Grinch

I would imagine that's a bug as the Normandy has a Mk41 vertical launching system (only plausible thing I can think of). The current version is 1.2.6. Unless there's a good reason you want to play the version that you are, I recommend patching.

Wags, can we expect this iterative process to remain as free patches or should we expect it to cost money similar to the Blackshark 2 upgrade?

Eno, I'm sure you're aware that this isn't strictly a CA issue. This happens quite frequently with groups that are simply moving along assigned routes, especially when assigned "on road" and when reacting to enemy fire--even with no CA control.

People are probably voting no because they realize that producing this module would require assets devoted to a product that would be better utilized on something they would enjoy more. Would you rather have a T-2 Buckeye or an Mi-24 Hind? Polls probably would have been useful there too. Having a poll with just a "Yes" isn't much of a poll.

Anything that has PGM capabilities and can punch coordinates in after start up. It's rough designing maps for eastern bloc forces that aren't stupid easy to find targets.

The proper answer is: we don't know. Fire support coordination nuances are largely not in game, such a Free Fire Areas (FFAs), Fire Support Coordinating Lines, and your frequently heard term "kill boxes." Coordination with JTACs, FACs, FAC(A) / AFAC is required for Close Air Support (CAS). The necessity for CAS procedures (i.e. 9 lines) is based primarily on the enemy's proximity to ground forces. Depending on the location of forces involved in the mission, it might not even be considered CAS. In these cases, the tactical mission is called Deep Air Strike (DAS) or air interdiction and the procedures change dramatically. Generally speaking, before even contacting a JTAC directly, you would be routed through various air officers before and get an AO update or two before getting passed over to a JTAC. During these conversations, you would get routing information, air threat information, friendly air traffic info, and your assigned holding position and altitude block. What does this all mean in game? It means it's not simulated. I usually just hit the assigned target at the assigned way point, and if I have fuel and ordnance left over, I contact a JTAC to see if he has any work for me. Unless of course the mission has me tasked to directly support a JTAC, in which case I'll contact him before doing whatever.

What's your bandwidth estimate without voice comms, per person?

So here's my suggestion for F10 view modes. There needs to be another F10 view mode option (like fog of war) that allows the ground commander to see enemy units and target them based on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. This same F10 view doesn't give a fog of war view to non ground commanders. The purpose behind this is to prevent pilots from using F10 to spot helicopters, other aircraft, or ground targets. Without fog of war, combined arms is more or less a waste. There's no happy, middle ground.

Half off might be worth it if you're using it in multiplayer. Full price: a resounding no. It's nifty, but I don't think its full potential is even close to being achieved.

Any of the ED testers out there have any input?

Yes. The map was built on a separate computer, moved to the server, renamed, and the trigger updated to reflect the renamed file (and therefore saved in ME on the server).

So here are a couple bugs I've never seen before. I have a MP mission that is set to load the same mission after 5 hours via trigger. Upon reset, all static units (SAMs, ground forces, etc.) do not spawn at all. Only groups with waypoints upon mission start spawn and begin their routes. If the map is loaded manually, everything spawns as it should by mission design. Continuing the trend of weirdness, some units that are supposed to spawn later after triggers are initiated, spawn upon start. For example, an AWACS that is set to spawn after a certain condition is met, spawns at start without that trigger being met. It appears on the F10 map, moves, but cannot be reached via the radio commands. Anyone seen this stuff before?

This makes me wonder if "bang-bang" guidance is modeled. ED Testers? Edit: Nevermind, I can go watch a LGB in F6.

I would imagine a multi-million dollar pod would take all of these into account and do some basic trig to give you the yard stick measurement.

To follow up on Atalia's post, final attack headings are also imperative if using any sort of laser, whether it's IR, such as an IZLID for marking targets, or a PRF-coded laser. In these cases, JTACs/FACs, will bring the aircraft over their left or right shoulders to ensure ordnance isn't dropped on the friendly end of the beam. This is referred to as a laser basket. On a related laser safety side note: notice that the AI JTACs at night will actually 'snake' the IR pointer, and give the brevity code for it over comms. This is an actual technique and the end that wiggles is the target.

Without knowing the exact situation of the terminal control, it's possible the target set is completely destroyed during a type 3 engagement. Since there are no more targets, this might be the game's way of ending your flight's weapon release approval, since no other timelines are established. Remember type 3 engagements allow the aircraft to make multiple attack runs on one approval from the JTAC/FAC. Source: I'm a former Marine JTAC. Edit: I haven't been getting final attack headings from the JTACs in game, but if you're outside those parameters, then that's certainly grounds for an abort. Those exist for the safety of everyone involved. In general though, it's tough to say why you're getting aborted without knowing the exact situation.

I thought the yard stick was the distance from end to end of a single white line (out of the 4) making up the cross hair on your pod.

Nothing scientific here, but a map I have created can run for 15-16 hours with a dozen players no problem, but as soon as people jump in to CA positions, the trouble ensues. There are no built in scripts to the mission such as CTTS or anything. It's purely game triggers and way points. The server crashes, and the CA commanders jump back in upon reboot and numerous hiccups ensue. Vehicles falling through the world, ground crews fail to respond, and the train wreck happens. Like I said, nothing scientific and certainly no data, but it's at least something to go on.

This is my biggest problem with simplified models and FC3 in DCSW. Aircraft are disposable when you can get back in the air in 30 seconds or less. I really don't want to incorporate limited aircraft at bases. I may loadout FC3 aircraft with zero fuel and make players at least sit through a refuel upon spawning.

Here's my take on why MP is stagnant. Without any stats or figures, there appears to be plenty of new players giving DCSW a try. Steam--love it or hate it--is a great method of introducing DCSW to new players. Poor flight instructions and tutorials (supposedly there's a new interactive Su-25T tutorial, but that's a few days late and a couple dollars short), poor server stability, and poor choice of modules has caused the Steam ship to sail away without new players sticking around the online community. If they have stuck around, there are certainly members of this forum--whom I shall not name--which I have seen ridiculing and speaking to newer players in a demeaning manner in game. I have even heard the complaints on our TS3 server. Sure, this isn't representative of the entire community, but it only takes a few bad apples. I've heard several players who gave the F2P DCSW a shot, that they would consider buying a module or two, but because of the number of bugs and faults that there's no way they're going to pay $40-50 USD for the product. As far as modules to entice new players, we all understand that the combat simulator genre is a very small gaming niche. My opinion is that newer content such as the Mi-8--regardless of whether it's a great and accurate simulator or not--makes that niche of ours even smaller. Why the Mi-8? Why a Vietnam-era UH-1H? Why not something that would draw more players into the game such as Mi-24s, or UH-1N or Y, or even AH-1W/Z? The module outlook resembles shotgun shot throughout decades of platforms with little that tie them all together for a DCS "World" other than the simple fact that the aircraft modeled produce lift and take off. Stale missions are certainly another reason. It's a huge pain to make missions, especially with an utterly inefficient mission editor. Anything you produce is a balance between realism, entertainment, and more importantly: MP stability. The F18 module(s) will hopefully be a great addition to the series, but it will all be for nothing if the underlying reasons as to why the MP community has grown stagnant are not corrected and this ship is put back on course. Now, it would be great if the Russians had some sort of multirole, DCS-level fighter to contend with the F18 in MP. That would be the next logical step. Sorry for the wall of text, it's the result of a slow day at work. Thoughts?

If you're willing to spend about 30 minutes learning the mission editor, you can create your own practice missions. You can create your own load out, target sets, air threats, etc to your exact preferences. Don't want to perform a cold start every time? Easy fix in the mission editor.

Yeah, I understand notching and the tactics involved. My question is in regards to the sim itself--not that of tactics or real world scenarios.

So what is the current state of affairs for MRMs? We're up to 107 pages now. For those of us newer to FC3 and FC in general, should we be using 120Bs or Cs with the current patch? I've been playing online and launching 120Cs at approximately 15 nm and have a very, very low pk. I'm tempted to give the B mod a go to see if I have any better success. I'm launching at higher altitudes than the target with the intercept dot centered in my hud. It appears that the 27ERs have no problem being launched from a greater distance against a foe at a greater altitude. I know you all are going to want track files, but just speak to me in general terms. What's the deal these days?