Chrinik

The loadout screen is going to be interesting if it gets done.

My head is sticking in the HUD Glass and I can´t remove it. Can´t see the cockpit at all. Well, further testing seems to confirm that Track IR does not recognize any axis that isn´t "turn"...so I can "turn" my head left right, up down, and roll side to side. But I can´t move the head forward, backward, left, right or up down. So I am stuck in whatever position my head starts in. All the axis are set up. No other plane does this.

I am going to propose a little thing that would help contact visibility somewhat, especially against lower flying opponents: Glinting. Having a planes reflection of the sun make a small, glistening dot appear would help tremendously in distinguishing contacts at long ranges, kind of like how afterburner glow already helps a ton. It would be realistic, I presume, and would put lower flying planes into the disadvantage they could supposedly have. Higher flying planes tend to be between the sun and the onlooker, so reflections cast into the sky would obviously help them stay harder to spot visually... Not sure how easy or hard it would be to implement, if it should be a global effect that just happens OR in fact be determined by sun position. But what do you guys think? Discuss!

Quoted from Buddyspike Forum: "(players play DCS since at least 3 years and have many hours of flight in fighters online, like me for example)" He should know, what with his 3 years of experience. Sorry...this is too much. DanielNL, Kamerad...we should really sit down in teamspeak one day, I can explain a bit to you, you seem to be making alot of threads and posts about stuff that is basic level or known behaviour in DCS, blaming the equipment instead of your own mistakes.

Why are we even argueing this? He doesn´t like the F-5 due to his lack of funds and calculates in "BucksPerAmraam", if he doesn´t like it, he doesn´t like it, end of friggin story. But Tirak, why are YOU mouthing off against people who want to have it? Who are you to tell them they are wrong for liking something you can´t afford? I don´t understand how people can like the A-10C, slow, unweildy POS tub of lard mudmover....but the people that like it, like it. And that´s none of my buisness to interfere with. The F-5 is an awesome enemy against the MiG-21, an aircraft that needed a counterpart for a long time. The F-5 vs. MiG-21 servers will be very popular.

Well...did you activate the IFF system in the A-10 correctly? AFAIK if you mess it up, he won´t get a correct response.

Yes, I see that now. As I said, I was misinterpreting a source from head I had read quite a time ago. To this I want to say that people still argue their data is incorrect... Refering to IASGATGs missile mod thread, in which he argued with a developer about their missiles performance in game.

Great...I wasn´t referring to that...I was referring to the exact steps, IN ORDER, that the missile goes through prior and post launch. I could previously only find information on the very old Sparrows. Newer Sparrows essentially function completely differently then the old Vietnam Era ones and thus might have different processes. And since you obviously know, please, point me to the exact rundown of all systems and steps, and their function, during the launch of an R-27ER, I´d love to see em, I don´t think I saw them in this post apart from GGTharos´s post, which wasn´t missile specific.

I or my source, can´t find it right now, must have misinterpreted something. During vietnam, a full systems lock on took about 4 seconds after getting launch authorization, to feed information to the missile. The source I can´t find said something about the RIO locking the radar onto a bandit, and then getting a cue wether or not the seeker had aquired said target...

That is a completely different system and still doesn´t answer the question. TWS essentially is a computer interpreting the radar returns AS IT SWEEPS and keeps track of them, updating each time the Radar cone physically sweeps over the contact. These returns are then interpreted and kept track of by a computer that can interface with the weapons control system and give targeting data to the weapons. But wether or not the signal to the missile is send BY the radar dish (unlikely but I don´t know as I am not a radio wave expert, of note would be: Frequency-division multiplexing), or a seperate antenna specifically for it (more likely, as aircraft already have multiple antennas for multiple radios, and antennas aren´t that complicated nor large) I also assume it´s unadvisable to use the Radar antenna to transmit signals to a SARH Missile as the cone of the Radar is locked to a single point...making is very narrow in comparison to the full sweep. This means that anything outside that cone (any tracking missile) would not recieve updates and go stupid. This would effectively return them to being beamriders, which we went away from really fast and is not consistent with the behaviour of missiles both in DCS and outside, where they can happily leave the radar cone in order to intercept a high aspect target. I still assume a seperate system is used for the datalink with the missile.

Well I´d assume anything that isn´t a Passively or Actively scanned array can´t really send a seperate update frequency to an airborne missle (let alone multiple) while still being a functioning Radar. So the notion that the same antenna is used to both track and lock a target AND send data is beyond me entirely. It can only do one thing at a time. Flaming cliffs simulates RWRs rather basic...to assume their operation or features are exactly realistic is questionable at best. I already heard the "missile launch warning" is a very simple system within DCS...so I don´t even know if an RWR typically CAN destinguish and warn about a launch. Got absolutely no information on what RWRs can really do.

Guys...Radar IS a radio frequency...I thought we all knew it was an acronym for "radio detection and ranging", but apparently people think radios and radars are completely seperate. GGTharos, if I take your list, and tweek it to what people are talking about: Lock target (this has its own technical processes) Command launch Missiles are tuned (or may already be tuned) Turn on missile battery Launch missile Missile now has some steering commands to point it at the target initlally Rear antennas receive carrier radar signal to compare doppler, and possibly also receive the radio command signal, if any (note, same antenna) Guidance stuff happens. Seeker is activated and missile locks on target when in terminal range. That´s why people are confused, it´s because they assume the above list to occur. Without detailed information on the R-27R/ER operations, people will still guess. I´ve looked through this tread, but haven´t found(or overlooked) any link to a detailed description to the operations and steps the R-27R/ER goes through... I can only find information on the old (read, Vietnam era) AiM-7s, which had no INS /Radiolink and required the seeker to lock on to the target BEFORE launch. So, wether or not this is still true for modern missiles is up for grabs, I´ve been trying to find meaningful data, but of course, it´s hard to come by.

My personal recap. The problem with round six, which was confirmed by IASGATG´s post was that alot of RedFor either sat out or switched to blue deliberately to end the campaign quicker to "get it over with", many advantages on blue side stacked with an entire squadron switching to blue made alot of red players not wanting to waste their time in a pointless struggle just to be cannon fodder... This is not just my opinion either, this is an amalgamation of alot of discussion we had among red side. Some might not have shared this opinion, some might not care, but a large enough portion did care to end round 6 the way it has. Telling people they can leave if they don´t like it (while true) will tend to make people heed that advice...and the end result is round six, with one side simply folding because they´ve been told to stay away. I was trying to bring this up, (badly due to mounting frustration) but after a stern talking from greg I shut up because I just assumed it was supposed to be that way and that was that. I am sorry and hereby apologize for my actions prior to round six, but they were with best intentions having the campaign overall in mind. I never deminished or ignored the amount of work BS put in to make this campaign possible, however, ignoring an entire faction, making it seem they are relegated to the sidelines and are "supposed to lose" (which is what a bunch of red mainstays honestly thought was going on, what with the massive amount of bias towards blue in preparation for the round.)...I didn´t think it was what BS intended but I was told "We don´t make the campaign for you."...So I just took that and stayed put, fearing I´d be banned even if I carefully word my concerns. Honestly I was suprised round 6 even lasted THAT long. I thought it would be over in a couple days. Red coordination...yeah<.< You know how every side is complaining about randies that aren´t on Teamspeak, take slots and waste planes and aren´t that effective? Well, we can´t talk to a large portion of our most active players even if they are on because they don´t speak a word of english. Trying to coordinate with a group not able to communicate is very, very hard. So generally they just do what they do amongst themselfs, very effectively, and we try to do something else in the meantime, and usually failing. We do have a couple of dependable, and honestly very skilled individuals and squadrons (51st comes immediately to mind, among others), and they honestly do a very great job. So thanks again to everyone involved, BuddySpike in general, and I just hope the right lessons will be learned and looking forward to what they have in store for us. I will remember the great Beslan defence. After all, if I don´t agree, I can just wait for the next one XD

I find this "we" very disturbing. If someone needs an F-16 fix, they can get one. Otherwise I feel great joy from teasing the Viper Fanboys with their longing for, what is essentially a less capable, less expensive, more dangerous to operate aircraft then everything else 4th Gen in use today XD... Ahhh...DCS...I hope you never get an F-16 so the tears can lube my Tailhook.

Welcome to a concept called "Camoflage"...it´s the art of "not being seen by pesky aircraft that want to bomb me"... Yes, hidden target are hard to see, how is that such a big mistery? We also have to cope with gamey stuff like draw distances, LODs, and pixel desity on our monitors, which real life pilots don´t have to do.

Let´s first GET the F-18, before we already ask for more F-18s...

A week ago: "Blue Pilots are taking a Nap after Round 6! No Amraam salt!" Stats: "1000 more people connected to Round 7 and the player numbers in general were higher." Interesting. Of course we don´t know how many of these are people who joined the server, and left again, but meh. I´ll take it. Pretty much confirms 80ies loadout is more popular then full loadout.

But it´s realistic in so far as you won´t face a full tanked Mirage in a Bingo Su-27 somewhere in the air usually...

Leider kann ich heute nicht, hab um 18 Uhr schon was vor. Viel Spaß euch und trinkt ne Maß für mich mit.

Honestly, guys, people scream about realism, and don´t realise IFF isn´t the be all end all solution you think it is. The IFF we have is a very gamey system, that just checks for the coalition and done. In real life, IFF systems are nowhere near perfect, they can fail, for instance, or give uncertain returns, because they can basically only confirm "Ours-everyone else"...so an allied Nations IFF will not return a positive. Which is why all the air combat since the introduction of BVR had very restrictive ROEs that pretty much prevented BVR from occuring...with only 4 BVR kills in total from Vietnam to the Gulf war... The Gulf War turned things a round a little bit with it´s round the clock AWACS calling the shots, but even then there was still much confusion and VID had to be performed anyway... Most kills had been WVR and alot with sidewinders, even on super awesome BVR centric platforms like the F-14 and 15... So, crying that the F-5 has no IFF...if it didn´t, it didn´t, and that´s that. If it did, that´s different. There are other ways to IFF targets, mostly accomplished through communication and SA, realisitic scenarios and so forth. There will be Servers that run F-5 vs MiG-21 exclusively, I can guarantee that, and so you won´t have IFF problems because of the distinctive sillouhettes. So I´m not complaining, it would just be another quirck to work around, which comes naturally with older aircraft. Which this STILL IS!

Sadly, guys, we don´t HAVE a european P-51D... They already said they are probably going to include a european version of the P-51D that will have 72'hg....So calm down and carry on XD

It´s the gunsnake without falling down apparently...but I have no idea what´s causing it...hasn´t been there before.

Initially I thought it´s a troll post...why would someone complain about something that is entirely his fault, and ask for a fix when he just needs to fix his behaviour and be more gentle? And yes, the taxiing in the MiG-29 and SU-33 are very forgiving because of Simple Flight Model...that will change. I mean, in SU-33, if you have any forward speed, you can turn in place like a crazy person and spin around super fast. But meh, it made me giggle. ProTip: don´t taxi too fast and tap the breaks repeatedly (I still have them on W for reasons...)never had any issues since adopting to it. This keeps your breakpower low and doesn´t overstress the wheels even if you find yourself going a bit too fast, until they give us an axis to assign, it´s the only option.

Funny, I heard the missile range information published is lowballing ranges on purpose because of security reasons. But if you guys have some more detailed information, sure. Then I guess the missile ranges in DCS are realistic...considering that BVR has been historically nearly impossible so far, we really shouldn´t complain XD

I just hope it will be there to play around with....honestly I can´t see why not because even classification cannot stop you from just making a cluster bomb that glides to coordinates and deploys XD So unless someone jams a cease and desist down their throats, I think we should have one. Wouldn´t really be a point to make the AJS if we can´t get the weapons that the AJS was made for XD