The Black Swan

Thanks guys! :)

Interesting, here in South Carolina static aircraft displays don't necessarily have intake covers. At an airshow, you could climb into the intake if no one tried to stop you. And plenty of armaments are permitted, BOTH training and live....

Agreed!!!

So I've got someone asking me for info/sources about spy/recon planes, preferably modern but since that is more classified what ever is most modern. I'm not as familiar with spy planes, do you guys know any good websites and articles on both modern aerial reconnaissance and specific spy planes and drones. Books would work too if you don't know any good sites. Maybe some stuff on the U2, SR-71, modern spy drones, etc. The person who wants the info wouldn't be looking for overly technical stuff, as they aren't familiar with military aviation. So some general info on capabilities with specifics that won't go to far over the head of the "lay person" would be preferred. Thanks in advance.

"Added support of DCS: NS430 module." Can someone explain this? ... Sniped

Dunkirk had spitfires and stukas with awesome sound effects, Therefore Dunkirk was objectively good. Simple.

It's a matter of facts, in a recent livestream didn't Matt outright say updated caucuses would be first?? I thought for sure someone asked about SoH and he said the updated map would come first.

THANK you

+1 And if we could slave the ATFLIR to a datalink contact, that would be mean!

lol I'm pretty sure I know what you mean. You are talking about a way to make in game cutscenes for briefings right?

Until VR gets to the resolution of monitors, people will have to make do with work arounds. That or ED adds a different rendering system for VR My point with zoom was that it does more to add realism than it does to take away from it, especially when it comes to identifying aircraft at a range where you can see them but not ID them while you should be able to ID them IRL. I'm curious how well the zoom helps this in VR, not many have commented on that feature.

+1

Everytime ED gets triggered, they add a new trigger to the sim.

:megalol:

Where was it said that they wouldn't model the gateway?

Fri, I agree with everything you said pretty much. Just so im clear I bolded "reliably" because like you said, there are ranges where it is very possible to see aircraft, but only if you know where to look (AWACS calls, radar lock diamonds, contrails, sun glare, etc.) Just wanted to be clear that I'm in complete agreement with that. My point about the 9 or 10 nm range (18-20 km) was that it should be for fighters, outside of the range of reliable spotting and more like what you said. Where you need to know where to look. Now here I disagree, the small size of most monitors, even big ones, in comparison to the large size of real life sight and resolution of the eye; just don't cut it for every thing. Especially for air to ground. EDIT: have you tried the zoom for VR?

I assume you meant to say "able to see at 60km and unable to ID at 500m - 2km"? Just use the zoom function, it works for me pretty well to ID targets.

So I've been wanting to get this concern off my chest for a while... As we all know there are a lot of requests for work to be done on making spotting or visibility easier in DCS both here and on other forums. Now while i agree that within visual range the contrast and ease of tracking a bandit can be improved, honestly I've noticed a big improvement after the new lighting in that regard. If ED want to improve on that, I've got no problem with it. But what concerns me a lot is when I see people talking about fixing the range that bandits are spotted... Let me start by saying while I'm not a pilot (hopefully yet?), I have flown before and have been to MANY air shows. So I'm not completely inexperienced when it comes to real life spotting. When I take my own experience, plus the accounts of actual fighter pilots, plus some simple logic and experiments and put them together; the range that targets are reliably "spotable" seems pretty good. When i see people who make it sound like we should be reliably spotting bandits at 9 or 10 nautical miles, i get worried. (If you think that is realistic see the bottom of my post) I'm worried if ED gives in to pleasing the crowd, it might destroy BVR and many realistic tactics. Why turn on your radar if you can just fly low and spot bandits from range? I guess I'm concerned that... -ED might increase the range fighters can be spotted. -ED might improve closer range visibility but it would have the side effect of above. -People will keep complaining about visibility until it is wildly unrealistic. ----------------- So just in case some of you think that you should be able to spot fighters at 9 or 10 nautical miles reliably, please consider this... (First note that I'm talking about times without a contrail or sun glare) Look up in the sky at the average airliner flying at cruising altitude. Let's assume a cruising altitude of 40,000 feet. Watch it and imagine the contrail missing. Focus on the dot with wings that is the airliner. In most situations a fighter will show you it's front or side, so imagine… that dot with wings being about a third or fourth of the size for a head-on view. Seems hard but possible to spot right? Well that's an airliner, imagine that dot being about a third of the size again. Without the contrail to mark its location that's pretty hard to see reliably. Sure it's possible but I wouldn't want to rely on my eyes to catch that. But we got a problem, 40,000 feet is 6 1/2 nautical miles not nine or 10. So imagine that dot being even further away. A little less than doubled in distance. If that doesn't convince you, get a scale model either die cast or plastic. Do the math to see how many feet would be equal to 10 or nine nautical miles. Put the model that many feet away from you on a road (since you will need a road to get enough space). I have a scale model F18. The scale for 10 nautical miles works out to put it at an intersection down the road from me that I can see, and honestly it's ridiculous to think I could spot it even with good contrast.... So in short, guys practice a lot now with the new lighting because it's improved a good bit. And I don't want spotting to ever go too far in the other direction. Rant over... whew!

The spitfire is more realistic than the invisible one on the mustang. Maybe not the black disc from a distance, but definitely from inside the cockpit. I just hope ED will look into tuning it soon Zach the links don't work for me.... :(

Ok thanks! So it is just a texture change that is needed then. I hope the default ones are eventually changed.

I know this has been brought up before, and that it has to do with the new lighting. But have the devs ever said whether they plan to make the prop more visible (like the spitfire) or are they content with it the way it is? Is it on the planned list of fixes or is it realistic for a mustang prop to be harder to see? It would be great if they could change it before they finish that P-51 campaign they are working on for Normandy!

That's awesome! :)

It seems that most replays go amok during take offs, especially on props like the Spit. If there were a way to start recording later in the mission it would allow for more accurate (though not perfect) replays. In addition, this could be used as a sort of saving point in missions, something else many have wished for. Kill two birds with one stone? :)

Just wait for the solar eclipse.