Vanguard

Just finished downloading and I'm ripping across Syria in an F-18. From my 10 or so minutes flying along, all I can say so far is, it's exactly how it looked on the tin, it's beautiful, certainly sets a new standard for maps. FYI: Recoil's Multimap CDU Wind Briefing v1.1 mod is causing a fuss since this is a new map and not incorporated into the mod.

We already have a convenient function (lalt-y) to dynamically change the coordinate system, but no function that I'm aware of to change from imperial to metric for the ruler and elevation. I've been swapping between the F-18 and Ka50/Mi-8 and it would certainly be helpful, especially for measuring distances for doppler for example. Speaking of units, the other flavor, it would be nice to be able to toggle unit visibility (troops, vehicles etc) off and on. If I use CA to command a ship and I select a arbitrary location on a map, it fires a cruise missle. If the ground location is near a vehicle, it snaps to the vehicle and now it wants to engage with guns instead of firing a missle. There should be a better solution to this particular problem which is ridiculous, but we could kill two birds in the short term at least, as this functionality would still be welcomed to declutter.

I know nothing of the Viggen radar but, do other "built-in" buildings show up? Some A/G radars would remove "ground clutter" and filter out buildings, or the other way around, only show objects I.e. tanks and such that match a signature they are looking for.

There are varying opinions on which ground textures are the best, but most would argue any of them are better than stock. Those trees though... +100,.so much better, I could never go back.

Yes, IRL, it should work. It will be interesting to see if they will update and tweak the TGP behavior modelling along with the upcoming FLIR update. I can still recall lots of footage form the TV show Cops 10 years ago, police helo with a mounted FLIR easily tracking a suspect running through the trees without issue at all.

I understand how it works and agree with what you're saying, my point was more about the fact that it not only has great precision for a target that changes direction, it certainly isn't modeling the "optical" aspect, as it continues to track a unit through a forest. If I couldn't get a point lock in the first place, it shouldn't be able to continue to track it through the trees either (far more than the 10-15 seconds) I know its tracking because if the unit stops while hidden in the trees, the TGP still maintains lock. It shouldn't.

I find it interesting that Epic can't have their own in-app purchases to cut out the middle man while subscription based services like Netflix and Spotify collect 100% of their service fee externally and then offer a completely free app which would leave me to believe Google and Apple get absolutely nothing and yet that doesn't violate the TOS.

I'm not sure if it's modelled or not. I've posted before on the subject. In the A-10 I've had a point lock on a target, the TGP got completely masked by the jet, and even though the unit I was tracking changed directions in the meantime, after it was un-obscured, I still had a point lock on it. In the F-18 though, my point lock was lost when the target got obscured from the terrain. Never tested it, just recall the behavior from various sorties. One thing is for sure, I couldn't get a point lock on a unit traveling through trees, but the TGP will happily track a unit that already had a point lock and that unit travels into a forest. I thought it was using inertia to continue to track, but if the unit stops or changes direction, it continues to be tracked, even though I can't see it. So it's not simulating or calculating optical contrast, either its cheating or it's a bug.

That's the best description I can think of. The A-10C is so much more "intuitive" when it comes to the TGP. The other day I needed to hit a moving target with a mav, and after 10 minutes all I could think was, damn, I would have squashed two platoons in an A10 by now. The single fact that the F18 needs to undesignate and re boresight the camera makes it a big step backwards. Like... slew the mav, then undesginate, then slew mav to target, in too close, waypoint designate, slew to find target again, slew mav, lock with mav... what a PoS lol. It's not what the 18 was designed to do, and really helps one understand and appreciate why they continue to keep the A10 around. For CAS, the 18 is no replacement. Anti shipping, anti SAM, standoff pinpoint strike, carrier launch, A-10 can't even pretend to touch it. Multi-role is really cool, but is truely the jack of all trader, and absolutely the master of none. I'll take a 15 or 14 vs an 18 all day A2A, and I'll take A-10C to pound ground in CAS all day. But then a mission comes along where you need to battle into an AO, then drop bombs and head home, F-18 is really cool, but unmatched in either side of spectrum.

All the Zeus markers seem to work, except "-create hmv" spawns nothing for me. Checked the ME, nothing obviously wrong with the unit or naming. Any ideas?

Maybe that used to be the case, I ran a cold start mission last night, worked the first time, ran the same mission again, it didn't work. I can't remember, I might have hit restart during debrief, maybe had something to do with it, but either way, cold start isn't a guarantee it works sadly.

Hi folks, many of these dynamic maps have some big zones to spawn troops, and many times they are spawned under trees or even on rooftops. Aside from shrinking the zones and intelligent placement, is there any way to avoid spawning units under trees or on rooftops.

I bought from MFG. Certainly no wiggle, they are made really thick aluminium, feels like steel aside from the weight, they bind together like an ox.

It is probably obvious to most, but stupidly wasn't apparent to me, hindsight 20/20, but in case anyone is considering ordering an extension for their warthog and your unsure what size to buy... they do stack. So you could buy two 7.5cm for example and couple them together for 15cm. Why? I find 7.5-10cm great for planes, but a little longer when flying choppers. Funny enough, I bought a.7.5cm and a 12cm, and I find the two together at 19.5 is even better got the helos so I lucked out. So now I have a 7.5, 12 and 19.5 effectively. Hope this helps.

It would be nice if the variables, such as screens and devices, which are available in the MonitorSetup scripts (like 3Cameras.lua) were also available in the SnapViews.lua file so that those us of who switch between 1 Monitor and multi-monitor can use the variables to set the FOV accordingly, and not have to keep multiple copies around or manually edit each time we switch.

LCTRL-LSHIFT-ESC 2 times, it cycles through modes, and you can drag it to the corner of your screen as well.

As the title says. No chance to send him RTB or tanker. Edit: Track attached. I'm pretty sure my ICLS was off in left field on approach as well and no idea why. Tried to save it but failed in the end sadly, please have a look. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4SG6xY3ur4KE-ei_TYCM5e-QIhwrsKF/view?usp=sharing

Thanks for the tip, I'll also give it a try. I couldn't really get beyond mission 1 for CTB. Something like 20+ bombers with no escort, like shooting fish in a barrel. Way too easy and unrealistic.

Um, I did buy it, I just don't like the business model behind it and the fact we need two carriers in every mission, the plague of two sets of mission files for user made maps, and the fact I have to edit every single mission I have already and change it to the supercarrier which is no small task. I would simply like the Stennis to appear as an SC if I own it, otherwise it doesn't whichout having to modify 30+ mission files.

Not sure if this has been suggested, but the userfiles section could be dramatically improved. I remember back in the day a certain publisher had similar restrictions, and a 3rd party beast spawned we know and love as av-sim now as a result. Could you please consider adding filters to: 1) Top 10/20 most popular this week, month, year, all time --- would really help those of use who aren't around much to quickly identify the key content that would actually engage us in the game more and maybe buy more stuff... 2) Allowing #1 to work with filters applied, ie top 10 maps, top 10 mods, etc, or all 3) Filter by map, how can we not have this? 4) Singleplayer / Multiplayer The business case here is pretty solid, how many games survive these days due to their mods alone. Spending some time here will certainly drive sales as players discover new and exciting things. I just stumbled upon Through The Inferno and now I'm engrossed and it's inspired me to build something myself. As it stands, you'd have to be a forum lurker to be in the know and find the useful stuff.

The gift that keeps on giving... divides the mulitplayer community, requires modifications to every existing map, user files section is now filled with SC!!! and non-SC editions of everything, making it a bigger mess than it already was, what a mess. I would love an interview with the production manager. :huh:

Thank you both, I guess it is quite old tech. IRL I'm assuming the "man in the loop" could potentially be another unit, possibly on the ground closer to the action? I wish CA would get some love... Looking forward to seeing if the ER variant makes it more useful in the current lineup.

Hi all, I was just experimenting with the SLAM and have 2 questions up front, 1. It would seem the accuracy of the weapon is terrible without manual terminal guidance with the pod. IRL is it this poor? I have to imagine it should be quite accurate given that the pod is only effective up to about 40nm, while the missle, especially the upcoming ER variant has much more range. All that range would be useless if the missile required human input. 2. What use case makes this your personal go-to weapon over a JSOW, other than the obvious of a moving target at extremely long range? 3. Apologies if it's been discussed, I see (from https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Harpoon.html): When Preplanned Mode is used, target coordinates, waypoints, terrain clearance settings and terminal trajectory options must be loaded into the missile prior to takeoff. Anyone know if this functionality is coming to DCS? Or at least Infrared homing terminal guidance? I believe this is missing from the AGM-154C as well currently. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon: The JSOW-C adds an infra-red seeker for terminal guidance) The only doc I could find says this has the lower circular error of precision in the Navy, but doesn't say if that's due to the fancy guidance or pod, but again, given the ranges I would expect this to be used, the pod is useless... Photo of target vs 4 impact points: Thanks!

I was just using the group as a template and spawning the group via MOOSE, and I was trying to debug is this irrational behavior was due to MOOSE or the core, so deleted all scripts and units to create the test map. Flappie, thanks for taking a look mate. I just re-created the unit from scratch and put them down, exact same behavior as before unfortunately. Are you testing on OB or Stable?

In my real mission, I have 4 groups of units in different liocations, and they all go crazy... I move them up or down the road just a bit, it gets better, but clearly there is something wrong, it's not just this one unit or this one location. Hopefully devs can take a look and see if there's more to this story,