twistking

Wow, that was fast! Great work!

+1 The NATO equivalent would be heavy/multi-purpose mashine guns on anti-aircraft mounts to protect against low flying aircrafts. The Bundeswehr used the MG3 in single and double mounts for AAA work...

Some of the former operators still hold the system in storage. It's not totally improbable that a hypothetical modern conflict would see limited use of those systems.

To my knowledge the default setup in Germany was that sites were loaded with conventional fragmentation warheads, but each site had a US contingent on station that would guard and eventually deploy the nuclear warheads if needed. If swarms of soviet bombers would have been detected they would have been targeted with said warheads. Outside of that specific scenario the sites were just part of "conventional" air defense.

Would be totally acceptable if we only got conventionally armed missiles.

+1

Ah, guter Punkt. Ich hatte mir vor einigen jahren ne IPv4 Adresse zugelegt, weil das damals ja praktisch Pflicht war, um selber zu hosten - nicht nur bei DCS. Hab dann nie wieder drüber nachgedacht, aber eigentlich logisch, dass mittlerweile auch IPv6 unterstützt wird. Wäre ja auch doof, wenn nicht...

Eigentlich alles recht einfach: Anmelden mit ED account ist, glaub ich, nötig um überhaupt auf Multiplayer zugreifen zu können. Um eine eigene private Session zu hosten müssen beim Host Portfreigaben aktiviert sein. Ausserdem braucht der Host eine echte, eigene ip4 Adresse. Dann einfach im Multiplayer Menü eine Mission auswählen, Optionen setzen und eigene Session starten. Dein Kumpel verbindet sich dann einfach direkt über IP, oder er sucht die Session im Server-browser, dafür muss sie aber "sichtbar" sein - in dem Fall dann am besten ein Passwort setzen. Steam und Standalone sind 100% kompatibel; da müsst ihr nix beachten.

I think all your suggestions are very valid, however i think there should be a bit more focus on support (and maybe civilian) vehicles, structures and personnel instead of fighting vehicles. Support vehicles and crew/soldiers is what you might see up close when starting on the ramp. A tank not so much. Furthermore a handful of civilian vehicles would offer a lot of options for interesting scenarios and would maybe sell the era (date the map) more than a military vehicle could. Tbh i wouldn't find it too jarring if East Germany would field a later model T-72 as long as the camo matches. Not ideal, not terrible imho... SInce DCS is a flightsim first of all, we would def. need more bluefor SAM (should probably be Nike Hercules (?) iirc), first/second Gen MANPAD for both sides as well as time appropriate EWR/C2 and related assets for both sides. I think one or two civilian airliners (one per block) would also help a lot, especially for scenarios in which the war doesn't go hot.

That's surprising. I could imagine that the texture of the runway throws off the algorithm. Or maybe the missiles don't provide motion vectors correctly? Or the missiles do, but the wing doesnt? It must have something to do with motion vector differences between the rail (which is part of the aircraft mesh) and the missile (which is not). Otherwise you should see the same mismatch between wing and rail...

Very interesting. Is this at 60fps? I would assume effect will diminish at higher refresh rates?

You can disable framerate-limit of mirrors in the graphic options. Does this not work?

Sorry to hijack this: How do you get the name of the map object in the first place? Is it a function of the "zone" object?

If i remember correctly, different tasks can vary in priority. So if you create multiple advanced AFAC tasks with different attributes, you should be able to rank priority based on the order they appear in the units task planer window.

You mean the Phantom? What other weasel is in the pipe?

Good point (unfortunately).

A Vietnam Era SEAD/EW bird should be doable. Even if public documentation might be limited, the EW capabilities of those vintage jets could be guesstimated rather well i believe...

Yes, also required for SEAD.

Um nochmal ein paar „harte“ Fakten beizusteuern: Mir ist nur ein einziger belastbarer Direktvergleich zwischen aktuellen AMD- und Intel-CPUs in DCS bekannt. Ich meine, das war 12. Generation Intel gegen die damals aktuelle AMD-Konkurrenz. Weiß gar nicht mehr, wer da vorne lag, aber das Interessante an dem Benchmark war, dass die Performance mehr oder weniger der erwarteten durchschnittlichen „Gaming-Performance“ entsprach. Dass DCS sich komplett anders verhält als andere Spiele, schien damit also widerlegt. Von daher wirkt AMD momentan erstmal wie die bessere Wahl. Wenn du eine Intel-CPU aber stark reduziert bekommst, kann das Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis natürlich trotzdem sehr attraktiv sein! Ich würde eine aktuelle AMD-X3D-Variante mit Single-Chip-Design empfehlen - also nicht zwingend die größte, die dann aus zwei Chips zusammengestückelt wäre...

Gibt es denn Module mit realistischer Sichtbarkeitsdistanz? Ich erinnere mich, dass die Hornet etwas weiter sichtbare (und sehr hässliche) Navigationslampen hat. Nach wenigen Kilometern oder so sind die aber auch weg. Also immer noch unrealistisch und praktisch unbrauchbar unter Gameplay-Aspekten...

Afaik you would need to dive into lua scripting for a different approach...

Oh, that must be what's going on with the YAK-52 then

I was under the impressions that the 430 comes with its own radio(s). So it allows to monitor more frequencies, which would be a neat feature even if it's not encrypted.

That's all true, but for a civilian airliner module ED could skirt around licensing issues by not using the brand and product names. The visual external appearance of a 737 is not something you will get dragged to court about. Maybe change a few details visually to be extra safe. I mean have a look at DCS: NS 430. Looks suspiciously similar to a GNS 430. I think this is a case in trademark law where courts have decided more clearheaded than people suspect...