PFunk1606688187

Oh god, nevermind. My head is breaking. Just call the F-16CJs.

The point was to suggest people were becoming enthralled in semantics when the core of the puzzle is the triangle. I often find that when people discuss concepts in these forums they simply cannot differentiate between the specific mechanics of applying a solution to a given context or tool versus the underlying nature of the solution itself, that is to say they don't see the triangle, they see 4 points in space used to create an X that finds a fifth without realizing that its just a clumsy way of finding a triangle.

The only reason people are using five points is because the device was not designed for it. A line drawn on a paper map would be a line originating from a single point going into infinity and merely not drawn beyond a reasonable necessary length. Where it terminates is not indicative of anything. The solution is three points in a two dimensional space which form a triangle, two sides of which were used to find the point of interest.

This is a very basic technique in map reading called intersection. Any foot soldier before the era of GPS would be very familiar with it. In terms of practical utility, it only makes sense inside of the weirdo bubble of DCS. It would probably also be a lot more intuitive using a map in your lap versus doing this obtuse trickery with the CDU.

My first thought was "What a load of crap, Luftwaffe secret weapon is a Hind?"

You eject.

When you've graduated past whats in the Manual you can find lots of focused topics here. http://www.476vfightergroup.com/forumdisplay.php?43-Tactics-Techniques-and-Procedures These tend to err more on the side of tactics and realistic two ship combat but there's plenty of technical discussions as well that go well beyond the scope of whats in the manual.

A. Second guessing the future of air combat proved to be a horrible mistake once, so they won't be doing that again, at least not with the gun. B. The guns on fighters can easily be used to strafe ground targets since modern militaries are forced to use most modern fighters as multi-role ground pounders as well.

I know they'll look different, but I hope the lighting is one of them, hence my expression of desire that that is something that is improved. I'm identifying one of the many things that could greatly benefit from the new engine and my hope (ie. positive outlook to the future) is that its something that improves with 2.0. Why are you challenging me like this? Its like I'm not unequivocally gushing so I must be suspect.

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say? I haven't seen any videos addressing EDGE at night with other aircraft so I can't say whether they've even addressed lighting at all, or what it looks like in DCS 2.0. I'm expressing a general desire/interest in seeing DCS 2.0 address the issues of aircraft visibility, among other things, at night due to poor lighting in DCS as is. If EDGE addresses this out of the box then I'm already satisfied. As a moderator is it really necessary to CAPS me like that?

I don't think its an if. The current lighting is so out of sync with modern game engines that for them to overhaul things to look amazing as we've seen so far with NTTR and leave the lighting alone would honestly stand out like a sore thumb. I'm pretty sure I've already seen great improvements in EDGE videos with respect to HDR. I can't imagine general lighting isn't something they'll look at. I feel like its got to be a when rather than an if. It goes beyond aesthetics. Its attached to things like objective realism and game performance, two totally separate but infinitely relevant concepts in the general sim genre.

Weapons school badge on his shoulder. This guy is no joker.

I don't think I implied that it was simple or something they've neglected out of aloofness. I just want something thats very very important to night formation flying to work properly and given the crummy way lighting works in DCS as is (such as those cockpit lights that tank your framerate) obviously a major overhaul is in order down the line. I only hope that when that happens, hopefully as a part of the general transition to EDGE, we get the benefit of seeing navigation, formation, and strobes much more easily, as is consistent with real life.

Just so you guys know, as far as I know in DCS, the SA-19 doesn't use radar to guide the missile. As a result none of your countermeasures will do jack. The only solution to a missile launch against you in that case is purely kinematic. EDIT. That reads wrong. The radar is used to guide the missile itself, but is sending commands based on an optical tracking sight. SACLOS.

The entire concept is a non starter. Its been proven time and again that venerable platforms that have matured over the course of decades are far more cost effective and practical to sustain in a budget limited period than pie in the sky new projects.

I just want them to redo lighting so that I can actually see another aircraft easily at night when it has its lights on.

Thats the challenge though, particularly in a CAS scenario. If it were easy to avoid the AAA or SAMs while completing the mission then they'd be totally pointless wouldn't they. There's only so much you can do from medium/high altitude, particularly with thin intel and an airplane that isn't built for doing CAS at high alt. Embrace the danger.

If ED gave me 12X or 15X gyrostabilized binoculars for the A-10C I'd be happier than a hog rolling in shit. I don't need no stinkin' HMD. I don't need no stinkin' TGP. Just binos and a good talk on.

At least misunderstandings lead to more informative debates in this case. ;) Maybe they should avoid overflight of towns and forests as much as possible. Its what I do. *shrug*

No, I think it teaches bad habits to approach the problem of precision with a weapon by stating that the TGP is what provides the precision. The question was "So how do I get the MAV to lock quickly in a low level attack?" and my objection was to the notion that you typically use the TGP to do anything in that regime of flight or that its necessary in order to answer the question of accurate or quickly. The real answer is "Learn to use the Maverick properly in coordination with other data, be it TGP generated SPI, general or specific coordinates in a steer point, visually via landmarks or marking device ie. smoke." Slewing the maverick is its own skill, something that needs to be known outside of using the TGP and if you have a coordinate even within a few hundred meters of a target there's no damned reason you need a TGP generated SPI underneath it to hit it accurately. The point though is not to exclude the TGP, its to understand that it is "just another tool" and not to be seen as the gateway to capability with any given weapon. In the right context it adds a lot but by the same token even in a medium altitude environment its not required for anyone to be proficient and speedy in using any weapon they possess. Even with a TGP in active use in a medium alt scenario that TGP picture can generate SA on the target in a way that lets you slew and fire multiple mavericks against multiple targets which is basically impossible to do if you want a SPI under every chassis you intend to engage. The TGP can augment an attack but the Maverick actually allows for better flexibility, which is lost if you can't do that without the TGP SPI. Situational Awareness is not something that ameliorates someone's inability to use the weapon as designed. So the issue is that you might understand that, but most people who have to ask how to use a Maverick properly do not.

Damn, that movie was an ode to the F/A-18, to the point of ignoring every other damned thing. XD

This is a pretty relevant article. Its an interview with A-10A pilots who deployed to Iraq in '03 using the TGP on one of their Maverick pylons. Clearly whats most important is that this article validates the term soda straw as used by real pilots. http://www.sponauer.com/a-10litening/index.html Short but informative interview.

I don't really understand this notion that A-10s should never ever ever be down low because the last 20 years has created unique situations that see the A-10 function in a permissive environment. Nobody is going onto the other parts of these boards to tell the virtual fighter jocks that its so stupid of them to try and engage in these A2A duels when its obvious that Su-27s have never fought F-15s and instead should purely focus on shooting down Georgian CAS aircraft as per real life. If things in the Crimea go hot tomorrow what do you think those A-10s that just got deployed to Spag are going to do? Did it ever occur to anyone around here that everyone keeps making fundamentally unrealistic scenarios most of the time? Picks Russia as REDFOR. Deploys its forces like a crumbling ex-Warsaw Pact ally. :megalol:

I said OTHER than the F-35. The article says that the Super Hornet is getting something that isn't even budgeted for the F-22 or F-35 yet. Its like hand-me-downs from the 4th gen to the 5th.

Power Glove is awesome with anything.