fltsimbuff

Actually that is probably AMARG at Davis Monthan AFB. It is sort of depressing to pull that up on Google Maps. You can see all sorts of airframes on the imagery. B-52s and F-16s, F-18s and F-14s, and even some A-10s.

That looks like a photo of retired F-14s at AMARG. I doubt that has anything to do with Leatherneck.

You should install CPUZ or some other utility to check your actual CPU clock rate, and temperature. If you just built this system and forgot thermal paste or didn't get the heatsink on quite right it could be throttling itself.

Hold down one of the bottom MFCD buttons on an MFCD so you get the button-select screen, then assign that screen to one of the buttons. You will have to replace one of your already-assigned screens, but you can change it back when you're done.

I think Groom Lake will be perfect for DCS: SR-71!

I would start by contacting the AV company yourself. I am not sure that software developers should bear responsibility for contacting every AV maker out there to have their software cleared, when the AV software maker seems to be the one having the problem. EA may do it anyway, but usually it is best if the AV software customers get involved.

Great resource, thank you! I suppose we can mostly chalk up the rest of the naming to mostly randomness... with the exception of programs like "HAVE LEMON and HAVE LIME (related)." I wonder if there's a guy sitting behind a desk somewhere whose job it is to name these things...

Forgive me for resurrecting a year-old thread, but I just stumbled across this while trying to answer the same question (what does "Have" mean in the context of code names). Another one that gets me is "Rivet." Rivet Joint, Rivet Ball, Rivet Amber, etc. Rivet usually seems to be used with RECCE systems, so the first letter may have significance. This one also seems to be used on operational systems rather than just project code-names. And then there is Tacit Blue, Tacit Rainbow, and probably many others. "Tacit" usually refers to something done silently, so that makes sense for a stealth aircraft (Tacit Blue) and also to the passive anti-radiation missile (Tacit Rainbow) to some extent. So, does anyone else have any code-names to add? Any ideas on what (if anything) they mean?

Sorry, I guess I was confused when you said "the sensors on these planes" instead of RWR, as that sounded all-inclusive. It is probably best not to speculate on what it can and can't see in reality. One of the 4 sensors on the A-10C points straight down, after all. Newer versions of that system can even detect tracer rounds and RPGs, so it's not unlikely it could see the launch of a rocket motor. Even if it doesn't see the launch, it can sense approach, so even if it can't see it 4k below, by the time it gets closer it could very well be seen. If the SAM fired by a Tunguska is sometimes missed by the MWS that is one thing, but if the Op is saying it is never detected, that could be a problem.

Completely incorrect. The A-10C MWS uses infrared sensors to detect the launch: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-warning-system-has-been-identified.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAR-47_Missile_Approach_Warning_System This is the model installed on A-10Cs

I wonder what the conditions are for the 3500m limitation. If you consider, for instance, that it can hit a target moving away at 500kts at 3500m (completely made-up numbers), then a target flying away at under 400kts would probably be able to be engaged at higher altitudes. Same if you're moving toward the launcher at above 3500m, it may have the energy to get to you at a higher altitude. The same may hold depending on the horizontal range to you. Unless they base the 3500m limit on a target hovering directly 3500m above the launcher (forgetting about maximum launcher elevation angle), it stands to reason it might be able to do better than that under various parameters. One final thought... Do you know what the elevation of the launcher was? Was your 3500m reading from radar altimeter or barometric?

The Japanese plane could be anything from a Zero to one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY7_Ohka The latter would fit perfectly with my tunnel-vision attack style.

And from the Air force: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/01/27/pogo-fire-post-treason-a10/22414693/ "Air Combat Command said in a statement that Post's "use of hyperbole" was intended to prove a point, and not to restrict airmen from communicating with members of Congress." That is pretty much confirming what he said, and strongly implying that it wasn't about "secret" information, as it would not be hyperbole to say someone giving away real secrets was committing treason.

Here is an interesting article about the system installed in the A-10C: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-warning-system-has-been-identified.html

I had a similar problem, in fact even clickable cockpit elements existed on the right-most monitor despite them being displayed on the center. I had to move my cursor over the approximate position on the right-most monitor that the switch was on the center one to click it. I was able to fix this by using windowed mode, and all controls lined up again.

I just head for the nearest runway and take off when it is clear. Last time I listened to ATC when they cleared me, I almost got run over by a landing cargo plane. I'll wait until there is better ATC/Ground control before obeying them. In the meantime I am fine with being a renegade (in single player, at least). :)

I was surprised to find that they actually built over 200 of these and had them in service for a few years...

Because two Mustangs stuck together are twice as good as one, right? This had to be awkward for the pilots...

I am not sure it would make much sense to go after anyone installing it. These things are kept secret to keep out of the hands of other nations. I don't think Uncle Sam would care about Joe from California having a copy, if every Iranian military expert and tech guy has it anyway. Once foreign powers have it, there's no point to keeping it a secret domestically. This isn't necessarily true for all secrets, but certainly is for things like EW equipment. Then again, government actions don't always make sense.

To be fair, it's not just bad scaling. A major limitation is resolution and inability to use your peripheral vision in many cases. For me this affects ground vehicles more than air. At least in the air, something 1 pixel in size may still be noticeable against a sky that is only a couple of colors. Against the ground, on the other hand... a unit represented by quite a few pixels can get lost in the the ground texture. In the end you're either enabling labels and having it way easier than it would be IRL, or turning them off and having it way harder than it would be IRL. I am looking forward to an Oculus Rift-like device with very high resolution. THEN it would get real.

I, for one, would love to see an AIM-104 Missile-with-a-man-in-it. To me it represents a time when they were heavily experimenting with the best way to get good supersonic performance. A lot of the designs of that time looked very different from one another and had very unique handling characteristics. This reminds me a lot of a paper airplane competition...

I hate to break it to you, but you are NEVER going to have a historically accurate matchup. Unless you can simulate the shortage of skilled pilots and fuel shortages, and the MANY other factors involved in the "balance" besides just the aircraft, attempts to replicate the scenario are futile. I am guessing that ED probably doesn't release modules and maps simply to recreate very specific battles. That's the Mission Editor's job to balance those as much as possible. They release aircraft people want to fly, and give them a place to fly them.

Outstanding! Now they just need stop trying to kill it off and give it the upgrades it deserves!

I think we need some M1A2s with the bulldozer setup.... Or Engineers that can deploy mobile bridges, bulldoze makeshift airstrips, and clear wreckages out of the way. Might as well throw in some operational firetrucks too.

What about a Cessna 172 with a bucket of grenades?