Kang

Wait, you have a working lua script, want to convert it to C and then ask for a way to run C code when you could have just run the lua script you had in the beginning?

I agree that one of the more common, large production number and 'famous' variants might have been a better choice, but I doubt it makes so much sense with the K-4 already around. Cohesion is something one could have had in mind then. At this point, that idea is a bit of a joke, considering how even the WWII project is all over the place already.

That kind of thing is less of a 'you need VR for depth perception' thing and more of a FOV thing. Generally a flight sim will 'scale down', to afford you a decent field of view on your average monitor. If you measure the actual angle of view your monitor delivers and you set the game FOV to meet that, everything should look right scale-wise. The problem is that you'll feel like looking through a pinhole at all times.

You can prevent the DECOL warning from coming up on landing by pressing the Autopilot Standby button twice.

Adding to that: when flying online the fact that you visually see a missile passing you does not mean it didn't hit you. They are a bit out-of-sync generally.

Sounds a bit like your axis bind for throttles is reversed. Have you tried re-assigning it?

...unless of course we are talking about infantrymen. Their thought on amphibious assault is more along the line of Under the sea Under the sea Darling it's better Down where it's wetter Take it from me Up on the shore they work all day Out in the sun they slave away While we devotin' Full time to floatin' Under the sea

That entirely depends on what you call 'full fidelity'. A level of detail in the systems modelling like DCS features has obviously been technically impossible for a long time. So, yes, you got it. There is no full fidelity Phantom simulation. But if you want to play that card, why stop there? There is no full fidelity Tornado simulation either (although DI's classic is still pretty good today), for a random example. No, AH-1, no MiG-27, no F-104. Plus the F-4 has been previously announced, as you said it has had some development work done, and is now gathering dust on a shelf.

You really don't need to see the laser point. All you need to know is the rough position of the target to CCRP drop in its vicinity. The JTAC's laser just does the terminal guiding. The preferred way might be to set up an IP from a known waypoint in an easily visible place, so you can re-calibrate position just before drop. Otherwise a 'eyeball' CCRP designation is going to work as well.

Relax. He has friends who can tell him the important bits. The rules don't change all that much between missions.

Your DCS folder/Doc/Charts/DCS_GND_Charts.pdf

Mostly because that statement simply is not true.

Thanks, I never quite bothered to test things like that out with the two, really. Stupidly believed that the physics of an object of known mass and shape falling to the ground would not be much of a challenge, really.

That is entirely true. That is also why tracks get worse and worse the longer they are. A small inconsistency at one point leads to a sometimes significant change in relative position after half an hour. For example you end up not on 5oc of an AI plane, but 7oc. The AI will react accordingly and turn in a different direction than they did in the original scenario. Since the player plane repeats its steering cues, it now chases a non-existent ghost bandit while an actual enemy watches in confusion. That can be reproduced, although it is a bit of work.

That is because that unit isn't an actual active AI JTAC unit as intended by ED. It is possible to use those in MP scenarios as well, but generally people prefer to use the solution you describe - basically a script. The advantage of the 'script' JTAC is that it is easier to get it to do what you want it to do, as in automatically mark a specific location via laser, independent of situation. Actual JTAC units can get a little fussy fast, because of the conditions they require. Line of sight, distance, time of day and - usually most importantly - target being part of a specific group. With script-spawned new units it all goes to heck quickly. Even without sometimes you might not get a proper laser mark for reasons nobody knows. Still not all is lost, there are options to add radio menu items that'll just have the script repeat the message alright. Send the folks at DDCS a message and ask them to add it.

And here I always thought it stood for Radar De Merde... P.S.: There is no such thing.

Absolutely would like a pilot as a place-able object. In fact, less related to the carrier, but as a prop for SAR missions and the like. Especially since the models (including animations) are all there anyway.

«I made a poll so we can just have a quick vote instead of the ridiculously long thread we already had.» «Also, lets just make this a second, identical thread in the process.» Ah, DCS community.

How so, actually? I mean, I remember that the crater effect at least used to work properly and now, well, doesn't. But other than that, what changed for them?

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