TGW

Maybe this will help with this dilemma . . . Public source information: 100mJ LASER power rating (mid-page): https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/litening.htm LITENING uses a 100 mJ laser to designate targets selected by the air crews and provides guidance to the Laser Guided Bomb. 100mJ TGP specifications (mid-bottom of page) https://erdicn.com/products/ldr100 Working wavelength: 1064nm±1nm (NIR) Maximum measured distance: >30km (20km visibility, 2.3x2.3m typical target, target reflectance > 20%) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqs1zoBETEA Hope this helps!

I too have the same problem, upon first start (verified and logged in to DCS), I can select the multiplayer option to get the retrieved serverlist for online multiplay. Upon leaving from a connected MP server, when I return to the DCS serverlist it is blank, I have waited for over 10 minutes without the serverlist repopulating itself. On the same computer and same installed drive location, I can run the single-threaded version of the program without this problem.

Thank you!

To anyone who can help, Please excuse my ignorance, but I am missing something to turn off the F2 'camera sway'? Thank you in advance!

.

I am successfully running v2.7 under Win 8.1 with very good (frames) performance (better than 2.5.6 under Win 7). I made no changes to my hardware config (other than drivers) under Win 8.1. This is a viable option!!

As with any config changes in the aircraft (fuel tank dump, ordinance drop, acft damage, flap & sbrake deployment) are automatically trimmed in the FCS. UNLESS, there's a FCS channel failure, then you would use manual (trim buttons) for flight vector stabilization. . .

Any possibility of a texture template (PSD) in the near future??

I see this applies to the 'current' update, FM is completely borked in v2.7 (vs. v2.5.6). Induced drag values are waaaay to high , and turn rate is horrible, not even comparable with NFM-220 manual documentation, sigh.

True in the above point. But your airspeed @ max-G will vary according to weight (wing-loading) of your aircraft at any given point in time (heavier=faster). This in turn (pun-intended) will also vary your 'turn diameter', which is another factor to be monitoring while performing BFM with an opponent. Yes, this is expected, as each aircraft has a differing lift-to-total drag (induced + parasitic) profile!

PB mode for HARMs will be nice too, so they actually LOFT properly to the RF emitters!!!

AIM-7P is current and there have been rumors of an R model . . .

Anyone notice any changes in the Hornet's FM today? . . . again . . .

Unfortunately, with the suggestions you made, its not an issue of 'checking the models' or 'correct textures'. Taking snapshot images is not of a consequence either (as this does occur frequently on servers with this option enabled) . For this 'blatant' coding manipulation of the vehicles, there needs to be a progressive affirmative action, either permaban and/or legal (EULA violation) action. I hope this clarifies my position.

Is there a way, or even the idea of using a SHA1 hash algorithm for the purpose of authenticating the validiation of all of the flight models of the DCS aircraft while on multiplay servers? I have a (growing) list of players with aircraft that have exceeded their modules FM performance by more than 10%. This is really starting to be annoying and frustrating for the investment I have made into this simulator and being undermined by some individuals who think their shortcut in life is 'to cheat'. I know I speak for a crowd of people who are also tired of this manipulation and dishonesty. Is there a way for you to incorporate the SHA1 hash algorithm into the server module to verify and authenticate the flight models of your current (and future) fleet of aircraft? With an end result that the server would reject these hybrid aircraft (or other vehicles) from joing the multiplay session. For those repeating attempts to connect, the server would log the account ID and IP address. Included with the option of this 'log' to be sent DCS, so that ED (if they seem fit) would either cancel the violators account and/or pursue legal action with a EULA violation of your products and disruptive gameplay of others while using the simulator. I know Electronic Arts a few years back had instituted a similar policy like this in their EULA, and the hacking and disruptive gameplay dropped "considerably". Just a thought . . . .