SDsc0rch

oh man.. that would be fine by me!

i'm glad the F-15C is (was?) on "the list" they WANT to do it - i think its just a matter of time...

also.. it doesn'thave the stand-alone server

excellent makes perfect sense (i take it station 4 is where you mount sparrows/slammers?) i like that configuration - hopefully we'll get USMC hornets in DCS : )

ah - roger that (i thought lightning pods had an angular front-end --- checked google, that's SNIPER..) thx for the response

saw this video recently i noticed they are mounting the LANTIRN pod on the centerline - when i was deployed, i seem to remember stores weren't certified for carriage on the centerline when landing aboard the carrier does anybody know if this has that changed? or is this a marines-only thing? (ie.. since this sqn is ground-based it is permitted - ?) (( hint-hint, ED - when we get the DCS hornet, sure would be nice if we could mount the LANTIRN to the centerline! )) 8)

here's an idea ---- besides just a single TS channel to speak on, have a "guard" channel (ie.. use TS "whisper" mode) that everyone is on

here's a question ----- will the stand-alone server be avail in 1.5 ??

yesssss!

THAT is an *excellent* vid ---- saw this years ago, forgot about it - thx for posting if you watch closely, there are some good things virtual pilots can learn in that video......... (just sayin)

who were the guys flying the eagles in the last takeoff? good formation TO

i took a trip recently to the area around china lake (missile test range - usn) jet noise can be heard overhead several times a day - of course i'm looking up! watching an f/a-18 i saw "small" contrails forming off just the ailerons - and didn't last long i'd never seen that before - but clearly atmospheric conditions were such that just the ailerons were causing just enough low pressure to make the moisture in the air visible neat

no worries man

they were also flying the same route at the same time night after night usaf has a habit of doing that..........

see the 2:00 mark 8) and 2:50, 3:15 and upon impact with the ground.. 3:45 i'm kinda surprised to see they'll be using the F-16 for target practice...

1 - not sure if you are aware but some missiles (more modern versions) are actually designed to have low-vis smoke (!!) for this very reason 2 - missiles actually have a boost phase (you might be surprised how short that actually is!) and the rest of their flight is a glide --- thus, there won't be ANY smoke trail to see at all

yeah.. the 104th missions tend to use wypt1 as B/E if you're in a mission where A) B/E is a waypoint, and B) that waypoint is not #1, then as part of your preflight checks, make the appropriate adjustments and no, there isn't a specific B/E icon in the kneeboard (as per the included screenshots) that might actually be a decent suggestion/request to ask of ED hmm

i was just going to say that just like ED will take one platform to investigate and develop an area of the sim (ie.. F-15 PFM developed supersonic flight-model, f/a-18 is testbed for air-to-ground radar, there's another aircraft for dual-seat, etc), perhaps the f-117 is the platform to enhance radar and RCS modeling (???) one can only hope

let me explain whats going on here when the mission designer was creating this mission and laying down the waypoints for our aircraft, lines were created between the waypoints - those lines have the following properties: direction and distance (also altitude - but lets ignore that for right now...) "theoretically" you're going to fly along that course but, what is the reality?? when you're out there on the server, NOBODY flies directly to wypt1 and then on to wypt2 and then back to homeplate huh the "101" that you see in the window on the upper right-hand corner of the HSI is telling you that the course laid down by the mission planner from wypt0 to wypt1 is 101-deg but like i just said - almost NOBODY flies along the course lines created by the mission designer so.. what's the truth? the TRUE bearing to the selected waypoint is the arrowhead in the HSI (see red circle with label "1" in the second screenshot ---- i know, it doesn't look like an actual "arrow" - it looks more like a doghouse huh --- and don't forget, we want our bearing FROM the waypoint, so we're not even looking at the "arrowhead/doghouse" - we're looking at the tail of that arrow) at any rate, i hope that helps

whoa! i just posted a question - where did it go??

i know we're ramping up for EDGE and DCSW2 but my question(s) concern deeper issues with DCS first of all, missiles ---- the performance of the missiles in-game does not match what the DLZ displays in the cockpit (ie.. a tail-chase target well inside RTR on the F-15 VSD will often escape - you have to be *very* close for missiles to hit - especially at low alt) this renders the cockpit symbology useless - we cannot trust the instruments provided, we have to formulate "rules of thumb" on our own based on experience and word of mouth there exists plenty of evidence that DCS is getting missiles "wrong" ------ there have been many statements indicating the drag on the DCS missiles is too high leading to shorter ranges (especially at lower alt in dense atmosphere) - performance in-game does not match the symbology in the cockpit (this seems to indicate that at some point ED had to be of the mindset that missiles could achieve those ranges and developed algorithms to support that belief) - subject matter experts (pilots) themselves indicate missile performance in DCS should be better - open-source resources (wikipedia, FAS, foreign nations websites, etc) are universally in agreement that even the UNCLASS figures for ranges of the missiles should be greater than DCS missiles, publicly-available UNCLASS USN air intercept training material (p-825) indicates initial A120 launch range should be 20nm and A7 at 10-12nm (see pg207, bottom - see also illustration, pg214), US govt source documentation of previous generation missiles (vietnam-era A7) that have since been unclassified indicate even those missiles have longer ranges than DCS missiles, and every sim/game that has come before has missiles with longer ranges...... etc etc this is not a massive worldwide conspiracy to convince ED/russians/etc that our engagement ranges are greater, but in reality they're actually a lot less ---- the truth is, the ranges are quite probably GREATER than what has been publicly disclosed so, my question after all of that.. when will the subject of missile ranges be addressed? other questions i have for ED i already took up a lot of space so very quickly... missile guidance - this also an issue that needs attention - i understand all missiles use proportional navigation, modern missiles are more complicated than that radar performance should differ between aircraft - currently, i believe all intercept radars perform the same ---- there should be differences in detection range, lock range, look-down performance, notch sensitivity... etc i understand RCS is also the same across all platforms - it would be nice to have a non-spherical, platform specific RCS model in DCS i'm curious when (if?) will these topics be visited this is a simulation of "digital air combat" that's what i come here for i am interested to hear ED's official opinion on these topics [[ NOTE ------ this was originally posted to the wags' twitch/livestream questions-we-want-answered thread - and was then deleted from there and dumped over here where nobody will read it - "thanks" : / ]]

for *some* values of "all" it is not a true air-superiority fighter - it is a deep strike platform yes, it can carry A120s and A9s -- but that is for defensive purposes yes, the aircrew train for A-A -- but its mission is *primarily* interdiction so, actually, i disagree with you that the mudhen is as much an air sup fighter as a -15C

not picking on "mizzy" alone - but i want to make a comment regarding statements such as these when you say such-and-such "modern" aircraft still has classified systems therefore it can't (shouldn't?) be attempted to model at DCS-level....... you realize what you're REALLY saying is.. you don't think modern aircraft in general should even be attempted - right? why don't you just put it in your signature... "ED, please do not model ANY modern era aircraft because there are classified systems onboard and we don't want you to attempt to simulate any aircraft that isn't 100% verified and validated TRUE-TO-LIFE, no holds barred, no exceptions, no excuses" or, did i miss something? is this simulator called "Digital Old/Declassified/Defunct/Obsolete Combat Simulator"? because that's what it sounds like you want

two different birds my vote is for *both* DCS-level versions of the F-15

its probably no more complicated than the fact that there is an "FC3 version" and a "standalone" version *shrug* as much as i hope for a DCS-level light-grey, i really don't think its anymore than just testing all versions of the product what i *am* happy for though.. is the fact that belsimtek is still working on refining the PFM and continues development - THAT is good news to me...