Wizard_03

Well I think EDs working on it based on the title of this post but it’s hard to say what you should expect if your machine is below minimum requirements. Because the game is only going to harder to run as it improves. At no point are they going to add a feature like improved weather, and your performance is going to get better. It’s constantly evolving unlike most games so I would definitely expect the hardware requirements to go up not down. All that aside even people above recommended are having issues so it definitely has room for improvement.

See that I don’t agree with, I think that’s a WW2 thought. Where the threat from the air was not taken seriously for a long time prior to events in that conflict. Nowadays it’s taken extremely seriously. To the point where I don’t think a single ship is even going to operate outside their protective blanket of air defense in a tactical situation. It’s basically reversed itself, aircraft now can’t get anywhere near a ship. Further In regards to an isolated vessel. Could they operate like that? sure. If so would they be at risk of a saturation style air-launched cruise missile attack? Absolutely. So Would they ever operate like that? Absolutely not. Why? Because it’s too risky. The threat from the air can be dealt with simply with the right tactics. Speaking of Harpoon it’s being phased out for the exact reason I’m talking about. LRASM is replacing it for the USN because it has low observe-ability and much better autonomous capabilities. Rather then penetrate extremely robust ship IADS with numbers and kinematics it tries to defeat them without being engaged by outer shells of their ADEZ, to get in close where it’s far harder to shoot down.

It doesn't seem to work for AA mode however.

Time for a hotfix! lol It seems like external and point light sources are better, The Position Lights, Caution/warning are all better then they were. But whatever was done globally needs to be tweaked so sunlight doesn't washout everything. Its not just the HUD and HMD its lighting in general.

Gotcha, sounds good. ;) Yeah I was driving myself crazy trying to figure out what I was doing wrong But once I got "in range" everything started working like in Wag's video.

It also seems like there is a range limitation of about 17NM for PTRK on an aircraft. I can slave the pod to the Radars LOS of course but I can't get the pod to independently track or Correlate beyond about 17ish NM Is that Correct? Seems reasonable to me. Beyond that range the target is very small unless zoomed to 9 with narrow FOV

Hahaha :D

Yes definitely, any weapon system that allows you to penetrate those defenses and get in close is going to be much more effective because as Dudikoff said even a small hit to the carrier is probably going to result in a mission kill. You may not be able to sink the carrier conventionally but it would definitely be possible to take it out of the equation for a time. In other words its very very difficult to get through the groups defenses but at the same time it also is not impossible to go around those defenses in this day and age. It's not hard to see why the USN now is very concerned with small boat and drone attacks, and why they are pursuing things like Directed Energy weapons against those threats.

I agree with you, but what that means is that carriers are basically invulnerable to everything short of nuclear attack which requires the attacker to expend almost their entire force anyways, and WILL result in a retaliation.

I'm just happy its gonna happen. I Appreciate all you guys.

So let me stop you right there, if we're bringing nukes into this then the whole thing is silly since, you could also just strike their bases before they get the package in the air with SLBMs adding nukes turns everything into an all or nothing conversation. If we're ok using nukes we really don't need the carrier air wing for anything anymore. I'm talking about conventional warfare. As far as the numbers go, again if your ok with a 50 percent loss rate your not going to be able to repeat that attack against every strike group, you couldn't repeat it against two groups because You'll run out planes before I even come close to running out of ships. It's not a sound strategy.

Go read the article...page 13 talks about the size and disposition of a typical strike package: ''the doctrine for direct attacks on the carrier task force (carrier battle group or carrier strike group) originally included one or two air regiments for each air-craft carrier—up to seventy tu-16s. However, in the early 1980s a new, improved doctrine was developed to concentrate an entire Mra air division (two or three regiments) to attack the task force centered around one carrier. this time there would be a hundred backfires and badgers per carrier, between seventy and eighty of them carrying missiles.'' and page 18 talks about expected losses: ''all in all, the expected loss rate was 50 percent of a full strike—meaning that the equivalent of an entire Mra air regiment could be lost in action to a carrier task force’s air defenses, independent of the strike’s outcome.'' It's just what the person writing the article said you can take it or leave it, seems to me like it's pretty authentic. But anyways Air Defenses have also come along along way since the 1980s. Particularly on ships. The other issue is that these missiles with phenominial ranges require a huge Kill chain which is highly vulnerable to disruption, something the article brings out when talking about how the recce birds have to actually spot the carrier first and relay its position to the strike before they get shot down. Meaning without their intelligence the whole group is firing blind... That hasn't changed a whole lot since the 80s The missiles have to fly high to get those ranges and need to know where the ships are precisely, and that data has to come from somewhere. Besides the fact that the longer the missile has to fly the more opportunities the defender has to stop it. My point is that its possible to attack a fleet of ships with aircraft but its no longer practical, considering the cost and feasibility of such an attack. As a CVSG commander I would be far more worried about submarines since if the enemy decides to launch three regiments and 70 missiles, or you know half their total air strength at me, lol I can see that coming that and do something about it. Can't do anything about the threat I don't know about. The challenge is that the air-wing has a hard time operating from the ranges the carrier has to stay at to maintain its airspace in today's situation.

I guess the AA modes do not require AZ/EL after all...At least for LITENING

There we go according to video at 3:13 Coordinates and Bullseye confirmed!

Looks good, thanks for the update! Happy with the goal set

I own all three Razbam modules just so you know. But I don't see the need to pre-order or get the next one on day one. I'll definitely be getting the MiG-23 and F-15E at some point but I'm not going to just blindly buy them. I don't like the EA system and I don't care for Razbam's management of their current modules. It is what it is though. Now like Harli said the 19 was a step in the right direction, and so if they can get these next ones out and done in a short order then I'll be buying them sooner rather then later. But I have no problem waiting for them to get sorted. I'll support them when theres something to support.

Nice that's good to hear.

Which block are we going to see?

Well when it takes over 100 aircraft with a 50 percent loss rate to even prosecute the attack without even having a guarantee that it'll be successful...I call that the mathmatics of defeat. The strike is as expensive as the ship lol

If it was the Su-35S I'd go with that, But the Su-27S is gonna be hopeless outclassed by F-15Cs of the same time period and its 120s. I don't see how having a full fidelity aircraft with only semi-active air to air weapons is gonna "even" the odds for the red side. A J-11B or more modern/export version like the Su-30M yes, but vanilla Russian Su-27 circa late 80s - early 90s No thanks. I'd really like to see a version with Precision attack capability, but that probably wont happen ever :(

Thanks for the feedback all, I’ll update and see how it goes.

Yes they were fixed in the last few patches.

The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated.

Ditto. Well for myself, I've been really enjoying these free trial weekends. So I will definitely be waiting to buy AFTER I try it first. I waited on the F-16CJ and it was the right call because when I tried it last month I was pretty disappointed, but happy I hadn't committed, and now that it looks like it's gonna take back seat to the hornet It'll prolly be some time before its in a good place but that's ok because I'm not invested in it. I can just get it next year or whenever it's closer to being out of the oven. From now on I'll support the devs when I see good progress and a stable product, not before. I'm participating in too many open betas for DCS products right now lol :D

Yeah I'd love to see them work on a jet that has a RL manual that we can check their work with. Because based on ED's CFD research on the SD-10 I suspect there's quite a bit more magical functionality on Jeff waiting to be "discovered":sorcerer: