliably take out a modern tank.

Does DCS even model that? The only option seems to be fiery explosion or untouched tank. Heck, no. From a ground attack perspective (aka, the entirety of A10C and Su-25T), realistic attacks on armor is vital. The simulator should punish having the wrong weapons, especially now that Combined Arms is out. One of my favorite things about DCS is how detailed the ground units are. Speaking as a diehard ArmA player (I WTFed at the suggestion to makes DCS more like ArmA, by the way), the armor and penetration system in DCS is more realistic than its vanilla ArmA counterpart. RHA estimates, go!

Shaped charged rockets had no splash damage against armor in LOMAC, so maybe the HE rocket near misses gradually damage the tank until it blows up. Realistically, you should need a very high caliber explosive to damage a tank without a proper AT warhead.

The workaround is so simple that a fix for this issue must be child's play. They've already found the cause of the dud Vikhrs too.

BS=Black Shark? I only have DCS World.

The issue here is that Vikhrs and only Vikhrs have a cooldown inbetween launches, regardless of whether a missile is already in the air. Restarting the laser fixes the problem.

I'll spell it out. 1) Fire a missile 2) The missile loses guidance because of bad firing procedure or known glitch and hits the ground 3) Laser remains on, yet there is no launch authorization for second Vikhr until you wait several seconds, or restart the laser

That doesn't make sense. My laser can stay on for multiple minutes while I target something with a Kh-29. What it can't do is fire a set of Vikhrs, have them dive straight into the ground because of that (RAGERAGERAGE) glitch, and then fire another pair. It has to wait a good ten or fifteen seconds before the next launch, unless I restart it.

I do not have Track IR and a I quite dislike this feature.

lol. Now that's the kind of off topic posts we want to see here.

I noticed that in SP too. Maybe the Elint pod just tracks their last known position through the terrain? But the RWR really should go dark. And the audio alarms seem quite unreliable on the T-toad.

They were probably turning off their radars as well, something that the AI can't do. Imagine the difference that would make in DCS.

Thanks all. SEAD is a blast, although the sites aren't very aggressive, not opening fire on my until the Kh-58s are already in the air. And do they ever turn off their radar (seems like it should be an option in Combined Arms)?

Alright, cool, I found the S-300 template... and promptly deleted by hitting the red X button accidentally. In a case of non-idiot-proof design brilliance, this deleted the template for the entire game without a prompt. So same question over again... anyone know what's in a S-300 site so I can re-do the template? A mission with one would do as well.

For sure the Tunguska can take down Kh-58s (in DCS) reliably. Are those bigger than HAARMs?

I assume that FC3 is going to keep the same terrain. In order to keep the terrain quality up to ED's high standards, there are some changes which are necessary to make, if you purport to model the Caucasus. #1: You need braid streams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braided_river Almost all rivers in Georgia, for the upper half of their drainage network, take this geological form, which is quite distinctive. In spring, snow melt makes the small winding channels into a single torrent, but in other seasons the river bed is choked with stone or sand, breaking the water up into thin little channels. #2: Suburban village and urban (think Tbilisi) architecture. The Caucasus is much more residential and less developed than the urban Kuban or Crimea. Currently, DCS models only Soviet-style settlements well, but the Caucasus has its own styles of construction. Currently, Tbilisi looks all wrong, as do many mountain villages, which are too industrial.

One thing that DCS is missing from old LOMAC is pre-made ground unit groups. It used to a work of seconds to slap down an entire S-300 SAM site. Now it takes a lot of fiddling with the editor, and more importantly I have no idea how many tubes etc there are supposed to be. Does anyone know where to find some template or list of units in various SAM setups, like Patriot, Buk, etc?

I experience those issues with a built-in keyboard.

You have to press record in order to get a track, right? Or does it do it after every mission?

It happens to me in SP, and although I haven't watched the track, it seems like the exact same issue. Correct autopilot disengage procedure, lights off, loss of (one-way) elevator control in a fastish dive.

You could cache ground units fairly easily and have the whole world populated with tanks that only render and take up 3D positions when you fly close, but you wouldn't be able to have battles taking place on the other side of the map.

You can load Hellfires on it, too.

Then maybe the simulation should learn some things from PC gaming. The graphics are nowhere near good enough to justify requiring a 2GB video card. Half the time the game renders nothing but flat textures on a heightmap and little dots for aircraft. Luckily, the game runs just fine with graphics cards considerably weaker than that, so you're just in this thread being useless as all hell.

I'm not that thick. He had Kh-29s and Vikhrs for taking out AAA. I got it to work once. I think he has to see the target on his own, rather than flying to the designated point and attacking whatever's there. Problem being that he tends to see things when they are less than 10km away. There needs to be some way to call out targets, or visualize what your wingman knows about.