Scrim

Well, since both the Germans and Japanese insisted on keeping the high scoring pilots deployed on the front line until they died pretty much, instead of sending them back to train new pilots like the Allies did, you're really bound to get at least a few who not only rack up a very impressive tally, but also survive despite incredible odds.

Yeah, pretty sure they're there from the start. As someone who considered the A-10C to be aggressively complex before learning it (reason I did was because I bought FC3 and got bored of the limited capabilities of the under developed A-10A), I can honestly say that the tutorials along with YT tutorials help you learn it well, and after a while all of the lessons and tutorials melt into one, and you can use the A-10C like no other plane in DCS.

Got it, only what is written in this thread matters. Nothing else that's been written anywhere else should be taken into consideration.

Ever occurred to you that people write that because, wait for it, several devs have said just that many times over now?

So you call BS on the devs who know infinitely more about developing modules than you, basing it on having played other sims? Thanks for making my point.

Yeah, no. That's what several of the developers say themselves. If you're calling BS on them for that, I'm gonna go ahead and say that you have nothing to base that on.

Well, let's put it like this: You reckon the Korean war era Sabre will have more or less avionics than the Iraq/Afghan war A-10C?

It's not occurred to you that though you don't think it's childish, others may?

+1. Extremely childish behaviour. Even if it had been justified, it'd still have been childish as they're complaining to a 3rd party dev who couldn't even make a map for the game if they wanted to.

10 days later, 9 pages of "I sent an E-mail".

Not a periscope, it's a spotting scope. You know how periscopes look?

Nope. Last time snipers used periscopes was in WW2.

That's a spotting scope, not a periscope.

I think it's a lot more down to the fact that there is little magnification, and a very small FoV. That doesn't make for good situational awareness, or good shooting. I don't think even sniper teams use telescopes nowadays.

I disagree. I funded RRG because they would develop this. Now it's gone over to ED. Disappointing. But if ED didn't get the remaining funds, then it's just too much. If RRG still has all of that money, despite only doing a small fraction of what they undertook, I very much doubt the legality of it, not to mention the morality. I knew of the risks they advertised, but I doubt that all the money's been spent already. More importantly than all is how ED will manage financially. I can take the hit on 40-50 dollars, but I would be horrified to see all of those 150,000 dollars not only bring kept by someone who has not done even 10% of what was advertised, but that money also indirectly crippling ED if they have to finish this large project with no financial backing.

I don't know what the discussion is about, but if one side is that they are not being honest about living up to what was promised in the Kickstarter, and that the opposite is that this is acceptable for whatever reason, then no, both sides are not right. Considering that testing and everything already seems to be delayed, I'd say that almost everyone is patient. However, voicing disconcern about the almost complete lack of updates is not to be impatient.

It would be quite silly to sign an NDA that doesn't allow you to do weekly updates, when that is exactly what was promised in the Kickstarter.

Though UAVs exist as they do today, you have to be drunk of your tits to think that every lowly tank commander will be given access to one. So some sort of surveillance equipment is a good idea. In comparison to WW2 tanks though, I think that even tanks without TUSK and CROWS can look around without breaking cover, if they're Western ones, since they all have very good optics that allow them to watch things from so far away that the binoculars their WW2 counterparts used would be of little use.

Well, there were the regular periscopes for when they were buttoned down, but having periscopes that you could raise would take up a lot of space in the very crammed crew compartment. And practically, a lot of tank commanders found the regular periscopes useless for observation, so having an extendable would probably not help much.

What I've read is that it's been around since '07, and that it is linked to the pilot's HMD.

If you're talking about my post, go back to the start of the thread. It all came out of my response to the claim that the scenario was only slightly in the Gripen's advantage. Regardless, I have a hard time seeing the point in an exercise like this. Sure it can be used to develop tactics, but is it wise to develop tactics from extremely unrealistic scenarios? The Typhoon has had their PIRATE system for years, so short range engagement scenario where they don't have it doesn't sound realistic.

Pretty much. The Typhoons could lock on if the Gripen was within the narrow FoV of their HUD screens, whereas the Gripen could, as the pilot himself wrote engage "virtually everything within my field of view". Doesn't matter what plane you set up against what plane, under those circumstances any fighter pilot who's worth his salt should win very quickly.

Wow, just wow. Did you read the article? First paragraph. And as I wrote, the biggie wasn't the load, but the fact that they were doing a very short range engagement, and the Typhoons lacked the HMD link to their heatseekers that the Gripen had.

Slightly? As I wrote, the Typhoons were flying with 8 missiles and no HMD linked to the IR missiles. The Gripen flew with a single heat seaker linked to its HMD, and the rules were that it wouldn't start until they'd flown past each other. That scenario was about as realistic as the intercept exercises the USAF did with B-52s flying high and fighters flying so close behind them that it didn't even take one minute for them to "kill" the BUFF when the exercise started.

That'd be a missile. No sensational story really. The Typhoons flew with a load of 4 IR and 4 radar missiles, and the Gripen flew with a single IR missile and a helmet mounted display system that he could lock on with. The Typhoons didn't, and neither was cleared to "fire" until they were within visual range. Doesn't take much of an intellect to understand who won.