Shadow KT

You can most probably be able to change the weapon values in the lua files and play SP. You would have research yourself which files you have to edit.

Point Defense, doesn't mean short range. DCS F10/ME circles are not accurate representations, most distinguishable example... the SA-10. You can see that when you fire the Kh-29Ts the Patriot tries to track them, but they are too close too fast to be engaged. Their max launch rate is 6nm, so by the time Patriot reacts it is too late... Either that or it is bugged. You can see it engaged everything else. HARMs, JSOWs, C-802AKG, AGM-88E, etc. That's US point defense Patriot and C-RAM Plenty video online of Patriot intercepting projectiles and failing to do so, as well.

The HE shot from MBTs seems to be the most reliable weapon to kill other MBTs, although there are some difference between the HE of different tanks, where AP will bounce or only damage, or an ATGM will be absorb/only damage, an HE shot will be a one shot kill. Unlike almost all other type of vehicles in DCS (and aircraft for that matter), where HE rounds don't have enough impact on armor, the MBT HE is king, one of the most potent weapons on the ground, it outranges AP and it kills more reliably than both AP and ATGM (Russian ones) By the way, can someone from ED check if the TOW damage works as intended as it seems to outclass any of the russian ATGMs, it one hit kills and penetrates more reliably, even a frontal shot on an Abrams is lethal ? Can't say the same for when firing an ATGM from a T-series tank. MBT HE Damage.trk You can try the same with a T-90 and M1 if you want. There are exceptions, sometimes, but the general performance is captured in the track.

Although it seems like there have been some changes recently, as it no longer one shots T-90s, a T-55 can still pen the front of a T-90 at 2+ KMs and kill it. T-72/80/90 in DCS have very similar armor. T90 Armor.trk

Not just weaker, substantially weaker. They are the equivalent of a balloon filled with propane. 3 track attached. First track shows how a single HE shot from ZSU-57-2 nukes 5 BTR-82s parked next to each other, while doing exactly the same setup against normal BTR-80s, only one is destroyed. Second track shows how you can shoot the 100mm HE-FRAG shell on the BMP-3 (and its chinese copy), into another vehicle and the explosion, will still cause damage to nearby BTR-82s. Third track uses the same 100MM HE-FRAG shell and two shots at a distance between 40 to 60 meters, destroy 5 BTR-82s. BTR82 Armor.trkBTR82 Armor II.trkBTR82 Armor III.trk

T-72B3 is supposed to have the latest generation thermal imaging, yet it cannot spot units at night, unless they are firing at it or around 1KM. Although, all these vehicles I am about to list have different thermal capabilities in real life, they have pretty similar spotting ranges at night in DCS, from 0.9 to 1.4KMs. These include: T-90, T-80, T-72B, T-72B3, T-55, BMP(D)-1/2/3 Meanwhile M1A2, Leopard-2 and Challenger 2 all have a 3.9KM + spotting distance at night. Althoughthese vehicles do have better thermals, than the older russian tech, it is not that much better, especially compared to the T-72B3/90/80. Even the M2A2 Bradley outspots all these vehicles with a spotting distance of around 1.5KMs. Either the NATO MBTs have to be nerfed, or the Russian ones need a buff.... or best, both... as the truth is somewhere in the middle. The British MCV-80, which doesn't even have thermals in game... has a spotting range of 3+ KMs. This creates a different problem. As I mentioned in the beginning, the Russian MBTs can momentarily spot the enemy, when the M1 (for example) are shooting at the... I guess the flash from gun, illuminates them enough. One might say ah... so it isn't that bad ? Well, it is.... as the spots keep dropping an re-appearing. If above a certain range, russian MBTs would want to shoot ATGMs at the hostiles, but for some reason they need 11-12 seconds to "AIM" their shot (why do they need 10+ seconds to aim an ATGM, I don't know). In that time, the spot will drop and the AI will forget where the enemy was, resetting the aiming process. Spot will re-appear as the M1s fire again and the russian MBTs will get stuck in a limbo, not being able to engage. They can return fire, when firing AP, as there is enough spot time to put a shot out, but they are always shooting second and at a slowed down rate of fire, as they reset every time. First two tracks show how a T-55 and T-72B3 (which is supposed to have one of the best thermals, from the variant of vehicles we have in DCS) have roughly the same spotting distance at night of around 1KM, meanwhile the M1A2s can see them from almost 4KMs. Third tracks depicts the flash spotting. T-72B3 AI Night Spotting Distance.trk.T-55 AI Night Spotting Distance.trkRussian AI Night.trk

Alright.... so, units have different spotting capabilities, depending on day/night/illumination. If you have a mission, which starts in Day time, with AI having their full spotting capability and then the mission transitions to night, the AI will retain their previous capability, unless you switch to an external view. Uploading two tracks. With these mission settings, AI loose their ability to spot at around 1900 local, mission time. In one of the tracks... I start at 1800 local, when the AI can still spot and I remain on the F10 map. Accelerate time and reach past 2100 local. Now almost completely dark, I still see the AI spot on the map. I give ROE Weapons Free and they engage their targets. I put them on ROE Hold. Go to F7 view at my units, then return to the F10 map. Couple of seconds pass and boom, AI can no longer spot the target and cannot fire at it, when set to Weapons Free. Second track, same mission... Start at 1800 local. Accelerate time to past 1900 local (Mind you, there is still some light, unlike track 1 where it was almost pitch black). F7 external view to my units, back to the F10 map... boom, AI can no longer see the hostiles. Now imagine you are running this on a dedicated server and you cannot even go to external views to fix it. AI No F7.trk AI F7.trk

You might wanna check your Patriot site, as that is the best point defense blue has. Cool that the Roland and Rapier stopped those Kh-29s, but I am certain the Kh-29 has a humongous RCS values set, so they can pick it up. Try any of the chinese wonder weapons, or even HARM, Harpoons, SLAMs, Mavericks.

Can't take part, but make a video out of it

I completely agree with the consensus that, a huge percent (let's just say 80) of CA issues can be solved with values tweaks and not new features. Armor value tweaks, weapons value tweaks, accuracy tweaks, adding a specific sight, which is already on other vehicles, adding thermals and NVGs to vehicles, which should have them. The other 20% is fixing AI logic and reactions. All that can be done by working on what is already in DCS and honestly... it can probably be squared away in a relatively quick amount of time.

I am just talking from my own experience and I also wouldn't call it a trashing. That's how it feels. There are a lot of small stuff that can be tweaked to make it a better experience. 80% of issues with CA can be fixed that way, with value fixes, which don't need new features. I know some stuff gets reported and some even gets fixed quickly, but a lot of these issues either get ignored, left behind or maybe ED has some secret plans about them, so the posts get left unanswered, which again leaves a negative impression. I know there are other priorities, but honestly... CA has so much potential and it brings so much dynamic to DCS. We don't need CA 2 as some people have suggested. We need the current CA to get its tweaks and fixes. When that is done, new features could be nice. Don't take this as trashing, this is just passion speaking.

There already is a small, but dedicated Combined Arms community in DCS. A lot of ex, or even current army people in it as well (from various nations). I am sure that, working with them, will be the fastest way for you to get up to speed and what is most needed

DCS does lack a lot of units and ED refuses to even tweak already what is in, which is 80% of what Combined Arms needs. Having someone, who is dedicated in creating/fixing/tweaking all ground units and making it official would be amazing. Might as well redo ED's vehicles as well... The current damage model has enough depth for our sim, but it needs a lot of value tweaking, as well as weapon tweaking. If you can agree with ED to do all this, it would be amazing. I am not a fan of the full in-depth ground vehicles. It would be a nice to have thing, but there are many other things, which would need to happen, before this feature has any viability. Cheers.

I just found out that the "Platform Shake" checkmark, found in the Special tab for CA, is first of all... awesome (when disabled) and a second thing, server enforced. It might make vehicles with no stabilizers a bit overperforming, but in general the pros are a lot bigger. The stabilizers on vehicles, which have such... actually stabilize... who would have guessed! Who would have thought, that you can shoot at something when moving faster than 5 MPH... I know, right ? It completely removes this unrealistic and buggy body roll at speed, which all vehicles have. At speed, it just looks like your vehicle is twerking, from side to side, when shake is On. @Alpenwolf

It only has a 2000lbs HE warhead. Seems like twice the explosion of a Mk-84, which would match. At least in terms of DCS standard for explosions.

You can do reproduce with anything that has a stabilizer

When aircraft are put as "Take-off from ground (hot)" and you want them to spawn in a hardened shelter, they are spawned on top of the shelter (or inside with closed doors, when put as AI. Please allows to place our own aircraft and use the shelters. Statics are place inside as well, so it can clearly be done. Even if all shelters are open, it still works for us the players, there is literally no gameplay con to have a shelter open all the time

I am sorry.... I do not understand. As I wrote above... the aircraft does not start to roll, until around 6000 RPM... this is almost 2000 RPM higher, than what the threshold is set at right now. You also have brakes. All we need is a 500-700 RPM bump for the threshold (to around 5000RPM)... so power from the generator is not cut off from the avionics. There is no pressure applied to the wheel chocks... the aircraft cannot move its self, from a stand still, with these engine settings. Where is the danger ? Using the same logic of applying pressure and an unknown "danger", why can the player manage the GPU (Ground Power Unit) at 5000RPM ? And no... please do not break the GPU.

Alright, you can add suppliers to airfield warehouse, but if you are under a specific range and place a static warehouse, you can directly re-arm yourself, from the static warehouse. My question is, what is the maximum range and from where is it measured ?

Bump

Nice. I've edited the original post a bit, to make it clearer.

Why would it be dangerous to remove the wheel chocks, can you elaborate ? Usually, there would be a rope connecting the two chocks ,which hold the wheel in place. The pilot will hold the brakes and a ground crew member would get under the wing and pull them out. He is not effected by the engine intake in any way, if that is what is considered dangerous. It did not used to be this way. This behavior was introduced after a patch and it effected wheels chocks only . Even if you don't hold the brakes, the aircraft DOES NOT start rolling until 5800-6200 RPM. That's with a clean aircraft, full fuel, full guns and 20 C OAT. The aircraft's generator does not kick in until 4300-4500 RPM. The chocks can only be removed under 4100-4000RPM. At the same time, you could remove the ground power even at 5000RPM. If this behavior is intended and going to stay, can we get a logical explanation to it ?

All fine and dandy, but I don't understand what was the point of this comment ? Are you saying that it is in the sim and we just can't do a "proper" stall ? If so, please show us.

This was fixed long time ago... I have not experienced any issues in this regard recently

I agree with the statement for the wobbling during start-up... it feels like it rocks the whole helicopter on its skids and that was not a thing in the past. I reasoned it with multicrew issues or starting on the ground, but it seems like it is present always