PFunk1606688187

I'm fairly certain that "hot refueling" and rearming is very much possible. In a hot combat zone where you need a fast turn around having to shut down engines and then go through all the checks and then the same checks to turn them back on would be arduous.

TGP is not good for scanning wide areas. It is only really effective locating targets in small focused zones that are preregistered as having something in it. You should be using your eyes. Use Num* and Num/, map those to something on your stick, and consider increasing the max zoom by editing some file that I forget the name of. In general this would be considered akin to using gyro-stabilized binoculars up to a zoom something in the range of 10x to 14x, which were actually used in combat by real pilots in A-10s. TGP is a limited tool. Best not to kill your SA by staring into it.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109174 Zing.

This is why in my Arma clan the newbies are mostly forced to use iron sights in stead of ACOGs. Its not because ACOGs are bad or for pussies. Its because people who are over reliant on their scopes for augmenting their SA never learn to have their heads on a swivel. I find its easier to promote a good battlefield awareness by keeping them zoomed out because their field of view is wider so they notice things happening around them. Once that habit is there great, have a scope. I feel the exact same way about the TGP and deliveries that are heavily reliant on it. As for CCRP and dumb bombs, isn't there a scuttlebutt around right now about how it doesn't accurately account for the wind in game?

I suppose once we're in Nevada we can at least role play that it makes sense. :music_whistling:

No mainly its because some people are utterly incapable of using CCIP and never learn to manage their kite correctly because the CCRP system is immensely forgiving. If anything using CCRP plus Mavericks exclusively guarantees somebody considers the state of their aircraft far less than somebody who tries to problem solve with more dynamic tools like CCIP. People who are overly reliant on CCRP are also huge TGP whores. They stare through this narrow soda straw the whole time, obsessed with mark points and using B/W HOT to find stuff and end up with shit SA as a result. Its one thing if the JTAC is a computer and gives you perfect grids, but finding stuff when a human is describing it and doesn't know to read out LatLong correctly so you end up having to go by cockpit visuals is another altogether. While I have no clue what current doctrine is, I would imagine CCIP and CCRP have equal value depending on the situation. Using CCRP when doing a pop up attack from 300 feet above the ground would certainly be interesting. Obviously we're here just to have fun, but even in real life a prolonged hot war could deplete the stocks of PGMs, or a conflict with softer "collateral" factors could lead to less worry about using unguided ordnance when its less essential. Ultimately the art of delivery is always practiced in its BALLSIEST manner so that they know what they're doing. I can only hope that the F-35 won't make dive bombing obsolete entirely. :P

Yea see I missed the one sentence that described that. I did read this however: Because that confused me. :P I guess in retrospect it looks like they're talking about having a separate .exe.

I don't understand why the possiblity of having the separate time periods mingling is impossible while still allowing for suspension of disbelief to remain? Shouldn't it really be just as simple as having a way to tell the mission editor to segregate the resources between those things branded "WW2" and those things branded "everything modern" and then have the option to flip a switch and have them mingle? I mean honestly people. You see airshows where modern birds fly with WW2 birds. Unless I'm reading this wrong, are we seriously looking at a DCS WW2 product that will barre me from doing a Republic heritage flight with a P-47 in formation with an A-10? Please tell me I misinterpreted the scope of what luthier said.

I don't see what exactly they could do for multiplayer. The existing multiplayer is heavily hamstrung by our lack of dedicated server code so its pretty hard for them to do anything with it anyway because that's ED's sphere. Besides, strong single player is whats really weak in DCS. What exactly is multiplayer in most flight sims but a bunch of people in the same server flying together?

Np. ;)

Well I do want to know either way. Not only does knowing whats been fixed specifically help understand changes that are being made or considered, but it also helps me understand how the systems are meant to function in detail. I know there are issues with the SAS and rudder. I don't know what would be wrong with the EAC though. Please, indulge me.:)

This is why ED patch notes annoy the hell out of me. What exactly was fixed and what was the problem?

These awards are handed out for a variety of reasons, but quite often its not going to go to the best candidate. Fact is that games like DCS are just not mainstream enough to be considered most likely. They're not part of "the club". Look at the comment about a Playstation 4 launch. Thats the key right there. Its accessible across multiple platforms and targets a broader audience. Its just like the grammies. Its not about the quality of the thing, its about its mainstream success and frankly there isn't a more successful flight sim out there these days, even if 90% of the game couldn't be considered "sim like". That said, free for all fur balls are still generally speaking what I see the vast majority of IL-2 online being so in that sense War Thunder isn't much different. In fact when I first played it I thought that they'd just literally stolen the Maddox code and written a new matchmaking software. :P

Because once its in an update it enters the stream and it becomes common knowledge accessible to everyone, instead of the usual 100% conjecture people use otherwise. Wagsday threads were useful for analysis and commentary of what was posted, if only they'd been posted after the news thread. No doubt many people didn't ever bother reading the actual update but instead read a lot of what was being said about it. Either way the info is reaching them.

What is this, some new age modern parenting "Don't inhibit them" experiment? I think moderation of the crankier people on these forums has been lacking. I'm not usually one for wanting a heavy handed moderation team, but frankly if the whining and the bitching is what makes the news stop then it should have been targeted for moderation. If its not worth moderating but is aggravating enough to cancel public information on this level then I don't know how you can explain those priorities. Yet again I feel utterly nonplussed by the absurd decision to punish the bulk of the community for the behavior of a handful of trolls. Here's how my relationship with DCS works. I play it, get tired of it, take a break of many months, come back to try out new patches, and overall enjoy stuff I'm not sick of anymore. In those periods when I don't play DCS I tend not to look at the forums. With wagsday I had a reason to stay connected, to keep excited about things, and observe the evolution of DCS World. As it stands patch notes are ridiculously poor and explain nothing most of the time unless you were reading a particular user thread about the issue weeks or months earlier. I suspect once I take my next DCS break I'm going to not be here for a while because there's no reason to read these boards if info is gonna be so tight. "How's the future looking?" "No idea, they're punishing us for acting like the internet" "oh, so what you gonna do now?" "Ignore the forums and the game because when I come back 2 or 3 patches later it'll be at least exciting for 5 minutes while I read the patch notes" "neat" :doh:

I've read about bombs being accidentally dropped in circumstances that defy reason, ie. the bomb shouldn't drop under the circumstances it did, but it did nonetheless. Could be a malfunction. In fact, I can't think of how else to explain it, other than the ground crew failed to secure it correctly.

Nothing much for me to add here other than using expert AI that will eviscerate your aircraft at ranges far in excess of what would occur in real life doesn't seem like something you would want in your mission, unless you enjoy apocryphal challenges of course. I play high fidelity sims to attempt a recreation of real life within the context of the sim. To me, having to fly an A-10 using a tactic that would never be considered against that target in real life defeats the purpose of a full stop simulation, for me anyway. Using maverick pop up attacks to take out Buk track radar before it can shoot me down is a hoot, but its not something I'd consider authentic, neither is being forced to engage IFVs at ranges I'd only use to put HEI onto Taliban. But hey, that's just me.

I don't wanna tell anybody how to do their jobs, but this seems like it should fall under normal run of the mill moderator duties. If the mods REALLY felt it was a problem they could just close every one of them that was begun prematurely, and people would get the message rather quickly, or just get their threads closed.

Yea that video is pretty unmistakable. Whats really convincing is the fact that the second bomb landed exactly the same distance right of the target as the first. If you were a sniper that'd be the start to a pretty decent grouping.... :doh: I really do want a tester to comment on this. Did the recent patch to LASTE effectively ruin unguided CCIP delivery?

So the **** what? Its the internet. I am always astounded when people react to these trollish people. Anybody who's ever spent time on the internet for more than a few days knows that there are those who make a stink, and those who don't, and the ones who don't are barely noticeable. If someone posts a positive comment he represents probably less than 10% of the well wishers, while the loud obnoxious twats who go on and on about anything and everything are the minority who love to bang away and make themselves feel important. Its just not fair that those people get to define the PR policies of a company. Its not fair and I don't understand or forgive them. Its idiotic. If there's no need for news, then just post an abbreviated update with little to nothing in it. Fact is that people get really excited for wagsday for a reason. ED is pathologically crap at making us feel like there's something happening most of the time. People are going to be grumps either way, but those of us who are nice and friendly and constructive are going to suffer because we didn't post enough positive commentary to offset the deluge of self indulgent nonsense the tards throw at us. Its very very noticeable. :megalol:

I doubt the A-10 would ever get tasked to take out intact bunkers anyway. Assuming something important is in there, the air defenses alone would call for either a SEAD package or something very stealthy to make the hit, like it happened in all the last wars that involved bunker busters, I'm pretty sure. B-2 has to serve some purpose, and this would probably be it.

The neat thing is when you slave a force correlated Maverick to your SPI then slave the TGP to the Maverick. Its like having a sniper rifle all of a sudden.

From a purely fun oriented perspective, PGMs are boring as all hell after the first few dozen. Oh look, I dropped a JDAM, I feel so satisfied. :cry: If you can drop a ripple of Mk-82s and hit what you mean to hit without flying into your own frag pattern, without being shot to pieces while doing it, and without over-Ging your aircraft on the escape maneuver... well I'd rank that amongst the most satisfying feelings DCS: A-10C gives me. Compared to that JDAMs feel like I'm in game mode.

Well the thing about following through is that he's basically in the single most dangerous position he could possibly be in when he releases the trigger. He's low, but not slow hopefully, he's been flying in a straight line for longer than most fighter pilots in a combat zone would probably advise, and he's on a collision course with confirmed enemy targets. If he releases the trigger at 0.5-0.4 nm from the ground that means he's only 2500 feet from the ground. At 325 knots thats 548 feet per second meaning he has a little under 5 seconds before he hits the ground, and thats assuming no further acceleration. So between potential enemy fire and ground collision, lemme ask... would you follow through? That isn't to say I'm not wrong... but logically. I dunno... :P

The GAU is so accurate at the correct range that so long as the pipper is on the target you will hit it. Whether those hits grant a kill is entirely a matter of whether you set up your run to hit the correct side of the target, ie. not trying to shoot a T-72's frontal armour. I find that trying to spot rounds just distracts me from executing a safe escape maneuver. Its pretty obvious on pull out though, if you can snag a peek, whether he's dead or not.