maturin

I tried actively locking a Strela-10 with the skhval, and my wingman stubbornly replied 'Negative' to every Attack My Target order. The range and weapons were all optimal. The sim badly needs a way to designate specific targets. So we can attack different ends of a column, make concerted strikes against AAA, etc.

отлично Do I have to have the Shkval actually locked onto the vehicle itself, or can I paint its location with the crosshairs from a distance?

Newbish question here, because I have had trouble getting my AI wingman to do anything but charge over every SAM on the map and die instantly. I have this great long menu of Engage options for him, but most of them are actually pretty useless because they rely on his nonexistent judgement. What is the definition of My Target? How can I set My Target to get him to attack it? Won't Mission and Rejoin just send him after the diamond marker, which ED somehow manages to ALWAYS place on a vehicle having very little to do with my objective (or friendlies). Air Defenses tends to make him go after the scariest SAM out there, rather than the AAA right off his nose. Is there a simple way to designate a ground target for him? I'm sick of only using half of available Kh-29s.

Yeah, I fixed it. I was confused by the bizarre state of affairs where only the High setting allows the engine to draw basic features like trees. I'll reiterate that the land textures for forest should be made darker to imitate trees out past their short draw distance. Depends on the bush. Up close any leafy object has holes in it that can't be seen through from range. And the lower areas near the roots are often thinner. But why do you expect being able to fire from invisibility? This isn't an over-the-shoulder cover-based shooter, to give you that handicap. If he can get shot, so can you. The point was that the AI only sees you if he has line of sight and is looking in your direction. There are ways to break contact and hide. Not unless you're really bad with the AS50, because the vanilla AI is incredibly reluctant to shoot at anything more than 300m away (a completely reasonable shot to make with iron sights). Anyways, you realize how easy it is to turn down AI accuracy, right?

Flaps, no, airbrake, possibly. And it wasn't a nose-up force so much a complete loss of control over the down elevator. The plane was quite stable, and happy to stay in a dive or fly levelly. I only think it wasn't a weird autopilot glitch because it was momentary, and autopilot woes always result in permanent and constant trim changes.

How do you manage a thousand? I usually get the shakes at 800 or lower. And it's a dive issue as much as a speed issue. Autopilot can't explain it when the loss of down elevator is only for the duration of the fast dive, and after using the Alt-3, Alt-9 disengage method.

This? http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/topic/36494-dcs-a-10c-label-mod-single-color/

Sorry, I assume that when forums are worried about mild profanity, they use an autocensor. And BS is something of essential terminology for military-related topics. I'll watch my mouth.

I don't think this is an autopilot issue, but a speed issue. Tends to happen at level flight or at a slight dive. It happens to me occasionally, always when I start an attack run without bleeding off my speed (usually around 500kmh but sometimes a little less). The autopilot has crashed me numerous times, so I am very careful with it now. Bottoming out the throttle allows the nose to drift down to the point where I can use the down elevator again, but its usually too late for my Vikhrs. "At high speeds the Grach-T likes to , counter intuitively, loose lift and pitch authority. I don't have figures to hand but I recognise it instantly. It can be very dangerous in a dive for example, when you pull the stick back you can get a nasty surprise. So If you've trimmed in a high speed dive and next thing you begin to slow down coming off the attack, the nose just loves to Jump back up again." -quote from someone in the other thread

Simplified controls for sure. I would be interested in hearing about the quality of the flight model, however.

The only genuinely turdish behavior I have noticed from the Grach is the occasional refusal to pitch the nose down when (presumably?) thrust is to high, sometimes at speeds as low as 450 or so. Is this a normal part of flight dynamics, or just the Toad being unfriendly? It messes up my attack runs from time to time.

Whoever wrote the gunship AI did a very good job of modeling a pilot who wanted with his whole heart to be Tom Cruise from Top Gun, yet didn't have the grades and got stuck in a Hind instead. What I'm trying to say is, why are these helicopters dogfighting me? When you are advancing along a front, with enemy IR-missile fast movers all over the sky, you're supposed to hug the ground and take out armored targets. In this case, I'm talking about a campaign mission, but it holds up equally well when you generate a mission (and the generator places the gunships at 2000m altitude for some reason). You DON'T take some potshots at the tanks and then climb into the sun to gank the ground attack aircraft who should be about to murder you if you so much as make eye contact. Hellfires should not be shooting down aircraft. I won't call bullshit entirely, because I read that Israel once shot down a Cessna with one, but I do call bullshit on the AI that is so gung ho about taking on jets with them, especially in this gamey environment where THEY have the advantage (range of 8km versus an R-60 of 2km). And once the Mi-24Ds with their Shturm missiles go after me, then I call bullshit in a big way. Do these choppers even have automated targeting FCS? There's no way in hell the gunner can keep a speeding jet manually locked with the laser, not when a momentary error will send the missile out into the wild blue yonder. And what is he doing at 5000m coming after me? Sure, my noobish flying and lack of situational awareness is what got me shot down by a puny little chopper in reality, but only because of the brazen and unexpected decisions the AI makes, doing routinely what would be a tactical abberation in the real world. I have no idea whether ED did any research on the acrobatic abilities of laser-guided AT missiles, but until proven otherwise, I rather doubt they have the air-chasing abilities seen in-game. Taking down a 90mph cessna at level flight is one thing, but heading off a maneuvering jet is another. Tanks don't move that fast.

As I said in the OP, I read that guide and took its advice, but my computer won't let me save the game's config files because I don't have permission. Any advice on that front? I am the administrator already. Real men fly in slow motion.

Dxdiag: Mostly just looking for the standard low end tweaks, as I'm lacking on most points.

I'm on the hunt for more FPS, but there doesn't seem to be much up-to-date info out there. I have been searching around, and but can't find simple answers, such as a clear definition of the Scenes graphics setting. There is at least one tweak guide, but it's for hoary old Black Shark, and I don't even have permission to modify my Config files (can anyone help with that one?) There are several threads on the forums, but I don't want to pick through dozens of pages looking for hints that might not even work with DCS World. So if you would be so kind, post links to any tweak guides I have missed, or share any tricks or mods that are up to date. Finding information on this game is hard when there are so many previous iterations with more distinctive names. Edit: At the moment my game doesn't even draw tree unless I put on high settings, so something is wrong with my understanding of the options.

Diveplane, I installed your options.lua file and it increased my graphis settings from what I already had them set too. Are the visible options the only thing you changed, or are there hidden .ini tweaks in there as well? Also, I'm not sure what to do with this thread as a new DCS World user in search of DCS. What tweaks are standard for low end PCs and which work with DCS World?

ERA on Strykers, wow. Remember all those years of scoffing at such Russian extravagance? One wonders why people worry about collateral damage from ERA when an entire missile is going to be exploding on top of the tank whether the block is there or not. Wasn't Arena developed and deployed long before Trophy, unlike the video's claim? The 'blast only' tech the Israelis use is much better, though.

Damn, pretty soon all AT weapons are going to need to be top-attack. It doesn't seem like ERA or spaced armor would work against EFP.

T90s outnumbering Abrams? You mean in the fantasy land where the US and Russia have equal defense budgets? The T90 is cheaper and outnumbered, and always will be. But I rather suspect Russia's strategists no longer base their development on a massive land war against NATO in Europe anyways. The T-90 will do a great job standing up to the AT weapons of 2nd tier militaries, and polishing off the USSR's own export tanks. The same sort of fight, I might add, which the Abrams faced in the Gulf War. I have never heard of the Abrams ever carrying ERA on anything other than the lower side skirts.

Videogame logic right there. 'Better' is situation-dependent. Suicide bombs are better, cheaper and faster than GBU-12s, plenty of the time. Being cheaper can make things better on a strategic scale, or even tactically if you're facing a hail of countermeasure-resistant Vikhrs that cost 1/5th of a what a Hellfire does. All those RHA estimates that place Western resistances as double that of Russian tanks seem to suggest a wide belief in incredibly secret magic armor. Or maybe the military has been neglectful of them. But that would suggest a less-than-rational decision by the US to match the less-than-rational decisions of the Russians! Peyoteros reacts to your attitudes, not your words. I thought their doctrine was to blame? Shove a conscript force into chaotic urban fighting against skilled opponents trying their utmost to ambush your armor, and you will lose a lot of tanks. The U.S. lost a lot of armored vehicles in Iraqi cities too, without ever facing a situation comparable to Grozny. The only reason we had so much trouble in Fallujah is because so many of the Chechens migrated over to show us the same sort of fight. And I'm not sure how you conclude that an upgrade will be ineffective based on the worst-case-scenario performance of the earlier model. I don't really disagree with your assessment of the facts that much, your post is just full of annoying, slipshod reasoning that isn't making this thread any better. I've never heard any informed source, Russian or otherwise, state that the T-90 has armor as good as the Abrams. Neither have I ever heard anyone say that Russian APFSDS ammo is a good at penetration. On the two basic points of attack and defense, the T-90 is behind, and has to make up ground through add-on solutions like ERA and Shtora.

I have had no crashes, but the diamond markers do tend to get placed on enemies that are irrelevant to the mission. Does anyone know where to find the campaign files? I want to extract them into individual missions.

That's why you don't usually here the pro-T90 people talking about RHA at all, other than invoking the the fast-improving abilities of Russian ERA (they claim it can stop sabot now). The buzz around the T90 is more centered around the countermeasures that for some stupid reason the US doesn't have. Shtora, Arena successors, etc. It has a lot of superior technology on an aging platform.

You're talking to the manic ArmA AI tester. Once you alert the AI, their eyes get incredibly good, but they have to have line of sight. And it almost always takes two shots at 300m because the first alerts them, then they look in the direction of the sound and see you. If you stay completely behind a bush, you can fire entire clips of ammo and they won't know your exact location. And that is very, very confirmed.

That's not remotely true. The Iraqi tanks were dumbed down exports and cheap knockoffs, without proper optics, reactive armor or countermeasures, utterly blinded in the sand storm conditions. And while the Republican Guard had many hardened soldiers, even those who trumpet the glory of the American victory speak at length on the inferior training of the tank crews. I would link an entire book-length study, but Scribd unfortunately just whacked it for copyright, along with the RHA estimate tables (noooooo). I do agree with you that airpower won the war, of course. Just not before the Abrams proved itself. Not against its likely Russian competitors, but in a furious combat environment, and against the best American anti-tank weapons (upgraded sabot and maverick) in friendly fire incidents.

ArmA's trees fade out to LoD pretty fast, which would be just fine and dandy in DCS. Also, once they stop rendering entirely (at like 4000m), the ground texture at that distance mimics the appearance of heavy forest, which is something DCS doesn't do so well. The AI doesn't see through bushes in ArmA, and the LoD at distance tends to hide your from human eyes better than the detailed model up close. But I don't think anyone wants infantry simulator detail; that wouldn't be reasonable. It's just that LOMAC had more trees than DCS.