Eddie

If you're only going to be using a single altimeter setting then you should just set QNH prior to takeoff and leave it set. In the hog you spend 99% of your time below FL180 anyway so setting standard over Nevada isn't iften necessary.

Thanks. I'll retest and have a look at logs over the weekend to see if there is anything. It is working for clients against for AI fired missiles (SAMs tested) but it isn't working for either client or host fired AAMs when fired against another client/host. When it doesn't work the message box doesn't pop up either and DCS doesn't have any script errors so it seems to me like the script is doing its thing but perhaps a parameter isn't set right for it to work with clients. But really I'm clueless as to where to go next.

Grimes, This script is working fine for AI missiles in 2.0 however it seems that it isn't working for client vs client missile shots after making the edit you mention above. Any ideas? Here's the script as I'm trying it. do local remove_missile_method = 1 -- 0 will create an explosion -- 1 will use Object.destroy() which simply makes the missile disappear. local aiMissiles = {} local numActive = 0 local uid = 1 local idNum = 1 local function simpleEvent(f) -- from mist local handler = {} idNum = idNum + 1 handler.id = idNum handler.f = f handler.onEvent = function(self, event) self.f(event) end world.addEventHandler(handler) end getMag = function(vec) -- from mist return (vec.x^2 + vec.y^2 + vec.z^2)^0.5 end get3DDist = function(point1, point2) return getMag({x = point1.x - point2.x, y = point1.y - point2.y, z = point1.z - point2.z}) end local function removeMis(id) if Object.isExist(aiMissiles[id].missile) then -- if missile is still active and needs to be destroyed if Weapon.getTarget(aiMissiles[id].missile) == aiMissiles[id].origTarg and Unit.getPlayerName(aiMissiles[id].origTarg) then trigger.action.outText(Unit.getPlayerName(aiMissiles[id].origTarg) .. ' has been hit by a missile.', 5) end if remove_missile_method == 0 then trigger.action.explosion(Object.getPosition(aiMissiles[id].missile).p, 5) else Object.destroy(aiMissiles[id].missile) end end aiMissiles[id] = nil numActive = numActive - 1 return end local function checkMis(mis) local tot = 0 if Object.isExist(mis.missile) == false then removeMis(mis.uid) else if Object.isExist(mis.origTarg) == true then local misVel = getMag(Object.getVelocity(mis.missile)) local targVel = getMag(Object.getVelocity(mis.origTarg)) local dist = get3DDist(Object.getPoint(mis.missile), Object.getPoint(mis.origTarg)) if dist < 100 then -- if its close and still guiding removeMis(mis.uid) else tot = dist/(misVel*2) timer.scheduleFunction(checkMis, mis, timer.getTime() + tot) end end end end local function aiShot(event) if event.id == world.event.S_EVENT_SHOT and event.initiator then if event.weapon and Weapon.getDesc(event.weapon).missileCategory and (Weapon.getDesc(event.weapon).missileCategory == 2 or Weapon.getDesc(event.weapon).missileCategory == 1) then local newMis = {} newMis.launchTime = timer.getTime() newMis.uid = uid newMis.missile = event.weapon newMis.origTarg = Weapon.getTarget(event.weapon) newMis.lostTrack = false aiMissiles[uid] = newMis uid = uid + 1 numActive = numActive + 1 timer.scheduleFunction(checkMis, newMis, timer.getTime() + 4) end end end simpleEvent(aiShot) env.info('Training Sams by Grimes Loaded') end

Because we've had to, and there is a very long list of things that we haven't been able to do because of it.

For a B-52, it is. That's well within the mission range of most NATO fighters (or the A-10C) without air refueling. ;) But in all seriousness, that's an illustration of the problem. You have to use two extremes of the theatre to do that which massively limits the number of possible scenarios.

That's the key point for me, yes you can use pretty much any airframe in theaters of the size we have now, but you can't employ many of the tactics that would be used by those airframes in reality as you don't have the airspace to do so. It also limits what you can do with air defence networks of both sides, it's hard to have large IADS networks that you then punch a few holes in with SEAD and Fighter Sweeps in a small area, for example.

Indeed. As an example, in the current Nevada terrain goes on seemingly forever out in all directions, but doesn't match the real world (prime example is the lack of the Pacific coast). Even having a low detail 100m SRTM terrain mesh and a basic placeholder texture set would improve on the current theatre and allow extra options (such as carrier ops). You wouldn't loose anything from the current theatre by having that and the detail could be built on as and when resource availability allows. I don't think anyone is suggesting removing high detail areas to favour low, it's rather a case of using low detail to increase the value and usability of the high detail. Thus is why I consider desert areas to be ideal as there are large areas of land where there is essentially nothing anyway. Which allows a lack of buildings and other features to be entirely realistic.

"Realistic mission profile" does not necessarily equal 6-8 hours. Looking at the Hornet for example, a 1.5-2 hour sortie can easily cover a 300-400 nm radius, without going near a tanker. Conventional war scenarios are far more likely to be of that duration than the 6 hours plus seen in COIN ops.

That switch only affects the altitude source for IFFCC weapon delivery cues, it doesn't affect the altitude readout used by the pilot. Its implementation would be largely pointless in DCS.

Speaking as someone who does fly in the air-surface role, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, high terrain detail is great and adds a lot to the experience. But it can't make up for not being able to fly a realistic mission profile or duration due to being stuck in a small area. High detail terrain mesh for example is great for low level ops, high detail 1:1 models of large citites however, while nice to have, are not when the price is reduced area an for longer production times. Nevada is a outlier as the area encompasses the NTTR (mostly) and airspace limitations are a realistic consideration that is dealt with in reality. I don't think we need the "whole world" (although it'd be great), but certainly theatres of more than 1000nm square are needed before it'll be possible to replicate many real world scenarios an historic events. Just take a look at allied airbase locations in desert storm compared to the targets they were hitting. Indeed, that is something many I've spoken to on the subject have also mentioned. Take Nevada as a prime example, a highly detailed representation of Las Vegas which, while great to look at when flying past it, is no more than eye candy and largely irrelevant to mil air ops in the region, but some of the most significant elements of the NTTR are low detail. That's not a good trade off in my opinion.

Physical size/area > detail in my view. High detail is great, don't get me wrong, but if it's a choice of size or detail then size has to win in a flight sim. A combination of small high detail areas within a larger lower detail region is the best solution in my view. It is getting ever more frustrating being penned in such small areas and/or having important areas missing because they are just a few miles outside some arbitrary border line. We're flying a selection of aircraft with a 300nm + combat radius (helicopters excluded). At present that's only possible by flying fron one extreme edge of the theatre to the other.

Range will depend heavily on altitude. At medium altitude provided there is no terrain in the way both VHF and UHF can reach a couple of hundred miles. At low altitude it could be less than 10 miles. It's something of a "how long is a piece of string" type question.

You can use a UHF freq. just type one in. The only difference between UHf and VHF is the frequency itself, both can use AM or FM modulation.

The pitch up you're experiencing isn't due to aerodynamics. It's due to the fact you're not going master arm/gun arm safe prior to joining with the tanker. Therefore you still have PAC enabled. As soon as the refuelling door is opened PAC (and LAAP as a whole) are disabled, which will cause the same pitch up as when you normally safe the gun after having Gun/PAC armed. In short it's a procedural error on your part.

You certainly can control the refuelling speed. It's taken from the waypoint speed set in the editor.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115228

That all depends on the mission designer. I've never played any DCS single player missions, or community multiplayer missions so can't say for sure. But it certainly seems from comments I see on various forums that they are generally set at too low a speed. The AAR speed for the A-10 is 220 KIAS.

When you've had enough practice, it's not that hard in DCS (or Falcon) either. The trouble is that many simmers expect to practice for a few hours and be able to do like they see in YouTube videos. In fact it can take several hundred hours of formation flying and air refuelling to truly master the skills.

It'll work without any other addons, but in order to see all the targets you'll need our range target add on as well.

3 of the four, only one is fixed.

Nope.

That's part of the pre-briefed (PB) functionality, which isn't used in the A-10C. The A-10C can however make use of pattern release functionality in reality. Pattern release allows for employing multiple JDAMs against a single target coordinate which will land in a specific impact pattern (e.g. two in a line or four in a diamond around the target).

Your starter for one...... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1994508&postcount=113

I don't know what his source is, but he's correct. And the real JDAM can do a lot more not mentioned in the OP as well. Much of it has already been discussed in these forums a few times over the years. The short version is, the DCS JDAM looks like a JDAM, but that's where the similarity ends.

Vyrtouz, Would it be possible to add a method of having a key/Hotas button add an event marker/bookmark in a tac view recording while it's being created? I'm thinking, for example, if using such a feature to mark simulated weapon releases etc when flying training missions. If it is possible, it'd be exceptionally useful if it could be done in such a way that we could have more than one type of marker, with custom names using different key commands as chosen by the user.