G.J.S

He’s probably referring to the endless requests for Fallon, Edwards etc. NTTR is done. It has PLENTY of elbow room for a good scrap, as does the actual range. Ok, so some units do fly in from out of state, or airfields further away than those given in the NTTR map current, but it really is a non event. Spawn units inbound at the edges if you really want to. Other than that, there are some differences in layouts of certain airfields - Nellis itself being a major one - but details like this likely came about during ED’s time modelling them, so it’s only really a problem should people want to do things in the here and right now. As it is, NTTR more than fulfils what I need from it, if ED give in and add say Fallon, where will it stop? There will always be someone asking for a certain airfield just a little further out, and before you know it you will have to model - in detail - the entire western seaboard. NTTR is done. NTTR is fine. NTTR is the area I use the most.

Would think having the map displayed at those scales would be pointless, would never see any pertinent details. 40 and below much more useful.

That’s probably due to how those things are modelled, as in “eye candy” versus physical objects. Only reason I can imagine for that would be it’s easier to display a tree etc as a visual ‘thing’ than a fully modelled ‘thing’ with substance, for reasons maybe due to computing power? Just an assumption though.

Get some height, up at 10000 or more, and get a wingman (real) to fly directly beneath you - radalt will ping, radalt in action. As your wingy slides slowly beneath you from one side, you will get an approximation of the radalt limits as he/she will ping it from around 40*ish left and right of directly below you.

Look at the control surfaces in second vid . . .

Pre-Midas F-4, always kept scrupulously clean in the T-birds.

Correct on all, however the F2 ADV it’s correct didn’t have auto sweep - manual only, but the development, the F3, did (sort of), the AMD - Automatic Manoeuvre Device (system) which would schedule the wing for optimum lift considering altitude, speed, and FCS demands.

Unknown. Try looking online for region maps VFR, and then using that as a guide look via google earth (for instance) and see if anything screams “bombing range”. Short of someone who actually lives nearby one who maybe on these forums, that may be your only recourse I’m afraid. https://skyvector.com/

True. But GR4 was predominantly a different animal. GR1 was designed from the outset as a low level interdictor. It’s TFR was incredible, no matter what the conditions. Ski toe all the way lol. GR4 became more networked, and lost a little bit of “edge”.

Original GR.1/IDS would be better than GR4 tbh, better down in the weeds.

Not a Hornet hand, but swing rolling is very much a part of most arms. My frame of reference - I was a mud mover, and on many exercises we would have a main tgt, say a radar dome strike as the primary, and after complete on that we could be SEAD (within capabilities) with rockets (F-4), or maybe runway denial, followed by SEAD again with ALARM (Tornado). The MAIN tgt is the prime focus, secondary roles can be assumed after prosecuting the main target, or if the main target is unobtainable for whatever reason, then the secondary role takes precedence. Maximising the usefulness of airborne assets makes perfect sense. But having a sole target is absolutely necessary sometimes, and sole focus.

Just viewed the videos on first page - the effect, while looking much better, is very ‘persistent’, I’ve never had a rain specked canopy stay that way above say 60kts. It will rivulet rearward from about 30kts, and 60kts upwards - gone. Being from the UK I see a lot of rain.

He flew the Harrier in DCS twice (first ended rather dramatically!) quite a while ago out of interest only, I don’t think he is on DCS, it was just a passing curiosity about what it was that has me slightly hooked. And I wouldn’t put too much stock in videos, you are only seeing a very brief snapshot. As for NATOPS, configurations change - the publicly available ones aren’t current.

Okay - love your attempt at being cute. What I meant was, flattening the road networks for instance, into a more “doable” net to eradicate the sudden peaks etc, may be problematic beyond that which you hope to achieve. Also, flattening terrain parcels around buildings etc may be problematic due to the knock on effect of also altering roadways in proximity. Do you not think the respective developers had not already thought of these things? The fact that these alleged fixes or workarounds have not materialised is very likely due to “they will cause more problems than they solve”.

Flattening areas to allow for terrain/object seating may cause more issues than it may appear to fix. It may cause unrealistic terrain profiles in heavily urbanised areas, and other anomalies.

I can when I next run DCS, but it won’t be for a little while. As Mith86Arg has said, I very rarely see them now also, in fact not seen one the last two weeks - maybe more. And going by the screen grabs shown here, what I saw was NOT that bad, maybe one or two black bits in a few flights. That’s what made me react like a bird strike. Very sporadic, and lately non existent.

Yeah, like when he was jumping on Oprah’s couch - it wasn’t excitement, he was just trying to look her in the eye!

True, Mr Cruise would need a booster seat to see over the canopy rail.

I would assume, if emulating RW behavior and practices correctly, that the missile should detonate after loss of power from the (guessing thermal?) battery. It would NOT continue on in a glide down to earth - why gift any explosive/technology to your adversary? Not only that, live explosives in a degraded state are extremely unsafe to be left lying around after impact with terra firma. Having a missile carry on without any form of control is detrimental to both sides, and general population.

Quite a few things wrong in this video. Climb rates, max velocities, “facts”. The video producer needs to learn what ‘research’ means. Graphics are fairly good though . . . .

Bet he’s coming along in ‘leaps and bounds’ . . . . . I’ll get my coat . . .

*Vapour cone*

Another great one. Makes sense that Edwards birds are kept more pristine than line birds. Great work. Some pics of the a/c in question. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9205465 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9198080

Stunning. Crisp. A masterpiece. If this guys work isn’t a must have, I don’t know what is . . .