boomerang10

That's kinda the idea of PGM, right? The biggest chance to missing is screwing up the lasing with an LGB, such as forgetting to arm the laser or interrupting laser energy by masking your TGP. It's pretty hard to miss with the JDAM unless you make the mistake of employing against something that can move... and does.

Could it be that those numbers assume multiple product downloads per client? For example, you have one user with XX module downloads (FC3, A-10C, NTTR, etc). That could explain the difference in numbers.

You know the 15 and 18 sticks are nearly identical, right?

While I am disappointed as well to not see more as far as new products, especially considering the size and location of the event, it is worth noting that the throttle they introduced essentially follows the Hornet hotas layout with a couple minor differences. It looks like it may have a better TDC than the Warthog and a wheel for the radar elevation. At the very least, it could be an option for those that don't want to shell out $400+ for a new hotas set for the Hornet, bearing in mind that the A-10 stick has more buttons and switches than the F-18. But yes, I'd obviously like a full F-18 stick/throttle set of the same quality, if not better, as the Warthog.

Hopefully this is already being developed, but I'd love getting expanded mission card functionality with the F-18. Preferably with an external editor and the ability for clients to select different loads based on their preference. At the very least, expanding options for preset values in the mission editor would be a great improvement. Ideally you'd have all of your waypoints, sequences, weapon coordinates, comm frequencies, etc, all pre-loaded so you're not burning gas punching everything into the jet. I know some of these are able to set in the mission editor with current aircraft but it could definitely use some improvement. Just as an example, something similar to the DTC in BMS would be great. The VRS Aircraft Configuration Manager is a great example as well. Not having it wouldn't be a huge deal but expanded presets would certainly be a welcome feature.

It doesn't have the ability to see launches like the A-10 can with its IR sensors. You won't get a launch warning. You'll only get warnings when someone has you locked or when a missile is active on you.

PIO is just that: pilot induced. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, DCS does not simulate wake turbulence in any form. Biggest key to success is practice. Specifically, practice in that sim. I can refuel the A-10 just fine but I don't have the proficiency to refuel the Falcon in BMS or, frankly, any of the other modules in DCS. Second is trim. Trim trim trim. Third is making small corrections. If you find yourself getting into PIOs, just back out and try again. Others have covered the lack of visual perception and seat of the pants feeling before so I'll only add one thing on that subject. This is a big reason why, at least on the probe/drogue side of AAR, the military doesn't typically do air refueling in simulators. Lastly, a few 30mm rounds go a long way towards curing frustration from failed refueling attempts. :joystick:

I believe this is one of the features planned for 2.0.

1. Depends. 2. Yes. 3. Normally only the lead.

Whether or not you have them out depends on everything from platform right down to pilot preference. The idea behind landing with them out is that the extra drag requires you to fly the approach at a higher power setting and keep the engine spooled up away from the idle stops. Thus, if you do have to execute a go around there is less spool-up time required for the engine to develop full power. Personally, I fly the approach with them out with the F-15 and A-10, for example, but not the MiG-21. It should be noted that some aircraft, like the A-10, require weight on wheels to achieve full extension of the speedbrakes.

Yes, I had that issue as well today. 4 knot wind at the surface.

Do you have/use multiple monitors? - Edit - Are you asking about beta 1.5 or the main release?

And a new month! Here's to beta 1.5 Oct 2015! :) I really do look forward to the enhanced visibility of units. One of the toughest challenges I've found, even with guys that have all lights on bright and don't fence in, is just picking up other air units visually.

I've been playing World of Warships to kill time and just finished a workout. Unfortunately, for me, I've got six days before I'll be in the middle of a move and doing some training for work, resulting in me being away from my computer for around a month. I know that and again put no blame on the devs. I understand there are bugs to be worked out; that happens. But this close to show time, I'd rather just get the official word that it's released. Extra videos and screens are more than welcome, it's the impending release announcements which I am referring to. I suppose it's just personality. I'd rather be surprised by the release of something - looking at you F-5E/F-15C - than be disappointed by something you were expecting. Either way, looking forward to the release just like everyone else.

I'd rather have zero updates until it's done. It's a tiny bit disappointing to see "release candidate is done!" and then get a no, wait, just kidding.. At this point I'd rather just see the release announcement instead of "it's about to be released" announcements. To be clear, I'm not faulting Matt or the other Devs one bit. I'd just rather know when it's done instead of getting teased.

Got a new registration for Blue Flag: LONEWOLF Callsign: Boomerang10 Pref. Aircraft: A-10C/F-15C/UH-1 Team: Blue

One thing I forgot to mention is to use the RADALT to back you up. Set the altitude alert as appropriate, for instance set it to decision height, typically 200, for an ILS once established.

Overall I thought it was fine; it got you on deck safely. Any corrections are minor and are just to improve an already solid approach. The only things I really noticed were: - You mention that you used MSL instead of AGL prior to the FAF. This is actually correct. Although an AGL altitude will be used to set the MSL altitude for the approach, the published altitude the pilot should be using is MSL. Think if you were trying to use AGL over mountainous terrain; you'd be chasing altitude the whole time. - I thought maybe you gave up on the approach and transitioned to a completely outside scan a bit early and went past full deviation on the glideslope. Nit-picky, but personally I would've flown the needles until a bit closer and with more of the runway in sight. - Fight for centerline on landing. Especially with a strong left to right wind, you don't want to be landing on the downwind side like you did. Again, overall solid approach.

Indeed, the ability for mission editors to set equipment failure conditions to create emergency scenarios would be nice. Examples could include blown tire on landing, engine failures, fires, and system failures during various stages of flight.

The 476 has done an outstanding job of doing unofficial plates that aren't available for most users otherwise. I will say that there appears to be something broken with the approaches at Vaziani. Image below shows general NAV tuning and course selection: Specifically, for the TACAN 32, TCN appears accurate for azimuth and DME. However, the ILS appears to be off. Not sure if this is an ED issue or with the plates.

"Say again last" would be more proper, using the word "repeat" is generally frowned upon on military radio.

He wasn't talking about that as a feature for MP (although I think it would be nice). What he was talking about was the ability to preview an aircraft loadout and skin in the mission editor without having to actually fly the mission to see it.

Haha fair enough. What's interesting is that Wags has, on multiple occasions, praised the work the guys doing LotATC have done. Just wish it could be integrated. So this reply is at least half on-topic, it's crazy to see just how many guys on the 104th openly break the left side rule. I don't mind the guys that do section takeoffs as long as it's clear, but the singles that takeoff and can't even keep a straight line blow my mind.

I wish ED would just partner with the guys doing TARS/Aries and LotATC and make an official solution.

I don't believe the F-14 had an audible bingo alert. Just a BINGO caution, set per the bug, and L/R LOW FUEL cautions when the respective tank is less than 1000+/-200.