Fri13

"No plans currently" means It is open for discussion as it is subject of change" "Our plan is" means "it is not subject of change so discussion can not change it". When you use word "currently" then it means that you can change it in the future as there is no plan to any direction. If you do not like how you were informing ED plans to people, then learn not to use word "currently" as it has very clear definition and meaning for possibility of change for reason. You can learn more about word "currently" from here and what it means: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/currently

I already made it very clear that what You said, that you changed from the "No plans currently" to "We have now a plan". First You said: "we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D " Then You said: "we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache" It is crystal clear that IT WILL NOT GET THEM, because you have in the time of this thread made a plan that there will never be them, even when first it was said that you have not had plans for either direction. No need to be insulting.

I can spot in Rift S from anywhere the lenses just show (except the very edge of lens). I can't VID them but I can spot. Against sky it is easy as they are dark spots. Against ground it depends that what is the surrounding. I like to use a Caucasus terrain texture mods that add more variation to ground and so on more challenges to spot things, as otherwise they would be too easy to see a dark object under a tree or anywhere open. At least the shadow system works well in the desert maps as coming from sun direction (obscured shadow) the vehicle can be very challenging if impossible to spot. But coming from other directions and you can see the shadows for multiple kilometers.

"When you're the first to die in your PUBG squad - Ghost": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm4OiGwrnhk There are different ARMA communities, even such where you have only one life and then you are out. It is not fun to be killed early and can't participate anymore for 30-60 minutes. That is what DCS servers should be able to offer from the start. KIA = No playing for X hours. MIA = No playing before pilot is returned by SAR Too many destroyed planes (crashed, shot down etc) = No playing for X hours. In the future dynamic campaing such functions should be there for servers to enable (notice, not enforced for everyone) so that players need to be careful not to be shot down or do anything foolish. Common thing is that players who enjoy from start -> die -> respawn -> die -> respawn -> die process are those who have low patience and high tolerance to rage when they don't get to play as wanted. So they would not like to play on servers that cause more tension and risks to be unable fly smart manner. Especially if it is a group of friends who continue campaign by themselves when the KIA/MIA one is like in cooling period. But it will put friendships very hard place if someone causes troubles for another...

That is the "Circa XXxx" argument that module is not to be flown in any mission that is dated for a year other than the one specific one that developer say it was taken from. And that requires to ignore that military vehicles are in-service for multiple years without updates and modifications (in other words, they would every year receive updates and changes constantly). It as well requires to ignore that DCS World is a digital combat simulator that is suppose to be free from real world politics, religion and weapon manufacturers influence, allowing players to simulate "what if" scenarios with only limitation of the real world physics (no flying UFO) and technical limitations (no Vikhr for Apache). So again, they wouldn't. The Apache would be flying in the 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022 in the condition that it is modeled by ED. Only thing is that later on new weapons come available, some are not compatible, but some are. It is up to mission designer to select: 1) What map is chosen. 2) What countries belong to what coalition 3) What is the mission date. 4) What modules are allowed. 5) What weather is in the mission. 6) What weapons and supplies are available in the map and where. 7) What is the situation for everyone, red and blue (and neutral). etc If someone does not want to fly 2005 Hornet in 2011 dated mission in Syria so they can fly with 2007 Viper and 2009 Harrier.... It is their on choice. Otherwise they should never fly in Syria or with those other aircraft because every one of them is from different time period. Through this thread ED statement has changed from "We have currently no plans to support APKWS II" -> "We now have a plan to not support APKWS II".

VR field of view for most is not narrower than their fovea field of view. You lose the extreme peripheral vision that doesn't have colors or shape recognition. You can spot a movement on high contrast objects but nothin small. Example take a normal sun glasses, they already cover a larger area than you can see properly. You would need to get those sun glasses field of view over the 6'clock position to see properly there. That is why if we could get the black VR edges colored and lit at the proper values then we would be fooled that we have full wide field of view. To do that it could be possible to have just a some very low resolution panels around changing just proper patterns and illumination and it would look more realistic.

You get already a good idea with this from F-16 and F-35 pilot: Every human is different by their eyes physical part, but the field of view is generally same for everyone. So that is what is the normal good area to look at for relaxed steady head position just to look with eyes. Why important avionics are placed in forward section (blue) and critical ones are wanted to be in the green area (HUD and so on) as when you have head supported for high G, you have easy time to look at the HUD. The next one is about the field of view of your eyes when you have head straight ahead. You have great focus capability only 30 degree forward from your head. You have 60 degrees for the 3D vision as both your eyes will see there (this is little variable by the people eye sockets depth, nose ridge size etc). And 120 degree is your peripheral vision that how much either your eye can turn in eye socket to see something sharply by getting eye fovea in that position, it is just about 60 degree left or right. Then after that you don't see sharply anything. You only can see a high contrast objects (lights, glares and such), movement and similar. So to see 180 degree backward position, you need to turn head 180-60 = 120 degrees to either direction so you can have your fovea in the area, that is 30 degree further than just looking straight left or right with nose pointing there. Typically people do not turn their head 90 degree to look side but they turn like 40 degree and then rest they look by moving eyes just so that they get both 60 degree vision area there. And they assist it with torso movement so head doesn't need to move much. Here is a example screenshot from a pilot checking his six. Blue line is where the vertical stabilizer is located. On me with the Rift S, I can see yellow line with just turning my head, no shoulder movement, no torso twisting, just turning my head. The orange line is how far I can see when I do similar movement as the pilot does by twisting my torso so my opposite side shoulder comes off the seat like he does have. Then I can turn my head so far that Rift S edge is on the orange line and I can see past the vertical stabilizer. I don't have the harness, I don't have any G forces, I don't have heavy helmet, I don't have basically any similar challenges in VR that the pilot has. You can see example here what the pilot does naturally to look further at his right side: That is just casual flying, staying in formation and observing the area and checking times for overfly specific place with a second accuracy. Now think about it all in the higher G's. You are not turning your head around and constantly keeping G's and check your six like with TrackIR you can. Why the VR already brings it closer to realism by requiring you to physically turn head and limit you. Some people have installed the harness straps with pullers, so when the G increases in DCS, their seat straps will pull them tighter to the seat, restricting more their head movements as there is tension in harness trying to keep their back in the chair.

That is correct. The Harrier doesn't have a "SOI" principle like in A-10 or F/A-18C. You have a "HOTAS MODE" that is the Sensor-Select-Switch 2x that will dedicate it to TPOD control alone. You "Enter" and "Exit" this HTS mode always with 2x push. And as long you are in the mode, the SSS will only operate the TPOD. The AV-8B N/A Harrier has very well designed layout (that Razbam has not modeled correctly) and at the time when it was new, it was something special. Because even compared to 2005 Hornet that didn't have LITENING or ATFLIR at the time, were limited to NITEHAWK targeting pod that was just forward seeing, so you didn't have good visibility to rear parts like today. And example in the first Gulf War there was only four NITEHAWK pods available. At the time (in-service since 1987) AV-8B N/A was huge factor as it could operate at night time and it had own contrast lock based targeting system in its nose, laser spot tracker integrated to same camera. As those Hornets that used NITEHAWK, couldn't designate target with the laser for themselves with it, as they needed a another The ASQ-173 pod to acquire the laser spot for delivery. At that time the Harrier operated without targeting pod as it was not required. You had ground troops designating the targets and DMT included LST to lock on that laser spot at night. You got FLIR imagery for the HUD or MFCD and whole system was without "2x SSS". Then later a laser self-designation was required, and AV-8B Harrier fleet received the LITENING before USMC C Hornets (D models got it too). And one simple way to integrated the LITENING to Harrier user interface was to make it a separate sensor. Hence the 2x SSS to enter and exit the HTS mode. Otherwise you just used SSS to switch the important systems to panels. SSS Left = EHSD and EW pages to left MFCD SSS Right = FLIR to right MFCD SSS Aft = LST/TV for right MFCD SSS Forward = HUD (INS) designation or maverick video to left MFCD. What there is not modeled is that first time you uncage the maverick, the maverick video should pop to left MFCD in any page. If you switch away from that maverick video page (using OSB or SSS Left) before launch, then to get it back you need to open Stores page and uncage the maverick again. But otherwise you shouldn't need to go to Stores page to get IR or Laser Maverick video visible on left MFCD. This way the SSS is very is and simple to use, you don't assign different pages to different sides as those are the only critical important ones that you quickly and easily open visible. So now when you add the Targeting Pod for your arsenal, it doesn't have a SSS direction control. It doesn't fully replace the DMT itself (you need to keep DMT powered so it doesn't brake its gimbal as it is otherwise freely moving) but you don't need to use DMT anymore as such way. But you couldn't put the TPOD as SSS Aft function because you wouldn't have any means to control the pod using HOTAS as you would only be able do so using the OSB then. So not so good idea. And this is why you need to use 2x SSS to exit the HOTAS mode so that you get to use SSS Forward to switch between INS/IRMV for TDC control. As when you are using TPOD, you are don't be using DMT at all, so it becomes little odd to use 2x SSS as it sounds first as unnecessary extra step, and especially stupid as you lose other SSS functions meanwhile.

Based to Mil's colleges the Mi-24 was a "VBMP" (Flying IFV) as well: https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=464 And considering how effective the BMP-1 became and fearful, and now you had such flying.

That is why the crews train for various basic tactics to hide and stay mobile. You wouldn't be spotting them easily to be engaged than when required to go open. Tank crews wouldn't want to go inside forests either as it is too difficult to travel and if there is enemy you are just sitting duck for infantry. And if the enemy artillery or mortars gets information of your location, the hell will get loose. Once one M1 Abrams commander told that they got surprised by the mortar fire, and he didn't even get to command driver to move, when driver was already pretending to be in a F-1 and put everything he got just to get out of that area, possibly braking few speed records too. You don't want to be front of the attack helicopter line of attack when it get to know your position as when it launches its rockets, it will be a firework display. As well being vulnerable for sudden hit from MBT at 1-2 km distance or 3-4 km for ATGM that you didn't spot in time. What makes those small helicopters with ATGM so effective that you can get quickly to flank or rear and just get couple missiles simultaneously launched and then vanish. That is why you hide, and you hide so well that you don't get spotted but you have the initiative to take target out first and then roll to cover.

I think it was said that Mi-24P pilots train for the night combat, using flares as well to illuminate the areas. In Afghanistan that got ambushers flee away from side of the route when lit up. This is the same thing as with Su-25, Su-25T that at least can use the SAB-100 illumination bombs for 1-5 min time period and Mi-24/KA-50 etc can use S-8O or S-8OM illumination rockets for less than a minute. In a pitch black night (or in bad weather at all) I don't think anyone want to be flying Mi-24P at least without NVG. We have interesting options for performing combat operations in Mi-24P at night, but it requires coordinates cooperation between various units. Like if we could get a troops in contact have flare pistols used properly, mortar teams to launch flares up in the air and so on.

You might be right. Maybe the better would be something with similar syntax like: DCS: 1980 West Germany DCS: 1970 USSR DCS: 2010 Russia DCS: 2000 USA DCS: 1980 Israel But it really should be so that all those units will come in the DCS World, but you only can use them in Mission Editor or in Combined Arms (command and use them) with the license. This way if your friend has a license, he can make a mission and you can both fly there and you see as well units and all. But you can't do anything with them even having Combined Arms installed. This way you can make a missions for multiplayer server where everyone can fly and bring units from different eras, like having a Persian Gulf Map and have Israel troops from 1980's there, with the US, USSR, French ground/sea units and so on. If someone wants to be using Combined Arms, they need to own the license.

It almost looks like that pilots are having a competition that who can fly closest to the people....

IMHO you have three main options for a VR. The discontinued Facebook Rift S that is dedicated PC VR headset. The Facebook Quest 2 that is as well mobile but you can wire it (and now use wirelessly) to PC be used as dedicated PC VR. The HP Reverb G2 might be the best option as price and quality now, a dedicated PC VR. To match these for a good performance, I would go for a Nvidia 3060 or maybe 2070 on older side for those depending your exactly CPU. (Don't know anythin about AMD side...) You are looking pretty heavy price range for the HP reverb as it is about 700-800 now, compared to Quest 2 that does it for about 350. I would start definitely with the Quest 2 IF YOU ARE OKAY FOR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT!

Why it would be nice that we could start getting the various era ground units assets packs. For eras like 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. And then for various countries in those, examples: 60's USSR 70's USSR .... 70's East Germany .... 90's East Germany .... 80's US 90's US XX French XX West Germany XX UK XX Israel XX Iran/Iraq.... All units to DCS World, where we would start to get making missions that everyone can join but the editor requires to own the assets pack to add them or command them in Combined Arms. We could start to see more proper missions. But I don't remember did ED say anything about the rebels or technicals for DCS, that were those too "civil" like units to be used? We should as well get various other cars than just busses, like from SUV to different vans and jeeps and such so we could generate more fitting Syrian missions where your task is just to observe and report. As well more various ships, boats and such to be hunted with Apache and KA-50's. This is why it is hopeful that Battlefield Productions would get deal done with the ED for these. We are getting Mi-24P soon and we lack the Fulda Cap map (but can pretend it with Caucasus) where Mi-24, A-10A, T-55/M60, ZSU etc would really be creating the interesting missions. MiG-23, MiG-21, MiG-19 against.... Well, that is where it really ends.

http://www.turnofftheinternet.com/

Yes, and nice thing is that we can choose to use or not them in the missions.... So we can build missions from various years and so on get interesting campaigns as well done.

That is very difficult to really say. In DCS the radars are not so well modeled. The ground clutter and such doesn't really exist. Radars act more like a AESA in their capabilities to detect something in their mechanical steering function. Like the Mi-8 that got blown by a laser guided bomb was hovering at low altitude and evaded gun solutions, AIM-9 locking and radar lock in multiple attack runs. But because it was so low, the crew decided to use a laser guided bomb. The UH-60 incident was again Visual ID error, AWACS operator error and finally as well that those helicopters were flying high above the terrain to be picked in the first place, not trying to hide or evade when fighters flew the VID from couple hundred meters distance. So fighter should really go just high and fast and try to circle around to get the helicopter make a mistake (come out of hiding, increase altitude greatly and get to go fast) so they would become easy prey. Now it is more about even so easily visually spotting a helicopter on the ground that you can just surprise them with a gun or IR missile if they don't see you first (their rear and side visibilities are low, and especially to top side) as the IR simulation isn't so great either so you get easily IR lock in DCS. When you can be spotted visually (before 2.7 you had large generator for white clouds when you flew at NOE) then the surprise can be very easy. Again we don't have any proper ground units protection (MANPADS and such) or early warning (again local area troops reporting low flying aircraft) that could tip you off.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat "‘A well equipped attack helicopter flown by a trained crew will defeat most fighter airplanes in 1v1 air combat, should the fighter be foolish enough to drop down to try and engage,’ Nick Lappos, Technical Fellow Emeritus at Sikorsky and former U.S. Army AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter pilot, said on Quora. ‘A helicopter immersed in ground clutter is very hard to detect by almost any means, and so is hard to engage. Meanwhile, the helicopter can be equipped with air to air missiles and large caliber guns that easily engage fighters as they maneuver at low altitudes against a blue sky in their attempts to engage the helicopter. The helicopter if properly flown will always maneuver to cut off the angle from the airplane, forcing impossibly steep closure maneuvers for the fighter. Typical helicopter turn rates are 30 to 40 degrees per second, three times that of the fighter, even at high g, so the fighter will find the helicopters weapons always engaging it during any serious contest. If the helicopter gun and missiles were selected for anti-aircraft (like the 30mm guns on the Mi-24 and KA-50/51), the results are that the attack helicopter becomes like a rapidly mobile SAM site, a very dangerous target.’" "‘When I said clutter, I really meant “intelligent tactical use of clutter, obstructions and terrain”. In the blue sky you always envision, there is nowhere to hide and terrain is to be avoided as a potential threat, in Army combat, terrain is your friend, savior and battle buddy. Fighter pilots who face a trained, deadly and sneaky adversary in an attack helicopter will always see its missiles and guns, and never see a fleeing bunny to add to the kill list. While the fighter is in a blue sky, exposed to everybody within 10 miles, that attack helicopter is now sneaking below the ridge line with no clear line of sight, ready to pop up when the fighter shows its two hot tailpipes. And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotorblades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic.’"

Because you could get a Laser guided Flechette rockets or laser guided MPSM rockets too? If we get any time a more properly simulated infantry, then flechette rockets would become handy...

They do that trigonometry. There were few units with laser rangefinders in Afghanistan but it was not generic one like we have Mi-24P presented (as the Mi8Pilot said in interview that they model the most generic features instead all that some units had). So it will be very interesting to engage targets when their altitude is different than yours. So simply "shoot" and then correct your aim based what was the error and try to hit the target "from hip". Or think about cases where targets are in the canyon and you come from top of the ridge or mid way of the hill... Or you engage someone at top of the hill and you are flying over terrain that is 100 meters below their position. Edit: Forgot. The lead developer talked something about "placing crosshair on target" and then "wait a moment and then fly to put the crosshair on cross and shoot when minimal difference" or somethin. I didn't understand that what it meant but it was something about firing. Maybe there is some kind a range calculation between the WSO sight and the pilot so that if WSO maintains angle to the target and pilot maneuvers to make the difference for it that system could get some kind estimation of the slant range? Edit 2: Here is the part I didn't understand, as it is said that there is no other ranging method than visual guessing: Q: How does the gunsight work? A: The cross on the gunsight shows where the operator is looking on the URS setting. If you switch to the fixed cannon, the cross shows the computations from the air data computer and tells you where will rounds land if you fire right now. The pilot initially places the fixed crosshairs on the target and waits for the mobile one to move. He then gradually straightens out the helicopter. When the angular offset between the mobile and fixed pippers is at its smallets, the pilot carefully moves to align both and only then opens fire. This applies to both cannons and rockets. There’s a manual mode where you add corrections with the dials, but pilots don’t use it often. Traditionally you just fire, watch where it lands and correct accordingly as that’s simpler. The pilot chooses the weapon on the dial for the appropriate sight calculations.

I don't see what interesting there really is. But maybe it is just me as I am not going to fly missions to go hunting either one... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it....

Still the fact that multiword phrases to be spoken for the sound recognition systems are not 100% reliable. "Take 10" and so on are as well more confusing than "Ten".

@NineLine How about the wishlist sub-forum for the Combined Arms?