kobeshow

I don't think it ís about that "super hardcore" realism, all one really needs to do is learn how to read their HSI and select the correct waypoint/beacon, no one is advocating hour long pre-flight planning, at least I'm not, but reading the HSI and drawing a mental image of where you are on the map is really just basics in my opinion.

And honestly, I don't see the problem with that. This is supposed to be organized pvp, or at least in my mind it is, and if you can't navigate in your aircraft of choice your preferred server should be virtual aerobatics.

ahahahaa this is hilarious :thumbup: if you followed the flamewar of previous rounds this is a must see, sense of humor required

Hi, My suggestion: use the Mode switch on the throttle so you have more available buttons and can even group them together. Generally what I do is Mode1: Combat bindings Mode2: Navigation Bindings Mode3: Takeoff/Landing bindings I think you are using ingame bindings, hence your modifier, which with my method would be unnecessary. You should use the programming software for the HOTAS to get even better functionality, for example: I use the slider on the throttle for 3 functions that need holding down a key: Mode 1: Countermeasures, just slide it up and spam them until you slide it back. Mode 2: Kneeboard Mode 3: Wheelbrake Generally I find that it is worth it to put the time in and use the software, so my main suggetion would be to do that (;

I don't understand what kind of fun could possibly come from a thread like this, but sure go ahead.

you are correct, the radar is stabilised horizontally, so when your target gets closer you need to be moving the antenna down if he is below you.

the range you are setting works in combination with your radar elevation. you know how it tells you "1...2...3..." the further you move the radar up and the same with negative numbers when you move it down? this number shows the altitude difference relative from your position, and relative to the range setting you have selected, so you might be looking at +2km at 25km distance for example. the radar range setting is merely for display purposes, and does not affect what your radar cone does whatsoever, that remains the same whatever you do. you can check this by looking at how muss less pitch movement there is for an altitude difference of 1km when you increase the range you want to be looking at. so to "look around faster" I leave my distance setting at 10km in most cases. sometimes when i have the time I use a precise range setting for the target to find his exact altitude without locking him up, but that is rarely necessary (in the Game of course... reality is probably a lot different)

I don't know who you were talking to, and I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the EOS. In my experience it is much easier to find a chopper on radar, you go for the killshot with an IR missile but locating them is mostly radar work for me, even in close I combine EOS and radar.

I keep telling this to everyone, RED coms are a cluster, but language barrier is not the problem, it is organisation and com discipline. If everyone split up in their respective channels, formed flights, kept commander channel clean and stuck to brevity code, we would not have those problems. This would also better allow for the GCI to play the role of a general (that requires a commitment from the pilots aswell, be ready to follow orders, don't be a special snowflake). If we do this we might actually be able to come up with a plan to finally conquer Tibilisi. link for reference to the system I'm talking about: http://buddyspike.net/forum/m/32856486/viewthread/26232096-suggested-teamspeak-hierarchy-whisper-use-improving-our-ability-to-organize

Yes it is true, people will struggle with the concept, even now it is impossible to get people to split up into groups and use teamspeak's own channel commander function, which would be somewhat similar, I can only imagine the chaos if they have to take care of an extra application and radio frequencies. I know it is the aim to keep the event as open as possible, but in my opinion it is too open now, people who have no idea what is going on join the server, they are not even required to be in TS, read the SOP or be in any way disciplined about the way they approach the campaign.

That sounds great, hopefully it will improve teamplay and the overall expirience of the campaign down the line.

With the ammount of grief that is going on here, to set such a precedent as with Arcus is very dangerous. I'm not the internet police so I'm not hunting for people who are desyncing and showing strange behavior, but I bet that if someone set out to do it, especially in the last hour of the server cycle, he will have no problem finding other people who do it. By the way, 104th are not praticipating in blueflag anymore because they think that DCS can't handle such an event. Secondly I am also of the opinion that maybe the event should be organised a bit better, make people agree to behave in a certain way (join TS, respect coms structure, make sure they read the SOP etc.), because I have to say that the quality of gameplay has deteriorated, at least from my expirience.

yes it is true, people were bummed out, and rightfully so, but Xcom did a server restart and gave red all the bases/farps back that we held at the point of server crash.

(; seems like you didn't understand what I meant, but there is really no point in arguing about this anymore, it is probably my poor english skills that make you misunderstand me. ON A MORE IMPORTANT NOTE: apparently if you select missiles from the drop down menu you can still load ER/ET, they need to be taken out of the airfields.

Stop thinking in airquake terms and start thinking in terms of airspace control. Many people also don't seem to realise that 120s will block your RWR in a 27, even if they are out of energy they are still painting you, when the follow up shot goes active and is further away than the first one you see the killshot way too late to evade, especially with the paper 27 that gives you little room to maneuver at high speeds.

This is because you have a misconception about the dot. It does not show the optimal intercept trajectory like in the F15, it shows the direction in which the radar is pointed when locking a target, so if you put the dot in the middle of your HUD you will be pointing straight at the target.

Just a quick notice: when you land at a friendly airfield, go to spectators and then relocate to another airfield, it counts your loss but your lives in the script remain the same, don't know if it is intended or not but you guys might want to look into that to avoid any problems during the round.

I agree, it is the hardest job to fly a transport chopper, all the work and none of the glory. With the airfield refueling script in full effect, CSAR missing and now limited lives, you might aswell add that capture script and kick choppers to the curb.

I think F-15 pilots are so used to 3 bags + full burn that they don't realise the strain they would put on a real plane if they flew it like that, but the G load on the HUD has a display limit of 9.9 so they probably think it's fine (; Snarky remarks aside, hopefully all FC3 planes get some type of structural integrity.

[SOLVED] Like the title says, I think I have encountered a strange bug. I was quite happy to find out that you can actually adjust your altimeter in the FC3 planes, I didn't know that. So I hopped into the editor to test it, and my engines did not want to spool at all. Tried Keyboard and Hotas commands, double checked everything, and even hopped into a SU-33 to test it on another plane, and it worked flawlessly there. Anyone else having problems spooling their SU-27 in the editor?? edit: stable version 1.5 edit2:yep, it appears that it was the throttle, but thanks for the tip Sweep [SOLVED]

Well, they are saying that it is exploitable in a way that lets you see things unrealisticly, therefore they want it "off FOR realism". That does not mean however that anyone is saying the setting itsself represents reality, it just resembles it the most atm (;

To Redfor: I see that we have difficulty coordinating even though we have all the means at hand, I again urge you to USE REDFOR HQ on the buddyspike.net website. Testing is still going on and if we want to avoid a desastrous start like in round 5 then this is the time to talk to each other about it.

well the problem is the way ED implemented model enlargement, WHY485 already found a solution for that, and from what I can tell he just tweaked the settings that are already there, so it is really baffling that his solution is not the standard for ED by now... developers and their pride I guess... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160634 His mod thread also describes the various problems the current implementation of "impostors" has and should point out to everyone, who has 5min to read it, why currently ANY setting other than "no enlargement" is not suitable for a competitive environment.

Regarding the numbers, some people decided to not play due to various reasons, and there was this http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2761755&postcount=1312 which probably prompted some switching. I personally find the concern about player numbers odd, last round nobody seemed to care, and whichever side got outnumbered had to live with the results.

Hi Greg, thank you for that clear statement. In regards to balance I understand that you don't like people complaining about ideas that you think are a nice twist on the mission, and I wouldn't like it either. To prevent something like that maybe you could just post a quick statement about what your thoughts were when you implemented a certain balance. I think if people for example read something like "in this round redfor has to make due with outdated aircraft against a better equipped bluefor" then the acceptance would be much higher, general thoughts and statements like this could of course be put in the opening post for the new round, which ideally would be up by the time the testing phase begins, so people can have a streamlined discussion, unlike now where we discuss 5 different issues across 2 threads (; These are just my thoughts in general on the way the testing phase has gone, and in no way am I complaining about anything to you guys, you are doing a great job and have created something that makes DCS worth playing, which is no exaggeration, I stopped playing this game for a year and came back just because of blueflag, so THANK YOU (: !