Kang

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.

Sounds a bit like a general issue with how groups work in DCS. There is no such thing as 'detach single unit from group'. Doesn't matter whether it's a group of infantry or a vehicle convoy, they all have to wait for the one in front of them, only #1 can 'decide' which way to go.

Very, very carefully. Any other questions?

I think the easiest would be to look at the mission end log and then write them down somewhere. Rumor has it that they get written in the server log in MP, although oddly sometimes differ from what was displayed.

You can switch this behaviour off in the options, as a simplification.

...and that, children, is how airliners get shot down accidentally for being nearby.

Now, since I don't have a JF-17 I can't really tell, but perhaps the changes to the map were mostly to fix a few inconsistencies the radar showed? You never know.

But that's not really a hidden base, is it? More of a map glitch, really. I mean, stuff somebody hides doesn't become more visible at range, usually, that's not how it works.

Mind you it is possible to accidentally edit the templates.

...and considering they have a 3D model and, quite frankly, there isn't that much modelling to be done (it needs a proper top speed decided on and a turning radius and a 'damage model'), it would be a nice and easy addition.

Mayhaps. I, as a CA owner, could see the merit in it. 'More toys' is definitely on the very low end of priorities in CA. Right now, almost everything CA is really good for is taking control of a single vehicle, smashing it around the country roads for half an hour and generally stir things up. Its originally advertised tactical control of the ground war is a joke, the simulation of vehicles, while generally functioning, is basic and often showcases bizarre physics, and the less we talk about the UI the better.

Semantics aside, you want the F-16 to get along with its development. Full stop. None of the 'classic' Wild Weasel planes had the ability to 'get range and pinpoint radar systems' in the manner the F-16 with HTS can. The original Wild Weasel missions hardly even had ARMs. Since you said that would be a decisive part, yea, there you go: F-16C.

Well, CA lets you use single-unit SAM systems in a fairly simple fashion. I'm sure there would be some interest at least and also understanding that it wouldn't be part of CA if ED developed something along the lines of SAM Simulator to let players take proper control of battery-type SAM units like SA-3, S-300, Patriot, Hawk or Rapier in a more detailed and more realistic manner.

I wonder that as well. To me a 'hidden airbase' is something like the Swedish roadside bunker hangars. Apparently this is all about 'perfectly obvious airfields that are just not officially airfields in DCS'.

This, pretty much. I'm not opposed to this whole idea at all, I was just curious as to why people feel a need for it. As I said, most missions can be flown entirely without it, given the maximum ranges DCS maps allow for, so in most cases it is included as an option entirely to be included. An implicit achievement, if you will. No point in doing it at all, if it's automatic. But enough of that, my opinion isn't of that much value around here anyway. As I said, I am not opposed to the whole idea, but quite frankly, I find that argument a little bizarre. Accessibility is great. We need more of it, I agree. But is this the place for it? Someone who buys a first module, takes to in-flight refuelling, doesn't immediately succeed and then leaves forever is a possible scenario, but I'd say a rather unlikely one. We need much more accessibility around the basics, not hand-hold people while they are involving themselves with advanced tasks! You don't make your first ever landing on an aircraft carrier in bad weather and rolling waves. On the other hand DCS would become a great deal more accessible for new players if a lot of 'basic' things were actually properly explained within DCS. Just to take a random example: radar notching. It isn't perfectly simple, but there are quite a few people who have written very good explanations of it, explaining why it is a thing to begin with, how it works and giving plenty of examples on how to use it. DCS could benefit from a 'general' tab in 'Training' that has tracks (if they work) or videos of concepts like these, shown in situ in the sim, so people can see what they do.

Definitely holds true for a fully laden Mirage. When returning you can get away with that sort of thing at times.

In previous versions it was just like the others as well.

It doesn't matter whether or not any of it is publically known. It doesn't matter whether or not your uncle happens to have one in his shed. As long as you are not China, to make it you need the consent of those who own the intellectual property of it.

I absolutely agree.

Don't worry, even if you do, they'll end up stuck in post-takeoff and become useless then.

Yes, it is. Also doesn't seem to use the same texture at all. Plus side: you can still dim it to make it even darker.

Guess it's true that scales are just different in America... I'd say perhaps wait and see what that mysterious and legendary dynamic campaign is actually going to be like before worrying too much about the details.