=475FG= Dawger

Wrong. In the real world, at 1km details are visible. Even the smallest aircraft is identifiable by type. A single engine Cessna can be identified at 2km. 75 cm tall letters can be read at 350 meters.

DCS has serious issues with what is drawn in the middle ranges and it is a few separate issues. Aircraft in the middle distance against the dark blue sky disappear when they should be black silhouettes. That is a lighting issue. A backlit aircraft should be dark nearly black unless it is damn close. Its as if there is a second sun shining up from the surface. It isn't nearly as bad against the whiter shade of blue near the horizon. Aircraft disappear against the ground in the middle distance, especially outside of the VR sweet spot. I can see dots at 45 miles but they will disappear for a period. I actually use it to the gauge distance. I know when the dot disappears the merge is coming quickly (in jets). I normally have to get on the deck to make sure I have a chance at visual reacquisition by keeping them against the sky. I fly exclusively multiplayer, WVR jets at the moment. The problem seems much worse in MP, probably because humans are much more unpredictable. I fly in VR (Reverb G2) with an I9-10900K overclocked to 5.2, 64 Gb RAM and a 3090 GPU and have to turn down a bunch of settings to make spotting possible in MP, WVR air combat. A bit of a shame to have to make the game uglier in order to see the enemy. Of course, until ED recognizes that it is an actual problem I may as well get used to it.

Password protect every slot, setup a channel on SRS broadcasting the password and change it once a week.

Doing that would require some extra code in CTLD. It is already producing the target list so all you need to do is code the display and method of selecting and assigning it to the JTAC

Fight Island was a favorite. Why was it removed?

I made Macros in my Logitech G13 Gamepad for the Harrier. PITA. The WWII stuff seems to change pretty regularly and I stopped flying those modules last year. Also, mission designers sometimes go nuts with the temperature in a mission, which can affect engine start times. I recently flew an F-86 PvP mission with high temperature causing a slow start, which broke my start script. So be sure you test the script at really high and really low temperatures. No real tricks. There are several different styles of macrosequencies.lua so each one can be a learning adventure.

When you build the mission you prefix the unit name with hpriority and a number and priority and a number and it will sort targeting priority accordingly. Emphasis on UNIT NAME here. This is a feature of CTLD. I use hpriority1,hpriority2,hpriority3,hpriority4 in my missions like this: hpriority1 - Long or Medium Range SAM radars hpriority2 - Short range SAMs hpriority3 - Radar guided guns hpriority4 - Other AAA Example SA-6 unit name would be hpriority1_SA6_SR1 Relevant CTLD code is below -- generate list order by distance & visible -- first check -- hpriority -- priority -- vehicle -- unit local _sort = function( a,b ) return a.dist < b.dist end table.sort(_unitList,_sort) -- sort list -- check for hpriority for _, _enemyUnit in ipairs(_unitList) do local _enemyName = _enemyUnit.unit:getName() if string.match(_enemyName, "hpriority") then return _enemyUnit.unit end end for _, _enemyUnit in ipairs(_unitList) do local _enemyName = _enemyUnit.unit:getName() if string.match(_enemyName, "priority") then return _enemyUnit.unit end end for _, _enemyUnit in ipairs(_unitList) do local _enemyName = _enemyUnit.unit:getName() if (_targetType == "vehicle" and ctld.isVehicle(_enemyUnit.unit)) or _targetType == "all" then return _enemyUnit.unit elseif (_targetType == "troop" and ctld.isInfantry(_enemyUnit.unit)) or _targetType == "all" then return _enemyUnit.unit end end return nil end

The Aim-9P seeker field of view should be 2.5 degrees. It appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of 5.5 degrees, give or take few tenths.

I am a big fan of doing this. I have done this for every module I own (where possible). Unfortunately, some third party vendors don't provide access to this file. Examples would be Razbam, Heatblur and Magnitude. Maybe all the third party vendors do this. It has prevented my purchase of more than one module. Cheers for doing this. I haven't made mine publicly available. Maybe I should but then I would have to track updates, etc.

Without knowing where you are in the process of learning Basic Fighter Maneuvers, it is extremely hard to answer that with any sort of specificity. Out in the real world, you learn aerobatics, which are maneuvers without reference to another aircraft while concurrently learning formation flying. While formation flying is a handy skill for getting groups of aircraft safely in the same airspace, more importantly it is the learning laboratory for BFM. If you can't join in formation on a maneuvering aircraft that WANTS you in formation with him, you will be hopeless against one who doesn't. After formation flying, comes 1 v 1 similar aircraft BFM and only after that does 1 v 1 dissimilar come into the program. Unfortunately in our virtual world, most pilots generally skip the first three stages and try to learn the final 1 v 1 dissimilar stage with no basis in the required fundamentals. Your questions indicate you are in this group. Sorry to be so blunt but the question of how the F-5 should fight the Mig-15 has an obvious answer if you have a solid BFM foundation. That doesn't mean the F-5 can easily beat the Mig-15. A well flown Mig-15 is hard to kill in an F-5 but it also isn't much of a threat to an F-5 that is competently flown. When I encounter Mig-15's in PvP, I generally ignore them, especially 1 v 1. The extended period required to wear one down and kill him means a long time exposed to another bandit entering the fight. If I have a wingman, which I usually do, we will fly a Loose Deuce style of engagement to kill the Mig-15 by making him predictable for the free fighter to kill with a missile shot. The worst thing you can do in a 2 v 1 against a Mig-15 is make him nervous enough to wiggle. Give him just enough so that he thinks he is winning while your wingman lines him up for an easy missile shot.

Basic BFM and understanding the differences in the aircraft. The Mig-15 is an angles fighter in this matchup so you don't want to make it an angles fight. The Mig-15 should never be in a position to shoot you. If he is, you screwed something up.

No pilot ever wants to hold.

Its 3300 feet. No problem for a Spitfire and I can't imagine the Mossy would have any issue with it either. I don't own the Mosquito, so I cannot check directly but that is a long runway.

Gain and contrast are your friends here. AI vehicles that are not moving are going to be cold and hard to spot with FLIR. Map object vehicles seem to be hot all the time, which is an issue that, hopefully, will be fixed.

I'd prefer simulating a night at the Hanoi Hilton or Abu Ghraib or with Oprah Winfrey.

Mainly because it is intensely boring.

So, the position of the Cold War 1947-1991 server administrator is that the server regulars concurrently decided to quit playing, or had concurrent schedule changes and only a "few" regularly play over "there". And, also, defending what basically amounts to "Just Dogfight" gameplay as definitely not "easier". I guess I should take the hint and find something else to do. Cheers. It was fun while it lasted.

I don't have a "platform". I don't fly either module in DCS. I just know that the Tomcat is not what anyone in the real world would consider good at BFM, pilots being approximately equal. You are free to disagree, vehemently.

People I know who have been in BFM engagements with Tomcats IRL consider it a big, fat target.

Realism and history are too different things. Historically, the two sides had different equipment in the Cold War. However, the server does not stick to history. If it did, we would be shooting at each other a lot less. There exists a population of players with a preference for Blue equipment who enjoy a challenging fight. There does not seem to be a similar group among those who prefer Red equipment. So instead of an empty server, I propose splitting the existing Blue population so we can fight each other. I don't have any hope that the Red players who supposedly left because of one Blue player would ever come back to a harder server when there is an easier populated choice.

Migs are not more difficult. They are just not designed to be pleasant to fly. A different design philosophy. There isn't a shortage of Mig pilots in DCS. In fact, quite often during European evening time, there are more Mig-21 pilots populating the Cold War era servers than F-5 pilots. So the issue is one of migration, not shortage. Red pilots have decided to play elsewhere and blame it on one blue player.

This is part of why I want Blue equipment on both sides. It alleviates the "Red has no dedicated GCI" whine completely. As for Blue regulars playing Red, using Blue equipment for both sides solves the main issue with flying Red, (for us in any case). If we have aircraft we enjoy flying, we will ALWAYS fly on the low numbers side. The problem is we don't enjoy the Mig-21 even though it is more capable than the F-5. I know there would be friendly fire issues but I would rather deal with friendly fire than an empty server.

The lack of red fighter pilots has basically killed the server. They all went where things are easier, I guess. Adding R-60's to the Hind isn't going to help that situation. We need some missions with Blue equipment on both sides or something. I am very sad to see the population migrate elsewhere.

Only if both sides have Hinds. That would be fun to see.