Lace

They work on the Gazelle too.

Hell yes. Plus EOR arming and disarming. Might be nice if it is incorporated into the new airfield ground crew and ATC work currently underway.

My source is a contemporary (1980s) magazine article. Not sure where they got it, perhaps it is just representative. RAF manuals, especially anything tactical are hard to come by. I imagine the three crossers would be aligned with central taxyway access points for maximum effect. You can imagine Erfurt below being carved into quarters by the crossers, then finished off by a shallow offset #4. Pic credit: mil-airfields.de

JP233 had two bomblet dispersal density settings. One high density for cuts across the runway, usually by three aircraft, and one low density for along the runway, by the remaining aircraft in the four-ship. RAF Vulcans in the infamous 'Black Buck' raid on Stanley during OP Corporate also attacked across the runway (35 degrees) and only managed one bomb crater (of 21 dropped) on the runway (42 if you count the second raid too).

Ah, fair enough. Had a feeling it might be since it hadn't already been reported. For all my time in the Gazelle M, I've only just started playing with the L.

I've had a quick look and couldn't see this reported. After firing the missile model remains on the pylon. The count goes down on the armaments panel, and there is no 'unlimited ammunition' selected.

Anyone else have all their control assignments wiped with this update? Frustrating to have to allocate them all again, for every aircraft.

I agree. I think the hand curated maps work better than the satellite imagery based ones, and honestly for any historic map they are the only choice as the correct imagery doesn't exist (or at least is very limited, low quality and inconsistent compared with modern imagery).

Yes.

The EOTS and HMD offer a good practical example of the sensor fusion capabilities we are likely to see with the F-35, even if not completely accurate representation, the concept is well presented. It really shows how outclassed everything else will be in the SA stakes. For anyone unaware, the F-45 is a fictional aircraft loosely based on the B-model 35 in a simplified VR-only flight simulator.

Will there be a static Bratty Wagon?

DL can be disabled in the ME, but needs to be set per unit. I guess tying these things into the historical date (like with the weapons & GPS) would work nicely.

Will there be additional airfields in phases 2 & 3?

Screenshots look amazing, and dare I say it, almost ready for release...? So glad they included some Baltic. So glad they made it temporally relevant. Wen Tornado?

Nobody will be forced to use the time acceleration, but it could be a concession to those who want a more 'playable' experience. There is no reason to think that the DCE engine will limit the player to one pilot or particular aircraft either, it is not an RPG, so jumping from aircraft to aircraft should be possible, as long as they are available resources and not currently being re-armed, repaired or under maintenance. Like it or not, the whole point of a dynamic campaign is to introduce an element of asset management (including pilots, aircraft, POL and weapons) to the game. If some players don't want that experience, then they are still free do endless eject/respawns in the MP servers. I just hope there is a little more consideration for a realistic op tempo in the DCE, and this is not sacrificed on the altar of multiplayer fun. Regarding my bold above - Why shouldn't that be the case in the DCE? That is exactly how it should be, it certainly shouldn't just be disregarded. I might be an edge case though, I have many 1000s of hours (all in real-time) in CM:O and am well used to seeing the ready time of my strike package slowly tick down...

It is more than an interesting detail, it is essential to realistic asset management in a campaign. If you can simply throw jet after jet, sortie after sortie at a target then it makes a mockery of any claims of realism. Tactics and self-preservation are no longer a concern when you can just go home and try again in a matter of minutes. Multiplayer brings its own challenges. I'd imagine there will be 'spare' aircraft which can be pre-readied for anyone looking for a quick way to get back into the action (either that or Minecraft bedtimes - i.e. time acceleration once all elements of a mission are back on the ground or destroyed), but AIUI the DCE will be primarily SP focused initially (rightly IMHO).

A big one for me is that it will need realistic rearm, refuel and repair times, including pre and post-flight checks and inspections. Time can be skipped forwards for the player so there will be no waiting around for hours, but it is important that the battle moves on around them. This will make planning and coordination more important to the player, and mean that failing in an objective will have real consequences, as you may not get another chance to hit a target for several hours. As it currently stands in DCS, you can be back in the action in an unrealistically short period of time, which 'might' have happened in a real SHTF cold war escalation in Germany, but is not how sustained air ops are performed in a 'modern' war.

The FAA Instrument Flying Handbook is as good a place as any to start. Military procedures vary, but the basic principles translate well. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf Honestly, if you are learning this for any current or future real-world requirement, I'd look beyond DCS and at one of the civvy sims. Far more suitable training aircraft there.

This is pretty much how I see it. Steam gauges don't feel out of place in a modern setting, but MFDs in an older historical one do.

Wags latest video mentioned that they had enough data to produce a UH-60L right now, but were waiting for the data on the UH-60M. This is post 2006, had more power and a glass-cockpit. and is probably a better fit for the AH-64 and OH-58s we have and will work better in GWOT scenarios. However, I don't know why there seems to be an assumption that customers want the 'latest and greatest' versions of everything, when the older models are often more versatile, have a more storied history, and are generally more fun (or challenging) to fly. Perhaps I'm alone in this, so I thought I'd pop up a poll to see if the forumites agree with ED on this approach.

Is it possible to use soft links (like other sims) or do they need to be hard links?

I'd love an F-117. I'd also love an F-111. Both very different aircraft with very different mission sets. The beauty of DCS is that it allows the player to experience all kinds of flying, in many different types. It's not all about high scores and K:D ratios, otherwise why build trainers, helicopters, aerobatic aircraft, etc? It's about simulating particular experiences. The F-117 would offer a unique experience within DCS. It won't appeal to the AMRAAM-maxers, and in DCS in its current form might be a bit of an oddball, but with the Dynamic Campaign Engine combined with proper target driven outcomes (rather than the non persistent, story-driven campaigns we currently have) it will offer a planning and execution element which is currently missing from DCS. The small payload is largely irrelevant, as most sorties will have a primary and maybe secondary target. Those dozens of MK82s on the F-111 will likely come off in one pass anyway, so the outcome is the same. I.e a single well planned and executed target run. The F-111 could be very important if we lose the F-15E, as currently it is the only all-weather strike aircraft in DCS (at least until the Tornado arrives). Although a generation older, and less versatile than the Mud Hen I think it would be another popular choice with players. If it is either of those I would be very happy indeed. (but do the F-117 first!)

Therein lies the problem of maps based on satellite imagery. It is only a snapshot in time. The installations in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s would have looked very different. I know it is not the case for every map, but contrast the IADS of Iraq during ODS, then later OIF, or Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s.

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options. How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc? Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

I really want you to be right on this.