Lace

We've been spoiled with the X-Rays haven't we! I find dragging the MiG-29s into either the landing party SHORAD or shipborne SAMs helps too.

Mission 8 ready for anyone still following. Northern Flank 8.miz

It is nice to know, but IRL, unless there is a post-strike recce element tasked then the debrief and BDA will depend heavily on the pilot's own assessment of the delivery. Personally I use Tacview for the AAR/debrief rather than the DCS mission debrief as it is a much clearer presentation of what actually happened, especially in a mission with a lot of AI vs AI combat to resolve.

Understood. I'll give that a try, thanks.

Soviet Air Land Battle is worth a read for an American analysis of the expected WARPAC combined arms tactics of the day. soviet air land battle | eBay

Is it possible to force the AI enemy to ignore a friendly unit without making it invisible? For example, in an NTTR training scenario I want the REDFOR to engage the BLUEFOR fighters but not engage the BLUEFOR AWACS or tankers. Is this possible? I'm aware of the 'ONLY DESIGNATED' parameter but would like something more bulletproof ideally.

My pleasure. I'm glad there are some people out there flying them. I mainly make them for myself. I'll take a look at the scoring again - I wasn't completely convinced of the mechanics of the process, and whether the scoring would total up for multiple hits, or simply count a hit once and score accordingly. As I've said before, this is a learning process for me and the feedback is invaluable. I've test flown #8 a few times now, and it is a tough scrap, but at least the weather is better!

Given that the rudder is forward and above the jet efflux it won't be easy. You'll need enough airspeed to maintain rudder authority. Propeller driven aircraft can reduce airspeed to almost nothing and rely on propwash on the rudder to yaw them round at the top of the manoeuvre. Given the higher airspeed you will get less of a hammer-head and more of a croquet hoop. The yaw will also increase the lift on the outside wing so you should roll outwards to counter that. The extra lift will create extra drag on that wing, further reducing the yaw from the almost ineffective rudder.

Good info. Thanks.

Our Viper doesn't support them. Not quite as catchy admittedly, but is the full steerpoint integration planned? Particularly useful would be the HSD lines (borders, airspace restrictions) and PPTs. There is no mention on the roadmap, will this require a redesign of the mission editor/planner or the addition of a DTC feature to work?

Good to know, thanks. And hope I didn't offend, I appreciate the enormous amount of work which goes into them.

Chuck's guides are fine for a quick and dirty overview, but no substitute for the actual manual.

The Mirage was one of my first FF modules, and the first one I actually learned to operate properly. Since then it has been updated and changed so many times (it seems) that I am no longer current with the aircraft. I do fancy dipping back into the Mirage, but am not keen on wasting more time learning systems which are going to change again. Do the tutorials and documentation match the current aircraft version? TLDR; Is the Mirage now 'finished', and should I invest some time re-learning it?

That's a good shout actually. There have been a coupe of occasions when I have air-started in the Viper with the battery switch off. I guess if the throttle had an ICO detent that could kill the motor too.

Wait, cold and dark, in the air? I guess that's one way to add a bit of urgency to the start-up checklist.

I do thanks, and it is.

Why would you fly beyond Vne? Why would you need that? It's hardly essential to model as it is something you should be going out of your way to avoid. If you want realism, then fly to the prescribed limits and you won't have those issues. They are hardly a priority as most users will never put their aircraft in that state to begin with. This is a discipline issue, not a modelling issue.

There are a few things I do understand well, from years of study. One of those things is the effects of nuclear weapons. I have a library full of reference material and have visited the sites of both live and test detonations. You may know better than I do, but it is doubtful. Tactical nuclear weapons may pose a programming problem for DCS, fair enough, but that is not the same as saying they cannot be modelled.

I agree, there should be consequences, but, you know, EA and all that. There seems to be a lot of confusion on these forums, I was just clarifying that the aircraft won't hit an aerodynamic brick wall at Vne, it's up to the pilot to know and not exceed these limits.

Vne is an instruction, a speed limit, like on the highway. It doesn't mean the aircraft physically can't go faster than that, but the manual says you shouldn't. In the Viper's case I believe the limit comes from the dynamic pressure on the canopy, but IANAVPIRL.

If only DCS had some pickups and Technicals...

Apologies, I know it's been a while since the last mission. I've finished 7 and 8 is almost there now. I had intended to roll the two into one but was having issues with some elements of the helicopter landings. To simplify things, 7 is a runway attack, and 8 will be top cover for an assault. I'm on 2.7 and as I understand it these missions are not backward compatible, so apologies to anyone not on openbeta, but I wanted to try out some of the new clouds a try (you will need your ILS to get home on mission 7!). Northern Flank 7.miz

What do you mean by lack of Vne?

Agreed. To many here use Hollywood as a frame of reference. Military kit is often bugged, unreliable and less capable than (some) civvy stuff due to long procurement times and ever changing design briefs.

Ok, everyone is focussing on what DCS is now and how it is played currently. There is also a massive misunderstanding regarding the effect of a smaller nuclear weapon. Nobody is asking for MT class weapons. Here is an American 300kt B61 on somewhere all DCS players know - Batumi. We are not talking about wiping clean entire maps in an instant. That is Hollywood nuclear warfare. Link here: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (nuclearsecrecy.com) Imagine the new dynamic campaign. Each side has a couple of tactical nukes. You don't know which facility they are stored in, but you are tasked to find and destroy them before they can be used against you. Suddenly, intercepting an incoming strike has significantly more importance attached to it. You are no longer going to lose a hanger or two, but perhaps a huge part of your weapons and POL storage capacity. Do you throw everything you have at stopping them? Or is the attack a feint, or just probing your defences? Or how about another scenario, when your forces have been pushed back and are facing an enemy with numerical superiority (think Fulda type situation). Your only choice now is perhaps a tactical nuclear strike to buy you some time. But of course this brings it's own risks and now the enemy will be looking to match your escalation. Like any weapon it's use will be controlled by mission designers. If it is not in a warehouse, it can't be used. You don't want them, fine, but we aren't vaporising cities here, we're talking about a legitimate and realistic use of a weapon which was designed to be used at a tactical level, rather than strategic.