p1t1o

I can tell you that you DO NOT need to install BS1 from the disc, but you do need the key. I cant remember the exact sequence of actions, but I have BS1 and the BS2 upgrade and recently needed to re-install my whole DCS onto a new computer and I definitely didnt install BS1 because I no longer have an optical drive. I think you need to input the BS1 key into the module manager as if you were adding a new module, then later it will ask you if you want to install your BS2 upgrade.

Did they model its negative G performance correctly?

Possibility of reduced thrust due to non-optimal airflow into intakes?

You're a better shot than me then mate! :joystick:

I've been doing a lot of AG practice in the A10C recently. Some notes: Attacking MG-armed vehicles - break off at the first sign of tracer fire and you should be fine. This does give you enough time for a decent strafing run as MG effective range is low. Tank+APC machine guns dont do much damage, you can take one or two light hits, but dont dally. Autocannon-armed vehicles, such as BMP-2 are more dangerous, treat with caution. Do NOT attempt to strafe shilkas! Killing main battle tanks takes a lot of hits from close range. Unless there is a critical need, tanks should be attacked with other weapons. My preferred exit manouver is to break off hard but keep going for the deck, egress at low level and high speed and pop back up to a safe altitude once Im a bit further from any AA fire. Do not attempt to extend available firing time by strafing "slow", this makes you an easy target - and the gunPAC system (the system which stabilises the aircraft under recoil, allowing accurate bursts) seems to need a decent speed for the control authority to effectively stabilise the aircraft. Come in fast. Do NOT fire until you have positively IDd the target visually. This seems obvious but there are many terrain features which look almost exactly like vehicles from a distance.

Even with FBW it is possible to drain off enough speed to stall the aircraft and depart from controlled flight and enter an unrecoverable spin, under these conditions even full AB will not do much unless you can bring the aircraft back within the flight envelope. Not saying that this definitely isnt caused by bugs in the FM, just that nothing described is outside of the realms of physical possibility. If the velocity vector is within the HUD when you are powering towards the ground and not picking up speed, then its definitely the FM. If the VV is not in the HUD, you have probably departed. NB: Im not sure how the engine and thrust is modelled, but if you are at say, 90deg AoA, the engine may not be producing all the thrust it can, even with full AB. This is due to problems getting air to flow into the intake.

Its worth typing a few lines though. You never know who might answer it. I did the same thing with something on steam and wrote a refund ticket and they let me re-buy it at the offer price. Not saying your chances are high though :( But its always worth a shot. My housemate got his credit card interest dropped from 26%-ish to like 5% by ringing up and being like "This interest is too dang high!" no I mean literally he was like "Please lower my interest." and they did!!!

Interesting, I do, I'll try that out tonight. Thanks!

Do these buttons/views work? I cannot for the life of me figure out where and when they work. Is there anyway to make them work in a regular mission? I want to view my weapon impacts in practice missions.

What happens when you press the corresponding MFCD buttons? ie: select/deselect the station? Selected stations are full white, unselected are green outline.

I did a couple of tests last night. I arrayed 100 T-90s in a 10x10 grid, forming an approx 1200ftx1200ft square. Dropped a '97 right in the middle. Performed this 3 times. Results were 4, 4 and 5 tanks killed. *** I first brought this up because in a practice mission, I dropped a '97 on a similar grid of vehicles, 32 in total - 6 T-90, 6 T-80, 6 T-72, 6 T-55, 4 BMP, 4 BTR80. In that test a single weapon destroyed 30 out of the 32 vehicles. I was fearing that if I dropped a '97 into the 10x10 grid of T-90s that it would end up nuking just a ridiculous number of heavy, modern tanks. So how the damage is meted out I have no idea, but at least it is not the "silver bullet" that I was fearing. I've heard this sort of claim many times. But I have also heard the counter-claim many times. Depending on who you talk to, tanks are either nigh-invulnerable or basically made of paper. Both cannot be true, and a middle-ground is far more likely, ie: what bearing did the shell burst from the tank? What tank was it? How many times does a shell like this successfully kill a tank under these conditions? etc etc etc. Im sure its not exactly safe hanging around near exploding arty, but fragmentss @30m from a 4kg charge surely cannot be more deadly than a dedicated anti-tank weapon detonating in contact with the armour, and since some of those are useless verses certain tanks, types of armour, under certain conditions etc. Not all tanks are alike. Not all weapon strikes are alike. So whilst I will add your statement to "arty is more deadly to tanks than one would at first think", I still prefer to seek out figures such as armour quality and penetration capabilities. PS: the BLU-108 is not a shaped charge, ok it is, but it is not a HEAT warhead, it is a self-forging projectile, which has inferior penetration qualities compared to HEAT. Its advantages are a much longer effective standoff range. Thats really interesting, thanks. It should be noted that 10cm (100mm) of modern tank armour, depending on its composition, represents an RHA (rolled homogenous armour - the standard for measuring armour penetration/resistance) equivalent of significantly more than the thickness displayed, ie: >100mm.

AH! I just twigged! At first I was all "Jeeze, this guy must be BAD. A$$. First a fighter pilot, then joins the SAS!?" Until just now when I realised you were more likely referring to Scandinavian Airlines lol! Still impressive! Military pilot is my dream job, and followed by a stint in the airlines is the ideal. A bout of mumps at uni took care of my hearing unfortunately. Not that I was guaranteed to get in otherwise, of course.

Can you tell me where you get your figures because I had a hard time finding any, I'd be very interested?

Thats all well and good, *if* you get through the armour. And again, more modern tanks are tougher generally and more top-attack aware. Point taken about the software model though. Thats good news, I'll wait out. Im sure they are operating off the best information they have with the software model. Anyone know if destructiveness has been changed in the past? I swear they used to be less of a "silver bullet".

Steady on, Im just trying to figure out what is right. That logic is weak without knowing what ED have based it on. Being wrong would not even be a mark against ED, since accurate data in these things is hard to come by, but you can have a meaningful discussion and good estimates can be made. Im not even certain that they *are* wrong. As far as I recall, the effectiveness used to be much more nuanced, not just "nuke everything in the area of effect."

I am referring to the animation of the submunition deployment, descent, rocket ascent and skeet deployment. That a skeet could do all that to a tank, even a T-72 (although I am referring more to the newer tanks) is very optimistic. The skeets are very smart but their warhead is not the biggest in the world. And explosively formed projectiles have good distance capability but their penetration is much less than an equivalent-sized shaped charge. I am looking for a known example of what a CBU-97 has killed, or a capability in terms of mm of RHA penetration. I think a decent estimate of the capbility is 100-300mm RHA. Since mm RHA equivalents for tanks roof armors are hard to come by as well, it is difficult, but with turret face and side armours approaching exceeding 650mm without ERA blocks, penetration of the roof of a modern MBT is not a given. There should be a %'age chance of an outright kill, not blanket coverage.

This is a hardcore sim, Im going to need more than that - Are there any figures to support the claim? Or real-life reports? I could find precious little in terms of its capability apart from warhead details. Is that so? If thats true Im a blind fool, I'll look again. Im positive I was reading something about cluster animation removal to reduce lag...

I've been away from DCS for a few years, and now the CBU-97 seems very OP to me. It used to be that a '97 would struggle to kill heavy tanks, just damaging them. T-55s would be killed and T72s a mix of kills and damage, but T-80s and newer would be far more resistant. This is inline with realistic performance, as far as I am aware. The individual "skeets" are powerful, and top armour on a tank is at its thinnest, but they shouldnt be killing modern tanks with such immense efficiency. These are self-forging projectiles, not shaped charges, SFPs are less penetrating and many modern tanks are designed with top-attack in mind, ERA blocks are often found on turret rooves (the BLU-108 skeet does not have a tandem warhead). With an estimated penetration capability of 100-300mm RHA (thats my estimate based on warhead size and construction, an official figure could not be found) and with modern armours and ERAs being significantly more resistant than RHA, it seems that the newer tanks in DCS should be, not invincible, but somewhat survivable. Now, I can nuke massed formations of T-90s no problem, with a single weapon. Is there even a limit to the number of vehicles that can be destroyed with a single weapon? In my test, one nuked nearly 32 vehicles including 6 T-90s and 6 T-80's. I know that a '97 contains 40 submunitions, thats a high hit rate, I'll do a further test if I can. **** And why did they take away the lovely animation of the submunitions deploying? I take it they removed the animations to reduce lag. But the CBU-97 is a fascinating and sophisticated weapon, and the animation used to do a really good job of showing that, now we have a disappearing bomb, an arbitrary delay, followed by magically exploding heavy tanks. Poor show! **** Anyone agree? Anyone have any better data on penetration capability? Please ED, show the '97 a little bit of love? At least re-instate the animations for singleplayer?

I thought so, I'd have expected it to be several years back, I've been away from DCS for some time. I wish I could get to the end of a track and only be 100m off, I've had tracks send my aircraft taxiing from the ramp onto the grass and attempt to do the takeoff run from there - thats not accumulated error from a recording overwhelmed by inputs, thats something seriously screwed up. I can forget watching myself fly mach1 NoE in my new Viggen, TacView is no use in this regard. Last time I tried this, the track flew my aircraft into the ground 2 mins after takeoff before I even started NoE.

I feel like it used to work, perhaps in a version long past? Is that my imagination? External views and fancy vehicle models are almost pointless without replay.

Im not too familiar with the DCS F-15 but here are some true things: "Listening" for a jamming signal requires no radar emissions, it is "passive", meaning your aircraft will not show up on enemy radar warning sensors. If someone is successfully jamming your radar, impeding your ability to get a "lock", then you can use the HoJ capability to fire off a shot anyway, though it will lack range information so will fly a less efficient profile. I think that Aim-9's fired without a lock must be a very last resort (like if you have damaged systems) tactic, the missile will not be able to do much in the way of "searching" for a target, the seeker is not designed for this, there must be something pretty much straight ahead.

"Bugged"? You mean entirely broken? I love the track feature, but I cannot even record a simple take-off of a single aircraft without it going wonky. Sometimes it fails before my aircraft even reaches the runway, steering off the taxiway and attempting to take off across the grass. No external views used, no time compression, no other units at all in the mission. If its not a broken feature, under what circumstances, exactly, does it record successfully? Tacview is very nice and very useful, but the loss of the proper, in-engine replay feature is a huge detriment in my book. Is it the same in DCS 2.0?

Broke my MiG-21 install though.

This. Looks. So. Cool. How come it isnt a fully paid-up module, sure sounds like you've got the resource?

Oh ok, that makes sense, thanks for your help. Im just getting back into DCS after being away from it for a fair while, its surprising how many problems the software still has if Im honest, though Im sure there are good reasons. Weirdly It feels like some things were more realistic back when it used to be called "Flanker 1.5"