Capn kamikaze

Refraction would be even less than the red in that, since radar is well below the wavelength of visible light, and I can't imagine that the quality of the signal after being refracted once out, and then again back would be good enough to detect something against sea clutter returns.

Would it be possible to add a mode for testing missions, where you could bring up a console that lists things triggering, like units entering zones, and flags being changed, and units activating etc. It would be quite handy to be able to see a report of things like that to track bugs, especially in very large missions. It would need some sort of anti-cheat system in place to stop it being turned on in MP though.

Thanks :)

I was wondering what settings people are using, I am running it on a RTX2080, not the Ti version, just the standard one. So far it's working well, but I was wondering how to optimise it, FPS seems more than acceptable, so I'm looking to maximise graphics, especially wrt being able to spot bandits. One thing I really would like some advice on is does the screen resolution of my monitor settings have anything to do with the HMD, as that is only 1920x1080, and won't go any higher, so I was wondering how to set the HMD's resolution, or if DCS does that automatically?

Considering the era he was going to be doing that in it has to be the 120A maybe at best the B, but not even early C's.

I'm only talking about the HARM since I don't generally fly any Russian stuff, but it seems that ships radars are practically immune to being taken out of action by the HARM, at least that is my experience with them. Obviously you're never going to take out even a small ship with HARMs, but taking out their radar should be doable, I've had cases where I've taken 4 HARMs, attacked FFG class ships, had all 4 hit watched them go in, and had to go back to base and get another 4 to finish the radar off. No, I don't have a track, this happened a while back, I was just wondering what other's opinions are of this IMO a ship mounted radar should be no more protected than one on a land based SAM site, so have you experienced the same? Is this a case of the HARM being too weak, which we already know it is, or also a case of ship damage models not treating their radars as separate damageable items but as part of the ship's health?

I'm trying to run a server for myself and a friend that I'm training, and have done in the past, but for some reason they can't see my server in the server list, and when they try to join via IP they get a message saying the server is offline. It is a public server, but is password protected. I was wondering if anyone had any idea what the issue could be, and whether it's likely on my side or their side?

Would it be possible to have a mode where you can highlight a control in another players cockpit so when you're teaching them a new module, and for example want to draw their attention to say the APU switch or engine crank switch etc, you can see in their cockpit, click the button, and in their view, it will be highlighted?

Some of the static items we have at the moment are fine for the Crimea and Normandy, which are covered with fields, but they are not suitable for a desert environment. For example these items...

If we go by the encyclopedia some SAM's have significantly different range's to what is shown in the ME and F10 views. For example the SA-10's range. So what do we go by.

Got to agree, the fact is that a flight sim that is open to the public is either going to be one of the following things... Based on old aircraft only. Compromised anyway. Anything that tries to do modern stuff is going to be missing bits and/or intentionally inaccurate in certain areas to protect secrets. So accepting that fact, you have to ask yourself, is having bits of a sim that 0.01% of the user base will get any benefit from worth spending much time on actually simulating. IMO it's entirely reasonable to have a plane that's 90-95% accurate, or reasonably accurate, and therefore have many more aircraft available, rather than one or two that are 99.9% accurate, when that extra accuracy is because of bits that next to no one uses, especially when you consider that that extra accuracy may in many cases not even be usable because of other factors in the sim, like environmental factors, and reliance on systems external to the plane in question that it IRL relies upon that are not simulated or if they are they are inaccurate themselves. DCS at the end of the day is, like any other simulation of modern military hardware, an approximation, a very good one, but an approximation none the less. So people screaming "but muh realism", and trying to write off people looking at this issue from a more reasonable perspective by telling them to "go play war thunder", try to be more reasonable.

The reason why is kind of secret, but there is a good reason. Is it possible?

?

Yeah, that would explain it.

He's consistently telling me a bandit is at a particular clock position, and he's no where near, I know this has been an issue for a while, but is it intended to be fixed.

No, not the way you're asking.

IS. They can always change their minds, and I think they should. At the very least they can introduce new aircraft as "FC3 level", and if possible upgrade them at a later date as more information becomes available.

Irrelevant, we're talking about a simulator, where the simulated bit of flesh in the cockpit is a simulation of a fighter pilot, so it should respond like a real fighter pilot would.

I'd like something like this that extracts not images of the instruments, but the data in real time, in a way that can be sent to something like an Arduino over USB, for driving virtual cockpit instruments.

FC3 level is the only way to do it, or you're going to be waiting at least 20-30 years for the Russian government to allow it. ED need to revise their policy of not doing any more FC3 level planes.

Never really occurred to me, I'll give it a try.

Erm the F/A-18C was still in service with the USN, and is still in service with the USMC, and the F-16 is still in service with the USAF. So "in service" is not really a reason not to, and is not the same thing as lacking access to reliable info, which is a more plausible reason not to make a module. Also, no one said anything about an F-15C in it's current state, you could do an F-15C from 15 or 20 years ago, which is basically the rough timeframe of the F-15C we have, but with a clickable pit and some fixes and more in depth modelling. So there is nothing that really stops a more complete F-15C from being made.

What? not have it trigger an IC failure?

Dagger, I'm not suggesting it be charged for, if that's what you're getting at, I'm suggesting it get added officially, so that it doesn't trigger IC failures.

They just get in the way of moving ships, it'd be great if they had some AI that would at least move them out of the way of any ships that would collide with them. Also we just need more civilian ships, especially for that map, a few tankers and container ships.