AndyJWest

Given its current limitations, I think it was a serious mistake to add the 'save' option to the menu by default. People who don't obsessively read the forums etc are going to use it, find that it doesn't work remotely they expect, and assume it is bugged. This forum, along with Steam and Reddit, is going to be swamped with 'bug reports' and complaints. The 'save' option should have been added as an option, to be turned on at the players own risk, and clearly marked 'work in progress'. It is also a very bad idea to offer the existing mission title as the default file name for the new save. People are going to accidentally overwrite existing missions.

Interesting stuff. I can't link them (forum rules), but there are real-world 'official documents' with tables giving ballistic data for Mk 82s etc which seem from a quick check to give similar but not identical results. As for GBUs, from comparing data the same document it confirms that they are a little more draggy, as one would expect. As graveyard4DCS notes, a GBU isn't going to be following a ballistic trajectory though (or not intentionally ), so the difference need not be significant.

How long will it work? For as long as Defender etc allow users to add exclusions: which is going to be always, since it is a necessary function of AV software.

The bank angle for a given radius turn is entirely dependent on the true airspeed.

I wouldn't describe most AV software as 'snake oil'. The issue is that people clearly don't understand how it works. It isn't infallible. No legitimate supplier of AV software claims it is. It inspects code, and if it doesn't already match known bad data, then applies heuristic analysis to see whether it has characteristics similar to malicious software. If the code looks questionable, it blocks it, and informs the user. It is up to the user to decide whether the code is in fact malicious, or whether it is a false positive.

According to a 2008 'official document' which I can't reproduce here, F/A 18s had DTED by then. It was integrated into both the HSI (as a grey-scale height map option), and into TAWS.

It should probably be noted that if there was a way to reliably write/compile software in a manner guaranteed not to trigger AV detection, the creators of malicious software would be doing the same thing. AV software relies on pattern-matching and statistical methods to detect potential viruses etc, making false positives inevitable. This is why Defender and the like allow trusted software to be excluded.

Yeah, right...

Bad links.

Hiding away essential information in tutorials made by third parties has absolutely nothing to do with air combat simulation.

The radio message is simple enough, the first time you send it. But how is a beginner supposed to know that getting comms from the tanker during unsuccessful attempts to connect means that you may have to send 'ready pre-contact' again? There is absolutely nothing indicating that the basket/probe won't connect. As for bugs, at least one has come up in this thread - with the Harrier, it is entirely possible to get 'break away' comms from the tanker, while making a perfectly good approach to the probe. This is almost certainly due to the safe approach limits being set up for the F/A 18, which has the probe in an entirely different location. Frankly though, whether all this counts as 'bugs' or not is beside the point. It is counterintuitive, and poorly documented. Like so many things in DCS, it requires the poor beginner to read three forum threads, the official manual (inevitably out of date), and Chuck's Guide, and then watch two YouTube videos before they can even figure out what they are supposed to be doing.

Something that probably needs to be said here, amongst a whole lot of posts which - some more politely than others - basically amount to 'you aren't doing it right' and 'get good' is that AAR in DCS is made more difficult than it could be by bugs/poor implementation. Comms with the tanker is confusing, often leading to the situation that DmitriKozlowsky seems to have sometimes found himself in: trying to connect to a tanker that is waiting for a 'ready pre-contact' message, preventing the sim from connecting at all. This is immensely frustrating if you don't understand what is going on, and unnecessary. Added to that, I've seen comments from more than one person with real-world AAR experience that is is actually more difficult in DCS, due to lack of seat-of-your pants clues regarding acceleration etc, along with either no 3-D perception (monitor) or low resolution graphics (VR). Anyone who doesn't struggle with AAR for a long time before getting vaguely competent (which is how I'd rank myself, at least for the aircraft I'm more familiar with) is either very lucky, or in the top few percentile for skills that the rest of us will never have.

AAR is tricky in the Harrier. It isn't impossible though, since plenty of people can do it. I can. And I do it without having the probe in view at all. Instead, I concentrate on getting lined up behind it properly - i.e. with it offset slightly to my left, and at the appropriate height. I then move forward slowly, looking at the tanker, not the basket. I may need to adjust position slightly relative to the tanker as I move forward, based on what I can see in peripheral vision regarding the basket, and then the hose, as the basket moves back out of sight, but a successful hookup is based entirely on moving accurately relative to the tanker. Ultimately, it comes down to be able to fly accurate formation, and then getting an accurate sight picture of where the basket needs to be as you approach. That is all there is to it. Looking at the probe - even glancing at it - while trying to AAR in the Harrier messes me up every time.

The abbreviation no doubt being used to avoid having to make the seat wider to fit the label. German efficiency at its best...

So if you hold the switch down for longer than it takes to say 'SITZHOEHENVERSTELLMECH', the motor overheats. That should be easy to remember...

These days, the majority of real life military pilot training is done in simulators...

That was going to be my next suggestion. Easily done, though less annoying if you do it with an APKWS than with a GBU 16.

Seems to be working ok for me, at least while using the default laser setting.

Not going to happen. Unofficial mods break paid-for content. Unofficial mods may contain copyright infringements. Unofficial modes are unlicensed, and liable to cause legal difficulties with the aircraft manufacturers etc that ED needs to maintain a good working relationship with. Making them download like that would make ED legally responsible. And result in them getting saturated with bug reports for content over which they have absolutely no control. There are a few good unofficial mods out there. Nobody should be downloading them without being aware of the potential consequences, and without accepting that any bugs with them installed aren't ED's problem.

Free mods aren't 'official'.

It's mostly poor-quality paint rather than dirt, I think.

Yup. You are dropping retarded ordnance in a hefty crosswind. It is inevitably going to drift a long way downwind before impact. Try attacking from directly downwind, with the correct fuse setting. Thanks Razo+r for the comment about the bug: I'd not noticed that, and it may account for issues I've had.

That'll do it. Seems I was wrong about having to use the 'WPN' button, since it doesn't seem to matter how you call up the parameters on the ODU. Which makes sense really...

If you fly multiplayer, you'll need to be using the latest patch to get on a server. Otherwise, probably not, though the 'download' won't take long anyway, since it won't download anything.

At 1:42, you select the bombs to drop by double-clicking on the EHSD 'JDAM' button, and then selecting the bombs on the ODU. I don't think that is the correct way to do it. Try pressing 'WPN' on the UFC to show the parameters, and then selecting the bombs.