Kang

I'm absolutely sure I have been on servers that have radio commands in place for script-automated JTAC units to repeat the coordinates, codes, whatever. Just decide on which your favourite server is and talk to your trusted admin about it, I guess. It's definitely possible. The built-in, active AI JTAC unit should give you the coordinates as part of the 9-line briefing when you check in for targets and has the option to repeat the briefing via radio if you need it. That one, though, definitely can't change the coordinate format as of yet.

I'm afraid that's not really proving much. There are plenty of animations for a lot of models that have been done at some point but have never been implemented. Sure would like some sort of working pushback, for sure, though.

Just out of curiosity: Apart from making gruesome videos, what is a scenario in which you would even get to see that effect? Even when dogfighting very close you are most likely to be seeing the enemy plane from behind, even in a head-on engagement by the time the smoke clears. Seems easier to just add that particular special effect to your video or screenshot afterwards.

One could argue that the introduction of the Scud launcher has made that exact scenario possible; one doesn't even have to actually wait out where it hits scenario-wise. Previously similar things could be done with a Smerch launcher, albeit much less visually interesting. Actually, quite a few of the planes in DCS probably stand a bit of a chance to survive the infamous electromagnetic pulse. Older, often tube-based electronics like inside the MiG-21 can survive or recover from such an event much better than more recent constructions featuring compact-built transistors. On the other hand modern day fighter planes probably have a few tricks up their sleeve to protect the most important systems. Likely all secret. The effect of radiation, fallout or neutron showers would mostly be felt by the pilot, but either that's not something to be noticed instantly, or it is acute radiation poisoning in which case it is obviously a rather quick fade to black. The fun bit is that when you just go through the ground unit encyclopedia you can't help but notice how many of the vehicles available in DCS are actually designed to be perfectly fine operating in a fallout zone. Basically, it mostly denies the soft vehicles access, while APCs and air defence units just keep on rolling.

Are we even sure that is going to be a thing at all? I mean, I know a lot of people including myself have it high up in the wishlists, but still wondering.

A much older simulation had a rather nice trick about that, which I would appreciate in DCS: Enable the recording of a track 'on demand' by key or menu. By just recording the part of a mission that we actually want to review later we'd have several advantages: -Much reduced space usage -No more need to watch a long mission all the way until you get to the point -Thus no need to use a lot of time compression on the replay -Much less time for errors to accumulate

As has been shown, the MiG-21 in DCS carries nuclear weapons. The engine is not very happy with it, which results in its results being a bit garish, as in a huge texture cratre that'll appear or disappear depending on view angle and the similar issues, also obviously the large number of ground units, scenery objects and unlucky airplanes being entirely destroyed at the same time does indeed make the whole sim puke for a few seconds. That doesn't mean it's entirely useless. You can have one or two interesting scenarios using them, I found mostly the high-stakes 'not one plane may reach its destination!' intercept missions can be fun from either side. So, yes, thanks to M3 for including the option. But it's not really something that needs expanding. As has been pointed out you can have the same effect by a bit of clever trigger work and it really is a bit of a pain in MP to get people to behave responsibly around stuff like that. And that's not even touching on the troubles of researching any modern-day special weapons. In response to the final question: it is over because you singlehandedly obliterated every single unit in a wide area. You rendered all air defences useless and possibly prevented further use of any airbase. The only way for that not to quickly end your whole mission is to have such a widely dispersed ground war going on that either nobody will enjoy spending their day looking for that single tank somewhere west of Vaziani or you use so many units in total that the whole scenario is borderline unplayable for most people.

So, I've been away for a bit and I see this thread has grown to over 30 pages with exactly nothing having changed one bit in the process. Splendid. I'd like to, once again, point out what confused me about the request on page 5 or so and still does. Perhaps somebody can sort of let me know at which point I'm being totally wrong here. Everyone who says this was an essential thing to have in DCS is actually part of two groups: a) «I can't or don't want to invest the time in practicing this in a simulator.» Pretty straightforward. Frankly, I can get it this far. b) «When I fly in DCS I prefer super-endurance mission in which I loiter in target areas for an hour.» This is the bit where you all lose me. I figure this is what people do, because it's frankly the only way you need to in-flight refuel in most planes. It just seems odd that so many people seem to be in both of these groups, because I'd assume anyone tight on free time would or should prefer missions that are a bit leaner cut to the interesting bits. The only other thing that I've read here is: «I'm in a squadron and they always do in-flight refuelling.» Frankly, this doesn't require a technical solution. You realise you are not in an actual fighter squadron there, don't you? It's the same as an old-timey gaming clan, just with fancier titles. Perhaps a good solution to this would be to gut up to the clan honcho (or whatever they might call themselves) and tell them: 'Look, I can't do in-flight refuelling. Could we do missions without that once in a while?' Chances are they'll gladly work something out. Do shorter missions. Have you join the formation an hour late on the run to target. If it's a great big deal to them because it says so in their ancient traditions that Steve wrote last month... perhaps it's time to just find other friends to fly with, because that squadron is quite actively excluding you anyway. At the end of the day, I don't care too much. Make it a game-mode option and be done. It just feels a bit confusing, is all.

I'm afraid I will have to correct you on this one. The Tarawa deck crew, that has been around for quite a while, is far from static. (The tractor driver moves his head.)

You got to watch both your distance from the missile as well as the aspect. The datalink pod has a front and a back antenna and is a bit moody about the sides. Other than that, don't expect a crystal clear picture, I guess.

Cheeky ED, hiding the one I was waiting for all the way in the back... «Corrected lights in the cockpits of next aircraft: Yak-52, Su-25, Su-25T, MiG-29, A-10A, F-86F, L-39C, L-39ZA, A-10C, MiG-15bis, P-51D-25NA, P-51D-30NA, TF-51D, UH-1H, F-15C, F-5E»

No, but I'm saying that said F-16 and F-18 'as they are in this game right now' certainly did not fly or entered service before the Mirage did. They aren't to be expected to be equals. I don't deny that there are good reasons why Dassault further developed the Mirage and, obviously, builds more capable versions now. I'd also like that one in DCS for sure. Just that argument doesn't make much sense to me.

In the event log of your mission (where all the shots and kills and whatnot get listed), if you scroll down to your landing it should have a comment line afterwards that contains the LSO thing. P.S.: Yes, these evaluations would be posted to the ready room after landing and not said over radio. But since I remember 'ready room' being something on the planned features list of the module... we might get a board?

Since QuiGon said Tornado already... Starfighter.

It is rather maddening sometimes, especially if it concerns important bits. But come on, breeeathe. I find it similarly infuriating when someone in truest Karen-the-boomer fashion complains about 'someone being rude' when they themselves have done nothing but insulting rants, but that's just me.

1. If I'm not mistaken the radio frequencies for the L-39 have to be set in the mission editor. Most multiplayer server admins set these presets up to correspond with the most useful frequencies on the first few channels. If the briefing doesn't mention any of that, you can always ask in game. 2. There are several variables at play here. One is the network lag that sometimes makes planes (or even vehicles) 'jump around'. This happens when a few packets in communication between you and the server are getting lost and then things get updated again. The other is that many multiplayer missions - having to cater to more than one player obviously - can contain a lot of units in a large variety. That puts a bit of a strain on your computer and can be alleviated a bit by 'lowering settings'. 3. You can turn off the labels in the options menu. Servers can 'force' a certain state for them, but if you turn them off on your end, they should be off either way.

This thread escalated quickly. I think we need to appreciate that all of us come from different walks of life, from different countries, from different cultures. We all have different interests, expectations, set-ups and goals. In short: your mileage may vary!

Wait, what?

In other words: if you keep lobbing JSOWs worth ¾ of a million dollars apiece at a parked UAZ you should have a good reason for that.

I just flew that particular mission and didn't have any trouble with the radar. Slight criticism towards the mission itself is that the briefing is a little too short. No indication as to where one is to expect the attack to come from. What makes this a little tricky is that the Turkish attack is flying rather low. The F5E's were at about 1000ft and they were definitely above the strike package. As I was approaching them at around 20000ft I needed to 'look down' with the radar quite a fair bit, but managed to acquire all six enemy planes at a range of about 40nm. Are you sure your radar was emitting properly? At mission start it is set to prechauffage, you need to turn the radar mode knob all the way to the right once airborne.

S-3B Viking. No, this time I'm serious, hear me out on how I got to this. I find the abundance of submarine models in DCS rather surprising, considering they have little value inside DCS. Sure, you can do missions of them moored in port (for which a static object would have sufficed!) or perhaps of a submarine leaving a bay, for example. Outside of these particular scenarios, they don't feature at all, because they would slip under the waves where, even if you can see them from the air in shallow waters of the Straits of Hormuz, no player-flyable plane can do much about that. Yet. There has been quite the announcement of the introduction of torpedoes not so long ago. Granted, mostly for WW2 units which use unguided torpedoes. All for AI use so far and even at that working a little questionably at times, but still: it strikes me as odd that ED would not only devote a lot of time to it, but also make it a major announcement that German u-boats can now torpedo freighters in DCS, considering how a simple triggered explosion would have left the player non the wiser; the experience for the player is exactly identical. The LOMAC-era 3D model has been said to be due for a rework years ago already and there hasn't been a word on it since. Finally, a lot of the pieces for it are coming out of the F/A-18C Hornet now with still leaving plenty of room for all-new mission profiles and applications. Harpoon, SLAM, HARM and the trusty Mk82 are all on the way, while ADCAP torpedoes could well be an intended step. In conclusion: - Carrier capable for the 'naval focus' - That leads to some flight challenges, especially at landing with the luxury of burners to go around - Certainly most unexpected, isn't it? - The whole mind-melt-factor would come from it opening the door to the entirely new field of anti-sub operations in DCS

In my experience the RDI radar works quite well for detecting a fighter-sized target at a range of 35-45nm. This gets reduced with a plane moving side-to-side from you, due to the doppler contrast. The Mirage has a rather easy-to-use elevation control for the radar. The most common way for me to miss a contact entirely is that I don't look up or down enough. What kind of enemy are you fighting against? What kind of altitudes and terrain?

There is a lot of merit to that. Once in a while when reading around here you can get the feeling that DCS must be the worst piece of software ever to have existed. Obviously that is not true. If everything was terrible, nobody would complain as we all would walk away and be done with it. There are a few factors, really. #1 is what The LT said is, sadly, true. Progress is sometimes disappointing, especially since the price tags aren't exactly on the cheap side. Niche market or not. #2 is something that really frustrates me at times: some bits are actually done very well! How does that frustrate me? Quite frankly, because usually for everything that's remarkable there is something - not very far away - that is in dire need of work, to put it carefully. #3 (A bit related to #2) There are minor problems with DCS. Things that aren't much of a bother. Can just look past them, really. Only that they seem to take ages to be addressed, if at all, so just like a zombie horde they are strong in numbers. #4 Communication. I have the feeling that his has improved a lot over the past year or so, generally. Still it remains an issue. It is hard work and it takes a lot of time to investigate issues that the community reports. I understand that. Still, I can't stop but feel a bit sad about it when I write a report of a bug, at times including information gained through systematically figuring out circumstances myself, sometimes with pictures, sometimes with a track, and there is just no reply whatsoever. Not even the dreaded 'can't reproduce, post a track' one. Just nothing. #5 Quite frankly, we are living in times like that. Not just in DCS, not just in software, but in the world. I find it a little short-sighted to simply blame the internet or social media or whatever, but they sure made the problem a lot more visible: people tend to think they are right. That's fine. The trouble is that nowadays the possibility of somebody else also being right seems to be shunned by millions. Why should that be different here then? Complaining about others complaining won't solve that. A friend of mine always says: «Be the change you want to see.» We can all try to remain civil and polite and open-minded. Sometimes we fail at that. I know I do.

The problem here is that in DCS planes, even the 'simpler' old AI planes, have a damage model and ground units generally don't. The same rules apply as if you crash-land somewhere in the countryside: The plane is rendered completely inoperable, but as far as the 'rules' of DCS are concerned, it is not destroyed. For any plane to be counted as destroyed it either has to impact the ground at sufficient speed to explode, or the pilot has to eject. That's what makes it awfully difficult to get the 'destroyed' flag on planes on the ramp. In theory, a human pilot could hit the ground crew repair, wait three minutes and be back in business.

I believe an FC3 kind of transport wouldn't be a whole lot of fun anyway. I mean, with all systems simplified and semi-automatic, you'd end up with very little to do. A decent level of fidelity would leave you with engine management, proper navigation and a few test switches to play with. Of course both would kind of depend on having an improved way of handling internal cargos as a whole.