3WA

To do list: Make CA into ARMA 2 with ACE mod. :)

I don't know. It's a somewhat modern main battle tank. I'm not sure you could penetrate even it's weakest armor points. Only lucky shots hitting the gun, tracks, sights, and maybe exposed top of the engine. When I shoot at these, all I get is them popping smoke on me. Really, a waste of ammo. Mavericks and 70mm Hydra AP rockets are made to use against these.

I hope that once they get the F-18 done, they will take a break from making any more modules until they come back and fix the old ones, and the problems with the world itself.

God, just tried to fly in the BS after a long break. There are a LOT of things wrong with it now. Bugs galore. They need to do a COMPLETE OVERHAUL of this thing. Shkval went wild at one point. And through the whole journey, kept getting weird target ranges that seemed to jump all over the place. That, and a lot of times it refuses to ground stabilize. Feels like we've gone back to Alpha with it.

Some of the switches on the A-10 are messed up. This module REALLY needs an overhaul. You may be in training, but the switch might show wrong. Some guy wrote a mod for the switches, but I don't think it corrects all of them. EDIT: Here's the mod, maybe it will help. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178714

Same here. I'm still waiting for them to fix the older modules. Especially the A-10 and the Shark.

Hmm, so that looks like all calculations are server side. Not good for serious gaming. FPS games gave up on that long ago. They all have client side calculations now. Harder to stop cheaters, of course, but server side calculations just do not work. The latency is just too much, and it ruins the game. Sounds to me what is happening here. We're going to need better computers and Faster Than Light data cables before Server Side calculations can be realistically implemented.

Dam! Looks like you hit a freakin goat! How low were you flying? :p

Yes, it's getting annoying. Please ED, instead of trying to find new customers, please don't forget your old ones. And those AP lights aren't the only thing wrong.

Well, I don't own the F-18, but I would think it is totally possible. One is radar, and Active at that, the other, AIM-9X, is passive infrared. One is looking through your radar, and the other is looking through the missile infrared seeker head. I guess the question would be, could both be active at once?, and I would think so. Even if you changed your SOI, I don't see why the radar should lose lock. I guess we'll have to wait for an expert to come on to truly answer it, but it's a really interesting question I'd like to hear the answer to as well.

+1. I hadn't thought of that. I'll have to look at it. If so, they should just use the same system for the shkval.

Yeah, the F-14 is not radar locking you. The missile was launched in TWS mode, not STT. So your still just being casually scanned, as this missile has it's own active radar which it will not turn on until it has been guided by the F-14 to near you. You will still just see the "14" on RWR, even though a missile has been launched. When the missile reaches beyond mid-range or so, it will turn on it's OWN Active Radar. This is when it will try to lock you up, and you will see the M appear on your RWR, and the lock warning go off. Try to beam it, and chaff, chaff, chaff. Correct me if I'm wrong guys, I'm trying to remember this from my Falcon days. From Wikipedia: The AIM-54/AWG-9 combination had multiple track capability (up to 24 targets) and launch (up to six Phoenixes can be launched nearly simultaneously); the large 1,000 lb (500 kg) missile is equipped with a conventional warhead. On the F-14, four missiles can be carried under the fuselage tunnel attached to special aerodynamic pallets, plus two under glove stations. A full load of six Phoenix missiles and the unique launch rails weighs in at over 8,000 lb (3,600 kg), about twice the weight of Sparrows, so it was more common to carry a mixed load of four Phoenix, two Sparrow, and two Sidewinder missiles. Most other US aircraft relied on the smaller, semi-active medium-range AIM-7 Sparrow. Semi-active guidance meant the aircraft no longer had a search capability while supporting the launched Sparrow, reducing situational awareness. The Tomcat's radar could track up to 24 targets in track-while-scan mode, with the AWG-9 selecting up to six potential targets for the missiles. The pilot or radar intercept officer (RIO) could then launch the Phoenix missiles once parameters were met. The large tactical information display (TID) in the RIO's cockpit gave information to the aircrew (the pilot had the ability to monitor the RIO's display) and the radar could continually search and track multiple targets after Phoenix missiles were launched, thereby maintaining situational awareness of the battlespace. The Link 4 datalink allowed US Navy Tomcats to share information with the E-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft. During Desert Shield in 1990, the Link 4A was introduced; this allowed the Tomcats to have a fighter-to-fighter datalink capability, further enhancing overall situational awareness. The F-14D entered service with the JTIDS that brought the even better Link 16 datalink "picture" to the cockpit. Active guidance AIM-54 Phoenix seconds after launch (1991) The Phoenix has several guidance modes and achieves its longest range by using mid-course updates from the F-14A/B AWG-9 radar (APG-71 radar in the F-14D) as it climbs to cruise between 80,000 ft (24,000 m) and 100,000 ft (30,000 m) at close to Mach 5. The Phoenix uses this high altitude to gain gravitational potential energy, which is later converted into kinetic energy as the missile dives at high velocity towards its target. At around 11 miles (18 km) from the target, the missile activates its own radar to provide terminal guidance.[6] Minimum engagement range for the Phoenix is around 2 nmi (3.7 km) and active homing would initiate upon launch.[6]

THIS! THIS! THIS!!! And the worst problem of ALL - the schval doesn't work, because it is not modeled right, and cannot lock by contrast like the real system.

Yeah, I'm not exactly holding my breath on ED doing anything these days. Hence why I'm holding off on buying anything new from them, until I see them fix some of the worst bugs on modules I've already bought. And that would be the A-10c and the Shark. If they're not going to fix these by NOW, why would I have confidence in them to fix anything else?

It's not you only, and it's not just the lock. There are other problems as well ( like the autopilot button lights are screwed up ). I think there are also problems in the A-10. ED needs to come back to these modules and fix the known bugs in them. And yeah, the lock bug is REALLY annoying. Especially against enemy helicopters when you need to lock them up and shoot, before they can shoot at you. It doesn't matter how much faster speed the Vhiker is, if you can't launch it! ED needs to completely redo the system so that it is based on contrast. It's RIDICULOUS that you can't lock up a black helicopter against an almost white sky!

Actually, we would need only a few km of good terrain. Mostly less. The game I showed above had tiny maps, but were supported by helicopters bringing in troops, and then support for those troops by the door gunners. And actually, DCS wouldn't even have to build the terrain and objects if they will just give the community the tools to build their own. I know some mappers who would jump at the opportunity to build small combat maps within the DCS terrain. Most of the terrain for huge air battles is FINE right now. We don't need the whole map. Just a few tiny spots where we can set up some missions. An old abandoned castle housing a terrorist base. An old chemical factory. A military installation. Even some houses in a small village. FPS games have been around since UT1. It shouldn't be much trouble to make in 2018. Walking around after bailing out of my F-18 in the Persian Gulf map, I was pretty impressed by the map. Night was well done, and you could see and hear the jets roaring overhead. It was dark and spooky, and felt realistic. I like how they did a good job with environmental sounds. So many fps games miss that, relying solely on graphics. The vehicles already have very well done modeling and outer skins. They just need realistic insides and made into modules just like the planes. What really kills me right now, is how infantry and vehicles just seem to sit around. It's like there is no intelligence behind them. Those engines don't have armor around them, as far as I know. Maybe against 7.62, but I bet a .50 could pierce them. Again, this is the infantry simulation part, with helicopters and attack jets harassing the entrenched enemy and providing cover to the advancing infantry and vehicles. Infantry is not only used to take a position, but to hold it. It would be small, special forces type missions at first, attacking terrorist targets, retrieving information, taking out high value targets, etc. Then, maybe later, as the network gets better, you could have larger battles. And of course, you could have large RTS type battles with AI infantry and vehicles as well. The FPS ability would make them far more interesting, I'm sure. Anything would be better than the simple sitting ducks that we have right now.

Most people consider flight sim only boring. This is why we are probably more niche than even Steel Beasts. Niche sims don't make money. It's why I've stopped buying for now. I have A-10C and the Shark. Great to learn the planes, but sim wise, it's kind of just like shooting ducks in a barrel. Gets old fast. If you're going to have helicopters and Attack planes, you need a surface World. That means FPS. That means vehicles. That means infantry. Otherwise, what is their really to do?

Lol, you can't. But what you CAN do, is put it on one of your wingies pylons. They can fire ANYTHING.

Personally, I consider the F-18 still in Alpha. But some people have been waiting FOREVER for it, so they released it. Like the guy above said, it's clearly marked as a Beta Product. And we should give them a little leeway with it, as these are systems that have NEVER been simulated before by DCS. So, it's really a work-in-progress. As for the third parties, yeah, I kind of take them with a grain of salt. But most seem to do a decent job. All in all, I have some gripes about DCS, but mostly they're doing a good job.

Yeah, this is why I haven't bought F-18 yet. It seems to still be in Alpha.

Well, I'm not trying to "compare" DCS to another game here, so please don't kill my post. I'm only trying to give a general idea of what CA could be, and really should be, in DCS: World. I remember playing old UT mods that were VERY realistic. They were like Infantry Simulators more than FPS. The graphics weren't the greatest, but they were AWESOME. And guess what? DCS now surpasses those graphics by quite a bit. What we always wanted to bring in, but couldn't, because of those days tech limits, were realistic vehicles and aircraft. So now, we have the game to do it. With the size of the World we wanted. All DCS has to do map wise is just give us an editor to bring in our own 3d objects. Then, we can build more complex towns and outposts, and such. Maybe even some tiny islands where we can mount fortresses to defend. Imagine an aircraft carrier carrying troop helicopters and gun ships bringing in Marines to raid a Terrorist controlled fortress on a small island. Troops can land on the beaches and also fastrope down beyond the fortress walls. Fighters can roam the sky's performing CAP against enemy fighters. This is what a lot of people want, and is really yet to be realized. True, what probably REALLY needs to be worked on in this game is the NETWORK ( or lack there of ). It needs a modern model, that can handle at least 50 or so players. Imagine this infantry and map style in DCS: World. Now imagine realistic helicopters and vehicles on this map. TOTAL GAME CHANGER. Not the greatest map, but you get the picture. Obviously, DCS: World would be more than capable of this. There are some better maps which show the use of helicopters fast-roping Marines to the ground, and then the door gunners backing them up as they assault the target, but unfortunately, I can't find video of it. If we only had had DCS: World 20 years ago.

I'm wanting to see FPS in this game. Even if we start with just simple vehicles at first. Playable infantry needs to be brought in. When you had the free weekend with the Persian Gulf map, I bailed out of the F-18 and made it to the ground. It was night, and you could hear the jets roar overhead. There were the sounds of traffic far off. It was pretty spooky. It was as good as any other FPS map I've played. Make DCS: World into DCS: WORLD. You'll go from some niche sim few people have heard of, into a sim EVERYONE knows.

Yeah, that's getting old fast. This is digital COMBAT simulator, not digital FLIGHT simulator. The way to bring in more people ( and more fun and revenue!) is to start making vehicle and infantryman simulation. I'd like to be able to jump out my broken heli and grab a MANPAD out of the storage bay. Surprise! you Western Gangster! :D That scene in Fire Birds with Sean Young grabbing the Stinger tube off the rail was AWESOME! EDIT: I crashed my copter the other night on a field in the Caucasus. I had put a couple of hills between me and the enemy vehicles and the sky was clear on a sunny day. I shut down the engines and killed the battery and after a few minutes, the engines finally wound down to quietness. I opened the door of the cockpit and you could hear a fresh breeze blowing across the field of long, sunlit grass. I just sat there for a while, enjoying the tranquility of it all. This game definitely has some FPS potential. Well done with the moving grass and the wind sound. Felt pretty real.

Yeah, there's some real glare now, but it looks realistic. Especially on these old green screens. But yeah, more and more, with every update, problems with the cockpit are starting to add up. The other day, I noticed I couldn't pull up my comms screen with \ anymore. Guess I'll have to go dig on what happened to that now. One thing that did seem to help slightly with the shkval is to change measurements in Settings to Metric. I started to have better lockup potential after doing that. Still hard to lock up even a heli though. You USED to be able to lock up a slow moving jet, especially one coming almost straight at you, but that seems impossible now.

Hmm, switched the units in game from Imperial to Metric, and now it seems to lock a little better. Any of you guys having trouble with the Shkval, maybe try that. It does seem a little better now.