mjeh

You could get standalone versions for the models on DVD but not DCS World, AFAIK. Did you try downloading through torrent?

The rift display solution (looking at screen through a bent lens) is supposedly focused to infinity (which in optical terms means focused to 6m and beyond iirc) which means (as far as I know) that it will strain your eyes a lot less than for example looking at a computer monitor at the typical 50-100cm distance.

Well no I did some testing and it seems a ground vehicle can detect infantry at about 1km range. I don't know what the numbers in Detection.lua are related to, then.

From looking at some lua files (specifically Detection.lua in DCS World\Scripts\AI) it seems infantry can be detected from 250 meters max for ground vehicles and 30 meters max from aircraft, if I'm reading it correctly. If this is so then that in effect means infantry is immune to direct attack from AI aircraft

+1

You ask, he answers, you don't believe? There have been a number of promo videos, interviews, podcasts etc where it has been stated (by Matt Wagner, producer) that F-15C and F/A-18C are next from ED.

There are certainly situations where you would want to, though. E.g players using their UH-1s to resupply a FARP to mention just one

I'd say you've got as good as all of those covered in some form or another on a serious IQ test, with the obvious exceptions of cooperative skills. But this must be the third time or so that I contribute to derailing this thread now, sorry OP! I'll go practive my gun runs instead. :)

What if you add another button to your flip-up trigger-guard? This way you don't have to continuously track if it is up, but you can catch the event that it goes up with button X and the event that it goes down with button Y, and you map both buttons X and Y to "Gun select" in the control section. When you lift and lower the trigger-guard you are essentially toggling Gun select on and off, this is the behaviour you're looking for yes? If not then I'm sorry for misunderstanding your problem. Cool project, btw :)

'Set mission options'-tab in the mission editor will (at least it should) enforce these settings for all multiplayer clients (effectively overwriting your personal settings for the duration of the mission). Most people use this method afaik. I'm not sure what happens if you don't enforce them, it seems, as you say, the single player settings (determined in options from main menu) of the player who saved the mission are used. I don't think it is possible for each player to have different settings in a multiplayer mission (I remember one guy trying to play with some newbie friends, he wanted to have sim mode for himself and game mode for his friends. I don't think he managed to find a way)

Spatial awareness, understanding and working with the laws of physics in 3d space, aquiring, filtering, prioritizing and processing information on the fly, working complex systems in stressful situations, cooperative abilities, clarity of communication, situational awareness and replying to the situation with the proper tactic, improvisation. All of these require keenness of mind, I'd say intelligence is the single most important asset of a fighter pilot.

ED did work on an F-16 module some years ago ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=503375&postcount=343 ), I don't know what happened to that. Currently confirmed to be on the horizon from ED (at study sim level) are F-15C, F/A-18C and Su-27SM (FW-190 D9 could be mentioned in this context too, I guess). That said, there has been mention (can't remember where and in what context) that there are certain aircraft that are reserved for possible future development, as in 3rd party developers won't get contracts for those because ED want the option of developing them inhouse. In that light, the lack of third party projects for some aircraft like MiG-29 and especially F-16 is quite interesting! I wouldn't hold my breath for it, though. Firstly this is just (hopeful) speculation, secondly between work on the announced high fidelity models, supporting and updating the current roster, working with 3rd party devs, making a new graphics engine and accompanying new map and releasing a SDK for 3rd party maps I would say ED have their work cut out for them for the next 5 years or more

Absolutely nowhere, we're (I'm) obviously just speculating at this point. The state of Nevada in and of itself is as far as I can see roughly the same size as the current DCS theatre of operations (maybe a little smaller), and I think it would make sense to include parts of the surrounding national parks in Arizona, California, Oregon and Utah. After all, these are huge, diverse and beautiful landscapes with high recognition value (Grand Canyon!!!) and little/ no urban areas = I assume not as fiddly and time consuming to recreate. Judging from some of the interviews Mr Wagner has recently done, a large part of the reason for doing EDGE is that the current TFCSE simply couldn't handle a map of Nevada's size. Although in the context I believe Wagner was talking about the number of objects (Vegas, baby!), IIRC it was also said that EDGE will handle maps that are geographically larger. So yeah, maybe Nevada won't encompass the entire state. Or maybe it will even include some of the surrounding terrain, which is from what I've seen some of the most distinct and beautiful terrain in the US. I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed for the latter, but either way I'm stoked about the new engine and I'm stoked about getting a new playground :)

Yeah, you're right. I've read Hans-Ulrich Rudel's "Stuka pilot" (thoroughly 1000% recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in aircraft btw) and some of the stories in there would make the wildest DCS-stories seem like a sunday drive, and these are real life accounts :) So I suppose it's safe to assume there have been some break-neck heroics going on in modern times aswell. Also, inspired by this discussion I fired up one of my old gunnery practice missions yesterday. It seems my memory was too coloured by early GAU-run experimenting, where more often than not I would resemble swiss cheese after a couple runs. It is true that with some practice you will only ever get hit if you're lazy (improper setup prior to run-in, too shallow dive, lazy egressing), even against multiple tanks. I maintain that BMPs should be treated with signifficantly more respect though :) Oh yeah, I've spent countless hours on youtube looking at GAU-runs, demo flights, gun cams, TVM feeds etc. Watching GAU-runs on youtube was how I got into DCS in the first place (Wags indicated that impact sounds are back in current test build, yay). Thanks for the book recommendation, it will be sitting on my kindle shortly :) 7 seconds?? I don't think I've ever even kept the trigger down for that long in any stage :)

Eheheh, there's just no comedy like reality :megalol:

Ah, well that settles that then :)

Anapa <-> Vaziani is nearly twice as long as Batumi <-> Krasnodar, unless I'm really bad at measuring in the ME? :) But yes, depending on how much area around Nevada (if any) is included, it seems the Nevada theatre will be roughly comparable in geographical size to the current Caucasus theatre

Yeah I agree I exaggerated with the 2 miles figure, at that range you can easily take out lightly armored targets but a tank will clap excitedly at the pretty dirt fountain you're making for him. At least within this sim. Your mission looks good, but I have made a few similar ones myself for GAU-practice :) If you could do that IRL then you would put Rudel himself to shame with your marksmanship and you would have basketball-sized crotch area, which is why I'm saying I don't think it is particularily realistic. The manual skill required, the calm nerves and the complete disregard for the extreme danger makes it unfeasible in my eyes. (It is one thing to violently maneuver an aircraft dodging bullets in a simulator, I would assume it's quite another thing IRL where the forces, impressions, nerves and consequences are very real) EDIT: The reason I'm at all mentioning realism is because of the OP's question, "So my question is: What range do A-10 pilots usually engage armored targets at IRL and what distances do you guys prefer?". That said, I've obviously never flown an A-10 into combat and I don't know anyone that has so what I'm contributing here is just my own opinion based on observations made in the sim.

I don't know, it already delivers what it said it would. It seems to me that many of the issues faced when playing CA now is due to shortcomings in the outdated engine rather than specific to CA, and may be fixed through future updates to DCS World and EDGE.

If we get carrier ops with the F/A-18C then that is an even stronger argument to facelift the caucasus (and include northern shores of turkey, crimea and southern ukraine as mentioned above), with the black sea and all

If it's signifficantly less work than making a whole new theatre, then why not? It is a huge theatre with large variations in terrain types, not to mention the caucasus mountains are stunningly beautiful IRL (the point being they could be ingame aswell with better textures and higher terrain mesh resolution). But of course, if a caucasus facelift takes even close to as much work as making a whole new theatre then I completely agree.

If you enforce F10 view with the "Fog of war" option, then you can only see friendly units and enemy units that are detected by friendlies. How well a friendly unit can detect enemy depends on what sensors it has, the time of day (lighting conditions) and the weather (fog, rain etc). Also, infantry are only detectable at much shorter ranges compared to vehicles. As said above, there are other options. I agree though, there should be levels of information accuracy such as "last seen at position x" or "probably in vicinity of position y"

Not the most interesting landscape I'm sure, but if you want to set up afghan or iraqi scenarios then I believe the nevada terrain is perfect with lots of desert and the sierra nevada range

Depends on the number of enemies, if it's just one tank then you can go very close and go for the 50 round per tank-method. If there are more than one enemy, however, I wouldn't recommend it. Especially not against BMPs :) While it's nice to be able to kill 15 tanks on 1100 GAU-rounds, I don't think it's very realistic because you would be putting yourself and the aircraft in immense risk. Hence the 2 miles range and 1-2 seconds trigger pull

If you have normal eyesight then your visual acuity is much sharper IRL than when looking at a limited resolution, limited LOD computerized representation of the world. Consider then that a fighter pilot is a young, highly fit individual that has been screened to have great vision on both eyes and most likely has not spent 15 years in front of a computer screen ruining his eyesight and becoming near-sighted on one or both eyes. Zooming in on a gun run is not cheating :) The F10 map can (as was mentioned several times) be seen as a simulation of battlefield intel gathered by a myriad of sources and relayed to the pilot. In my opinion, this is more realistic than the notion that a flight of A-10s would be sent in blind over hostile territory to find targets on their own. As for external views, they are unrealistic but you could even see those as a simulation of communicating with fellow pilots/ ground fources/ AWACS/ etc. Use F6 to follow your bomb and see if it hit? That could simulate a radio call from ground forces saying 'Good hit on target!'