Horns

I've seen mentions of squadrons flying multirole a/c specializing in air-to-air or air-to-ground. I'm curious about: whether that happened with navy squads, and how likely it was in day to day warfare that an air-to-air squadron would be tasked with ground targets and vice versa. To me it seems a little impractical to have an air-to-air squadron on a carrier and confine them to CAP, recon etc once air superiority is achieved...

I'm trying to find reference books that provide information on optimal turn performance of modern fighter aircraft and the speed and altitude regime to achieve it. Can anyone suggest where I would find that information? I'd like to get real-world data and apply it to DCS rather than trying to generate data experimentally in-game which may be inaccurate in real-life. I expect to have to buy books for this information, but I've already spent a fair amount with minimal success, so if you can steer me towards books that you know have this information that would be greatly appreciated. If I have a choice of where to begin I'd probably start with the MiG-29 and Su-27, but I will gratefully jump on data for any modern fighter aircraft I can get my hands on. Thanks for reading, I await your suggestions. H

DCS more than most games needs to have a development process that is driven by our devs for both legal and commercial reasons. If devs want consumer input on which model people want they can simply run polls like you have for this page, they do not need to be co-opted by the DCS community. ED know their sim-foo. One reason for their success is that they've avoided the trap of trying to make DCS all things to all people. This is a flight sim. All paid content is aircraft or assets that directly relate to aircraft, and DCS World is designed to maximize the flight sim experience. People who are looking for different experiences are generally better off playing games tailored to those. It is important that ED retain their right to steer this game in the direction they see fit. There are many problems with the idea of community voting for modules and features, and the biggest one might be that it completely disregards how attractive new content will be to new or casual customers. The Arma series appears to be much closer to your gaming and philosophical desires. Rather than hoping DCS turns into something it's not, your time might be better used campaigning for Arma 4 sooner rather than later.

I figured it had to still be here but I didn't think of searching 'whitepaper' as one word :doh: Thanks for the assist :)

That's exactly the numbers I was looking for, thanks! That's the one, yes thank you, I'll store it more carefully this time

I remember seeing a white paper Heatblur commissioned on the AIM-54 Phoenix that provided some of the data used for modeling the in-game AIM-54. I haven't been able to find that paper again in our forum, can anyone direct me to it? In that AIM-54 white paper, the authors provided numbers of the -A with the original motor, the -C and the -A with the newer motor. Does anyone have a rough idea of what those numbers were? If there were very few of the Charlies made compared to Alphas with the improved motor I might have to reconsider some loadout options...

Could someone please explain how I can use AIRIO get Jester to tune into a specific manual frequency on his ARC-182? If anyone is prepared to explain word-by-word what the command would be to tune to, for example, 127.5, I would really appreciate it.

Could someone please tell me the word sequence to tell Jester to manually tune to a frequency, for instance 225.5? I expect this info is available somewhere, I did try searching but couldn't find the magic words.

Thank you, that explains it. Would you hazard a guess how far off you’d need to be to catch a 4? EDIT: Never mind, realized it would depend on glideslope too

Understood, thanks for that background. Interesting to note these small differences between airframes of different ages

Thanks for the info, especially AOA being units, I might never have found out otherwise!

Sorry if I'm asking something that's in the manual, I did search but I couldn't find this info... I know we need to shoot for AOA of exactly 15 degrees for an F-14 carrier landing, but how far off that can you be and still land safely? For instance, would 14.5 to 15.5? The current system seems generous, but if it's accurate I'd love to know. Thanks all H

Ah ok cool, my bad too, I should have been clearer :)

Exactly my point, it wasn't mentioned and it should have been. Edit: As you rightly state it wasn't mentioned in the newsletter at all, but that doesn't change whether it was the logical conclusion.

Reasonable to expect it in the newsletter following the official announcement. If you can't draw those conclusions for yourself I feel sorry for you.

I'm sure there are significant challenges keeping everyone in an organization on the same page right now, but it's disappointing that the promised information wasn't passed on in the newsletter as promised. I know that Wags' update is stickied at the top of the sc forum, but after reading this entry from BIGNEWY many may have eschewed searching the forums for more sc news, expecting this to get delivered to their email. If I had more self control I might have been one of them :P

Thanks for replying :) The problem is really the ongoing need to consult resources like kneeboard pages, but thanks for the info.

Hollywood_315: I've tried to learn the Jester commands for months now, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen. If I re-enabled the on-screen Jester menu, what sort of conflicts could I expect, and are you able to provide instructions on how I can do that? The funny thing is that AI Rio disables the Jester menu in my open beta (now 2.5.6) as expected, but my release version seems to have both AI RIO and the Jester menu working alongside each other...

I've got this bug too.

Edit: I did have another reply posted, but then I considered the example I'm setting. I'm going to let you have that last word, or any more you might want to add, and leave this right here.

Ok then, just to be super clear: I believe with every fiber of my being that the Stennis is free and the supercarrier is not. A. I never said that ED or anyone else had any responsibility to update anything. What I was saying was that people will want to know how and if the supercarrier is accommodated in existing content. I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. B. True, they are not exact equivalents. You acknowledge the original question as a reasonable question to ask, but then say it's a question with a commonsense answer right in front of people's faces. Do you think maybe seeking facts by asking the question is better than presuming? C. That is the core question here, so why don't we let ED decide whether to respond? D. Such a cheek, thinking a company might be taking steps to make their product more attractive, and talk about it to boot! You seem to have missed that this thread is not a complaint about a potential lack of content, it is simply a question if there will be any. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but one I believe we should allow ED to give for themselves.

One would hope ED are aspiring to higher standards than Aviodev. As for swapping out weapons, I don't remember ever having to replace an exact equivalent, like an AIM-120B for an AIM-120B. Even if that did happen, if ED sold - I don't know, a different block AIM-120B as an add-on, wouldn't it be reasonable for a potential customer to ask if they will have to swap out payloads in missions in order to use them? A lot of people won't want to try creating missions themselves or downloading missions made by other end users (without the voiceovers or other enhancements people get in campaigns that come in aircraft modules), so there may be no way to use the supercarrier module if they did buy. Which once again is fine - every product does not have to suit every consumer - but people will want to know that. ED can choose whether to respond to this question or not, but I don't see why anyone should be jumping on someone for asking an as-yet unaddressed product question. I considered this question myself before deciding to buy it regardless of whether I'll ever use it, but it is something that many will consider in their purchasing decision. If ED want to leave it as an open question that's up to them.

I was neither complaining nor did I say it would "break" any mission, I said that people will care. It is nothing like the Stennis and the Vinson because no one bought either of those. This would be more like selling an improved Caucasus map and it being incompatible with current missions - which I would be fine with, but again, people will care. Are you saying no one will? All I'm getting at is that sc compatibility with current missions is something that many will want clarified. Personally, I would still buy it, and I would hope many others would too, but let people know where they will get content for the module from. Zhukov, if you're going to reply, please do everyone the courtesy of reading a post properly before spouting off.

Could we please have an official word on the OP?

I imagine that people who want to do their aircraft campaigns will care quite a lot. People who paid for a separate campaign (like the red flag campaigns) and find they can't use one thing they paid for with another wouldn't be thrilled either. It would be great to have new missions with the supercarrier included, but if people can't use their current missions and they aren't given (ie for free) versions of those missions using the supercarrier, some customers will be really mad. ED might want to offer refunds to those who aren't happy about being sold a module without notice of incompatibilities. Of course all of that is contingent on the supercarrier not being available in current missions - if it is we're golden :)