Kang

Probably neither of those. First of all, what FOV would you consider realistic? The 1:1 scale is comparably easy to work out but it depends on your setup. How big is your monitor and how far are you generally sitting away from it?

Mine technically would be my dad's Schneider/Astram CPC when I was 4 and - while blissfully ignorant of any how to - kept trying to take off a simulated 727.

That's what LOD management is for.

If you could have multiple custom lists in place to select from the drop-down menu - and the fact that this isn't the case is somewhat baffling really - it would be no problem at all to just name them for your various theatres or scenarios I guess.

East German MiG-21bis flying back towards Kutaisi airbase after completing mission. Online flight on New Year's Day.

«Where we're going we don't need maps!»

Combined Arms comes from a time in which missions were centered on the A-10C and sometimes the Ka-50. My point is that its main use at the time was to tell allied ground forces to move to a new position from time to time, once your CAS had cleared the approach area enough, as triggering the AI to do this automatically had proven very problematic. Nowadays, since we have a lot more modules and so on at our disposal, missions can get a whole lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, since simply functions in triggers and scripts have expanded, there are a lot of different things to do, not least because the community (as a whole, I for one am not that capable) has learned to do magical things with those since. Just look at what possibilities CTLD and the like give you. A related prime example of how CA has definitely not kept up is that there are stumps of functions of controlling airborne troops in the radio menus since forever, but there is no real functionality there. No native dynamic way of inserting troops into combat by helicopter nor of having any basic control over their mission. Best you can do in that scenario is either have troops embark and disembark in a 'scripted' (as in: static and limited to specific spots) fashion and then follow their pre-assigned path, or switch back and forth between flying your helicopter and controlling ground troops. I agree the JTAC functionality is a major factor, and at least from what I see most people seem to enjoy CA primarily in a 'control single vehicle' way, which is fine, but even that is terribly flawed. From the questionable physics at times (BMP high and far jump competitions are a thing), to the core of my usual CA-complaints: really old and clunky interface. Just a quick example: if you use the binoculars to operate as JTAC and you take a quick look at the map you lose your mark. Functions like changing laser code require a key binding, which is alright, that opens a window for it, which does feel a bit like Windows 3.1, but admittedly that's a matter of taste. It does not get better if you actually want to use CA in a manner the pre-made missions suggest: to direct a whole force tactically from the map. The interface for that is just terrible. From bits of the visible interface that seem to have no effect, to inconsistencies in what units do - a classic example is whether or not vehicles decide to reload from supply trucks or not - to simply broken bits, like it sometimes becomes impossible to have your artillery units cease fire if the targeting marker happens to be right on top of an enemy unit, because you can only select the unit and not the marker then, thus giving you no way of deleting it. At the end of the day I don't actually mean to say that Combined Arms was a bad module in every way, because it isn't. It works okay for a few things. It's just somewhat frustrating to see it having so much potential, which has only grown over the years as more and more possibilities have come to DCS, but receiving so little love.

I learned that the hard way when I once applied chocks and an enemy IFV drove into the circle afterwards.

Happy New Year, y'all

Thanks! Seems fixed now. Not a big deal, but it did get a little annoying.

I think the real problem is precisely what it was designed to do. The way I see it the whole of Combined Arms started out as a bit of a workaround for the lack of capabilities of the ground AI. Let players from an A-10 cockpit direct units on the ground to go somewhere, which makes a semi-dynamic mission more feasable than lots and lots of scripting to achieve the same. DCS has grown since and CA has grown... very little.

Well, it's wishlist, so here goes: we need the SA-43 Hammerhead Endo/Exo-Athmospheric Attack Jet.

Funny you should mention that... There have been plenty of messages popping up saying '[Weapon name here] missing from Splash Damage script' whenever one is fired for a variety of missiles, bombs and AAA shells.

By the exact same logic there is nothing stopping you from switching to a Huey, though, just saying.

I think parking AI do get those, so you might set them up as 'uncontrolled' and see what happens.

Just a little laugh, because that's totally how things are https://twitter.com/izqomar/status/1475218150975315972?s=20

Absolutely, it would be wonderful to get these effects modeled and implemented properly. But while we can't have that I'd rather have the unrealistic perfectly working RWR over the unrealistic going nuts over somebody on the other side of the theatre being in a fight RWR.

This bug has been around for years and years and every time it is brought up someone springs up with his 'eh, you people all just don't understand radar' nonsense. Yes, you are right that those are effects that are a thing, but I doubt DCS specifically models them, really. Give it a little testing, you can get lock warnings from planes that are a hundred miles away and pointing cold when they lock someone else, no amount of 'these are sidelobes' or 'it just is a lot of power being sent out' handwaving is making that correct. I am perfectly on board with these explanations for many scenarios and in fact I welcome that RWRs are far from perfect in the sim, as they certainly are in real life, but a lot of this reasoning has - for years now - made excuses for never properly investigating a long-standing bug. As a matter of fact the explanation I am much more likely to buy is that this problem occurs in a much rarer manner if you mostly fly single player missions, simply by virtue of the changes of a friendly flight being far away from your own is so much lower, but if you fly multiplayer now and then you are very likely to notice this and quickly find situations in which none of 'the radar simulation is just so detailed that Kang doesn't get it' bits can possibly apply. P.S.: This also isn't entirely a Hornet problem. It happens across a lot of modules.

It is one big step to take if there are plans of making an official module out of a transport plane.

I love how you necro an eight months old thread mainly to tell someone whose opinion differs from yours that he should go find a different hobby.

I know this might sound crazy, but I don't remember ever getting a range reading from a tanker's TACAN.

Lovely to see the speculation is in full swing in several threads, as well as several derailments well underway.

I don't mind the idea of giving singular modules extra callsigns. The A-10 has had its exclusive set for ages now as well. One little advantage is that just by hearing the callsign you got a rough idea of what type that flight might be. In any case, I welcome the variety.

It does look really good, I'm looking forward to it. But as much as I love seeing the progress on the model, is there any word on how the code side of things is progressing?

Yes, those are coloured signal flares.