Fri13

Yes you could spot the laser source if you point laser at the detector. But again it is not enough. It is not a IR laser for NVG use like you can do for pointing. The Harrier Litening G4 supports dual-mode laser, where you fire laser designator and IR laser same time so you can guide laser weapon and see the laser with a NVG simultaneously. You can detect the laser spot when it reflects energy to Laser Spot Warning sensor, that are in combat vehicles like MBT and modern IFV. So they know they are painted and would pop smoke and move in cover where they can't be painted. The smoke would as well scatter the laser energy, causing weapons to lose a lock and go dumb. Examle AGM-65E and AGM-65E/2 (added capability for self-designation, since 2012 or so. While normal AGM-65E you can't self-designate) has safety feature that once the laser beam is lost, missile will perform hard vertical maneuver and disable it warhead (render it dud). This so that if you need to abort the weapon guidance, you can just shut off laser or quickly turn elsewhere and strike is cancelled. So when a MBT pop smoke, laser is lost and your maverick goes crazy Ivan and is rendered useless. If you launch AGM-65E for self-designation, the missile can cross the laser beam with it smoke and cause laser blocking and lose laser spot and go crazy....

The Nitehawk pod is sad story for DCS. In 2005 it would be the main targeting pod for our USN C model hornet (Only Marines D hornets and Navy Super Hornets used ATFLIR and LITENING, the C hornets had only Nitehawk in use) as only 1-2 ATFLIR and LITENING were in testing purposes for future decision that what USN/USMC and Spain will purchase. Why it is more fictional that we have ATFLIR and LITENING when we should have only Nitehawk, as only after 2005 those were purchased and taken in service (suggestion for ED, keep ATFLIR and LITENING for Hornet, but develop Nitehawk and make it primary sensor pod). The Nitehawk requires two pods if wanted to self-designate. You have laser designator and then another pod with LST/CAM to generate the target coordinates for your own system or just as wingman to carry that another pod. This is why ATFLIR or LITENING were so big deal as they left one attachment point free for weapons by having all in one pod. And as you say, Nitehawk was not allowed to be used for self-designation because it was so low quality video and FLIR that pilot couldn't see is he targeting friendlies or enemies. So too many "blue on blue" accidents and hence LST pod was only allowed to be used for ground designated targets. We are getting the new FLIR modeling, that hopefully adds proper low resolutions to all optical systems and renders them a lot worse than they are now. So welcome the 320x240 (LANTIRN and Nitehawk) and 640x512 FLIR as ATFLIR and LITENING AT and finally DCS best targeting pod, AV-8B only Litening G4 with 1024 x 1024 FLIR and CCD (with laser scanning imaging process).

The A-G radar is not used in reality same way as in Wags video because it is so bad. It is good when you need to find a large ship at sea, or you have very definitive ground echo like train station, harbor or big city. Why the A-G radar is used in sea mode. But you don't find stealthy ships at long range or smaller boats even at close. Why navy has been not so effective against drug traffickers who are using high speed small boats. You need better, larger radars to that. Why helicopters can carry massive radars or you simply call E-2 Hawkeye for business. You can find those first on map, then Designate on radar for general area. 50 m accuracy is pretty amazing for it. Remember that you are dropping a 250-500kg bombs that has effective radius of that level against lightly armored vehicles and non-armored vehicles all the way to 100-300 meters. It is limitation in DCS that fragmentation is not simulated, why you need to be almost pinpoint accurate with bombs. The Litening or ATFLIR shouldn't be great for GPS coordinates generation, but you are very accurate with laser. This is reason why JDAM is used (as few pilots said) mainly via pre-designated coordinates on the ground. You just fly the JSOW or JDAM on optimal release position and get out. Navy ECM operations are as well about quickly getting in and out, this you can hear from fighter pilot Podcast about wild weasels. So they just spend could minutes in the danger area and then bug out. You don't have time to search and designate targets there, why you want to have all ready when you enter the area and you just need to designate weapons in Waypoints and release. Why you are flying with A-G radar, you need to understand what you can get with it. On a flat desert you can find a compound, but it is on map as well. You can designate about main directions in that compound, but not individual buildings as you don't have time. In a reality your A-G radar doesn't pick up moving vehicles either than on highway or other paved road. Off-road, camouflaged, anti-IR and anti-radar methods renders vehicles invisible to radars and FLIR so effectively that you don't spot them as now in DCS. Why you need to be looking FLIR as black and white TV to what you are seeing and interpret it. So you wouldn't be looking "big white blobs" but old school TV. And your radar would be just useless as it can't detect vehicles as they don't reflect any radar signal in sensible manner. DCS doesn't simulate any of that, why you have so easy time to find moving vehicles and spot them with FLIR.

Something like that. You can just go quickly in other like "Up, Up, Right" to get wanted action. And you don't need to keep looking that what is on screen.

Yes, that is how it should work, but doesn't. Why the big need to be fixed first or it is not usable for anything. We need more choices to the settings and they need to be based on to mission file, not on designer personal settings (which is illogical). It would anyways be better to switch to a drop-down list in each setting than keep two checkboxes that just confuse people. Just label them as "Disabled", "Player/Client setting" and "Enforce".

It should be like any other option in the mission: If the server wants to support Easy Communication for those clients who need it, it is then opt-in for those clients for their own and everyone who has it disabled will not have it. Then it can be disabled for everyone, or it can be enforced for everyone regardless their setting to have opt-out from it. - Not for anyone - Only for those who want it - For everyone And everyone would be happy, it is still a thing that cheaters couldn't use it if it is disabled and so on disallowed for everyone.

Here is how I would make it in the editor, we have at the bottom already two values. 1) Coordinates where the cursor is on map. 2) Altitude to terrain where cursor is on map. Even when they are not visually buttons, they could be used as such to switch between them when clicked with mouse. That would allow maintain the interface, but as well add the functionality. And we can do that same thing for the external views in the game view, and the F10 map. Adding a two buttons to make that switch in the toolbar wouldn't be bad. It would be visual and clear for everyone that "this does that" every different view then. As without the button UI element it can be easily mistaken as user can't know by looking that coordinates or altitude numbers are clickable. This should be a couple hour work for a programmer as the functionality is already in it. Then the settings function should be replaced by the feature to make it automatic based the flown aircrat. So if the player has a metric aircraft, map is automatically set to metric mode as long that aircraft is flown. If it is imperial aircraft, then it is swapped to that automatically.

In editor you change it from View menu. You need to move mouse to refresh view then. As I said, we have this feature in editor, but not the button for toolbar. And we don't have it as button (or feature at all) in F10 map. One can do it there as well, but you don't need to for editor. That is the silly part, we have the quick change in "View -> Unit" drop-down menu in the editor, but we don't have it in the F10 map. The functionality is right there but not added. 1) Add the button to toolbar to switch between Imperial and Metric. 2) Remove the "View -> Unit" feature 3) Add that button in the F10 map view. 4) ??? 5) Profit! We have like 10 threads about this, why I don't hold my breath this is anytime soon implemented....

IMHO it is not about servers as dedicated ones, it is as well about a single player missions where mission designer decides how the mission is to be played (SP, CO-OP or MP). It is same as with any weapon, unit etc. The mission designer decides that what weapons are available and how many. What units are available and how many. Is there unlimited fuel, ammunition, is there a NAV system available, are there external views, can you see everyone on the map etc. If someone wants to deny a unlimited weapons for air-quake server, then it is their option. If someone denies a NS430 navigation system, it is their option. Just having a opt-in to enable the unrealistic automatic map marker fixes everything (not opt-out). Those who want it for the training purposes can enable the feature. Do you recall anyone supportive for disabling it saying that it should be forced to everyone by removing the feature from the game?

Did you miss this? "Need to remind that we already have the option to switch between map coordinates values in editor and in F10 map." "But this is like 10th wish thread about this very exact topic at least since 2016."

Need to remind that we already have the option to switch between map coordinates values in editor and in F10 map. But it is not a simple button click in the GUI but F10 a shortcut LAlt+Y. We should have these as buttons on main menu bar in map at top and bottom in editor. But this is like 10th wish thread about this very exact topic at least since 2016. So I don't hold breath that we get it anytime soon.

Error is on my behalf.... Okay.

AFAIK You don't get the same pie-menu but a 4-way hat designed menu. So you use a one hat in joystick to command the Petrovitch.

IMHO it is odd (and could very well be reason for being difficult to read) that if you have example 4 bar scan going in 4th bar and it detects something, then it will be drawn on the screen only for that period when that last bar is shown and cleared away once the next pattern (1-4 again) is completed.

Sure there are the traces of it, but it is just reason as it takes some time to people convert. They drive on the left, not on the right. And hence so many countries that has been under British rule drives on the right. It is very understandable why these things has come to be. Think about building a house in 15th century or something, you have someone telling you "I need 5 foot long board" and so on someone else put their foot on board and measures it to be five. Someone says in the bakery "I need five cups of flour" and so on one just picks up the proper cup and does measurement counting to five. Similar thing is with the belt, thumb, palm etc. You used all kind average measurement sizes as they were generic, but not accurate to even each others. And it didn't matter. Aviation is pretty much science all the time, and it would be so much easier to just switch all aircraft to metric system. But learning the mental gymnastic in DCS, it just makes it painfully fun. I just hope that one button would be there to switch quickly between even when doing a mission for imperial aircraft as it is easier to design with metric and then switch to imperial to confirm that they works as wanted.

There is only three countries left that use imperial, and it is USA. Liberia and Myanmar. But there is reason why so, as it would be just too difficult for USA to convert to metric. Like our whole navigation coordination system is based to degrees, minutes, seconds... The aviation is based to seafaring by using the clock and coordination system. And that is based to whole 360 degrees that is based to sun size and movement across the horizon. We could nicely drop the imperial system and just switch to metric one, but it requires that one country of the three to actually accept that they lost the scientific argument. Interesting would be that what would happen if USA would officially abandon imperial? Would we see how soon a aircraft with metric units?

Is there any memory function? Or does the contacts get cleared when new picture is started to be built?

That is a strawman. No one is here saying that it should be removed. People are here talking that it should be a game setting that is either opt-in (non-default) or opt-out (default). IMHO it should be opt-in option, just like a infinite weapons, unlimited fuel or if just would be possible, 3 min repair etc. Those should be settings that mission designer can enable to make the gameplay easier and maybe funnier for those who are less skilled, who doesn't have time etc. That argument doesn't really work, but I bite.... What you are talking about really is the g-effects for the virtual pilots. Now they are almost totally gone. The hypoxia is partially properly simulated, but g forces are very mild to almost non-existing. People would hate that they would be victims of the more realistic g forces effects when they fly, as their air quake gameplay would almost end there. No more trackIR looking to 6'clock when pulling high g, no more easy visibility outside as you see in black and white and have blurred peripheral vision with all other effects. At this moment TrackIR users do not need to do much to look their six, at unrealistic manner. VR users are at least more restricted by reality to require them to turn their body to see actually to their rear (my limitation is the virtual cockpit chair and all). Or just a hat players using a hotkey to switch to camera looking to their six or even track automatically where enemy plane flies! Things gets more interesting when realistic things are required for everyone if so wanted. And navigation is one of those that should be for decision is it assisted or not. It is a cheat when the mission is to be flown with a realistic limitations and requirements from the pilot. We can debate that is it cheating that it exist on the server and no one use it as everyone has said to not to use it and honors their words, but if someone uses it regardless, then he can be called cheater even when everyone could have used it but didn't. It is just one of those options that should be for enforced or not enforced. Like one can make a mission where labels are not enforced, but they are not denied either. So it is up to player to activate them mid-game or not. And everyone here likely would call labels as cheats... (or switch it to unlimited weapons or fuel etc).

My expectations gets lower and lower by reading these revelations... It wouldn't be bad if all would be in stable and Open Beta would be testing ground for few hundred specialists to check and confirm things... But when open beta is the main branch that is pushed for marketing, it causes negativity to PR.

After using various pedals with the traditional twisting design I was just little hesitant to get VKB helicopter style pedals. But estimation went correct that they are superior in design to traditional at home. They don't just work nicely with the office chair, they work great as well when sitting very low (~20 cm from floor). I don't miss the brakes, but I don't really operate on carrier in hornet either so much that I would need maximum turn performance. I have set the toe brakes behind a button but no need to use really. The best thing is that pedals operation is not from the hip. So tights don't get tired or knees don't need to work as much. Accuracy is high when all is done with just ankle or toes. Helicopters requires a lot more control accuracy than fighters and it is easier that way operate even fighters at home with that design. If going for traditional style, I would probably look at the Virpil if owning already that set.

I want gamma 1.0 for clouds, and still looks with too low contrast and definition. I want cockpit with 2.1-2.4 depending craft. I want sunshine areas at 1.8 (1.8 guy here too). I want shadow areas at 2.0-2.1. Now the contrast, colors and brightness are all over the places here. I only play with Rift S so it is same for everyone for all Rift S users. Flying at 14 clock in a overcast 4 or so makes everything look almost as a thunderstorm or night with 1.8. Last patch I made observation that I didn't see anything on sea at 4000 ft altitude. Until I went to about 700 ft I started to see some waves, but sea was just black dip to look. And this with 9 m/s wind at sea level.

Does DCS: hornet simulate the strongest/closest return, or does it just show the real terrain distance below the aircraft? As based to Harrier NATOPS trees, buildings, hills etc should give a return range from them and not the ground, even when they are away from under the craft but inside beam spread. In Harrier that isn't simulated so flying above buildings or forests etc gives real terrain altitude. But how it is in Hornet (or overall DCS)?

Has anyone any problems with this experimental feature? If not, then maybe time to move it to default and remove the special option....

That is where I got the idea for that joke...