AMEDooley

That's my squadron, kind of, getting the gas, Fujins Rock! And in the second video, the second jet you see is my Jet! 88-0497. I'm going to miss her!

Nice!

I know, I was just trying to expand on your comment about the wires being there for emergencies only. And that even on bases that have the Cairrer Ops aircraft they only use the wires for emergencies.

Even NAS Lemoore's gear was just for emergencies. The runway however did have the ladder lines and wires painted on it for FCLP. So when we practiced carrier landing on the beach it was done like that. They did have a LSO guiding them down like they do on the boat but they don't practice actual traps on land outside of Pax River that I'm aware of.

Even with the upgrades the A-10 is obsolete. Is it really good at CAS? Yes it is. But so is the F-16 and F/A-18. And with the F-35 coming out it is becoming more obsolete. Those planes are just as good as the A-10 except for loitering time. But with tanker support its really a moot point. People want to keep the A-10 for emotional reasons, not sound judgement. Even Air Force Generals are say the same thing.

I totally agree with this. It is a game, a simulation game, but a game non the less. Now having said that, you can take this flight sim, especially the high fidelity ones (A-10c, MIG-21), and fly them as realistically as possible due to modeling. Which is a lot of fun IMHO. But this is neither our profession, nor used to train us on how to fly the real life versions of these birds. I wouldn't get mad at someone because they called this a game, just as I wouldn't get mad for calling it a sim. It is literally whatever you want it to be. For me, my dream was to be a F/A-18C pilot. The closest I got to that was being a mechanic on them. So because of DCS I can train with other like minded people and fly the A-10C as close as possible to what the real pilots do. And once the F/A-18C is released, I can do the same in that. And I've been in the actual sim for the hornet and I will garuntee that it will be close, but not quite like the actual thing.

I remember Wags mentioning that they changed the original color for NTTR because it looked more grey than it was suppose to. Maybe they missed a spot lol! I'm sure that it's not suppose to be that color.

It's missing the tgp in the nose lol

Yeah I saw that too. I as so ecstatic by that small detail.

[\QUOTE] For every hour of combat it needed 4 to 5 hours of maintenance. The only good thing was the engines, reliable as hell and would endure crazy abuse. I got other reasons. I would kill for 4 or 5 hours of maintenance. We were at closer to 10 on the hornet and are the same on the 16. That's good for maintenance per hour of flight.

I'd go 3R if you are expended, and 3L if you have hung or in expended ordance. That would be closest to the real world, as I believe the hit pads are on the left side of Nellis.

Yeah I remember them saying that too. I was just wondering if I had missed an estimate for when they'd be released. Thanks guys. Looking forward to being part of the other side of Red Flag for a change.

So now that NTTR is out, and word on when the Red Flag Campaigns will be released?

F-16C. Please for the love of god no d models. I hate two seaters lol

F/A-18C.... Oh wait..... Dang it! A-10C it is then!

Tease ;)

Agreed. So Sith, how imminent is imminent!

Start wondering when the 18 will be out to complete the red flag missions I'll be flying all the time!

That's exactly what this feature is trying to do. I'm with you I hate zooming. This feature could very well bridge the gap from computer to a more life like experience. My opinion is that zooming isn't how it's done in real life. I mentioned that I don't know any pilots that took binoculars with them on any sortie. Now I've only worked on fighters, so maybe A-10 pilots do use binoculars. But this isn't just an A-10 simulation. I think zooming is just as much a "game aid" as this is. Meaning the devs are just trying to compensate for this being a computer. Now with the way it's implemented right now it's too much. The ground objects are far to big and stick out very weirdly. It's too obvious. And that is on the smallest setting. So I'd hate to see what the largest setting would be lol. In my opinion I think there next tweak should be spitting the difference between the first settings and this current version.

To all who are interested in making MV work for DCS. Stop paying attention and responding to Sharpe in this thread. He refuses to be a beta tester, can't or refuses to understand that the zoom feature is just as unrealistic as the current version of MV, and as such his opinions are non sensical. Just ignore the guy and post what you think the developers should do to fix the current version of MV so that we may get a better product. Any time spent on trying to educate Sharpe is really just a waste of time and energy as he neither wants to educate himself nor does he want to be constructive.

Thank you so much, I was sitting on 0 for a half hour. This new system is not a good one as of yet.

Oh now I get it, you're using this is how we've always done it as your argument. This isn't about immersion or an unfair competitive advantage, your just mad cause now people won't have to zoom like we've always done. Dude I'm sorry but sometimes people want to be innovative. This feature will make zooming obsolete. One less thing that I'll have to do while I'm flying. I'm so okay with it. Don't like, don't use it. I actually don't think that servers should be able to get rid of this feature, unless they get rid of zoom to. But that ain't gunna happen. I, and other people on this thread, should just ignore you and your comments as you aren't even participating in the Beta. In fact that's an excellent idea. (Drops the mic)

Thank you, that was my point exactly. It's going to be tweaked to get it the way they intended it to be. You my friend are awesome!

First off, you don't get to comment on a feature of a game that you don't play. Second, you have no clue how ED intended this feature to be like, as you are not an employee of ED. You sound absolutely silly. If you want to comment on this feature, be an open beta play tester. If you don't want to use the open beta, that's fine you don't have to. But you don't get to comment on how awful a feature is and that it should be removed if you refuse to play the open beta. Now I thought it worked well in the last version. I'm okay with them fiddling around with the settings to get this feature right. It's definitely a WIP. But again it's a beta so this is to be expected. The value on small I think would be okay if that was the max setting. I wonder if they could split the distance on the values and see what that does.

So after using this feature after the update, the model scaling is too big on ground targets. It didn't seem to me that the air targets were as bad as the ground targets. I had it on small and it definitely was too big. I'm going to try and see what happens when I try the other setting but I'm sure it'll only get bigger. So this needs to be tweaked to make the feature work the way ED intended. Still like this feature, just need to change the values, maybe split the difference with the first values and these. The way the ground targets looked on small should be what they look like on max enlargement. Just my thought.