Eddie

I'd say "it depends" is the more accurate answer. As with so many things in military aviation.

That and that battle damage won't cause a hyd system failure, even if an entire control surface is separated from the aircraft. Hyd system failures should be one of the most common types of system failure resulting from battle damage. However they are essentially unheard of.

Agreed, very much a needed option. As someone who only has A-10C and CA installed (own Ka-50 but don't even install it any more), having numerous icons for things I'm never going to buy/install is a bit of an irritation. A long way down the to do list though, given the amount of time spent looking at the single player main menu screen.

Well, IRL RADAR is on from the moment the weight on wheel switch comes off to the moment it comes on again. The FCR is essential to building and maintaining SA and ensuring airspace deconfliction. At least, in the western world. Your "common sense" is actually directly opposite to real world TTPs. This RADAR on/RADAR off switch is very much an FC thing. As for ECM, well given how it's modelled in DCS World then yes, people perhaps should be turning it off, but then how it works doesn't match reality and in reality having the defensive aids suite(including ECM) on for the majority of the flight is not uncommon either. What you actually need is to build better SA yourself, especially with respect to the position and actions of friendly flights. It also sounds like mission design is part of the problem here as well, if every side has every aircraft it's not surprising building decent SA is very difficult.

MRFCS isn't modelled particularly well in DCS (opinion), for some reason when in MRFCS your stick inputs are translated as force applied to the controls rather than actual stick position which is terribly unintuitive . That makes it nigh on impossible to fly the aircraft unless you are beyond careful with your control inputs and look at the stick position in the virtual cockpit. Fortunately (if you can call it that) as hydraulic failures aren't modelled, there is never really a reason to use MRFCS anyway.

It's a bug, just like the way the dail sometimes stops in between two numbers, or the way the distance readout rolls slowly to the new value when you change a waypoint etc. (it should be near instant). But I wouldn't hold your breath as far as it being fixed.

In the context of western military aircraft (specifically PGMs), Launch Acceptable Region.

This, this, 1000 times this. As with all things aviation (simulated or otherwise) much can be said to repeated practice, it may sound, or even be, a bit boring/monotonous but it's the only way you'll ever develop the muscle memory needed to perform the manoeuvres involved in weapon delivery (or any other phase of flight for that matter) with precision and without having to apply all your concentration to it. You know you're "combat ready" when you can do the perfect roll in on target and deliver weapons "by the numbers" while talking on two separate radios, listening to the RWR tones, keeping visual on your wingman and avoid enemy fire. Without feelin overwhelmed, and actually finding yourself becoming addicted to the rush of such things. ;)

And in addition to those listed above, it's quite simply bad airmanship, and something only flight simmers do. To this day I don't get why people decide negative G is the best way to dive on a target. When I've tried doing in the past as an experiment it just feels utterly wrong and unnatural in every respect. As for the OP. I've covered these things before, so won't repeat myself as the threads in question have already been linked. The only thing I'll add is recommending the viewing of the demo videos on the youtube channel in my sig. Oh and I'll also point out that the question itself is flawed and incorrect from the outset. There is no such thing as "CCIP bombing", CCIP is a method of weapon aiming (just like CCRP), not a method of delivering weapons. ;)

But it wouldn't just stop you doing business in the US, it'd stop you doing it anywhere as you wouldn't have anything to sell. If you can't get the sub components to make your system/aircraft etc. you won't get very far. ;) Think of it this way. You build and sell PCs, and the CPU you use cones from Intel (a US company) as it's determined to be subject to ITAR intel need a licence to sell it to you and even discuss it with you in any detail. You also need a licence from the US to sell the PC on as it is also subject to ITAR. If you try and sell your PC to someone who doesn't also have an ITAR licence you could be fined (even if you're not a us company as you've signed a US legal agreement) , or even worse loose your licence which means Intel will no longer be able to sell you anymore CPUs to build PCs with, or replace any broken or faulty items you've already sold.

True, you'd struggle to fine them if they weren't also registered in the US. But they can have any licences they hold removed and be prevented from being allowed any access in the future. And that's going to be a really big problem for a company which wants to sell a product as they won't be able to guarantee support in the future.

And that is exactly the kind of thing that most often makes items subject to export control. There are numerous examples of Typhoon equipment that is subject to ITAR because it contains a single computer chip from the US. The simple fact is, if you want all the new shiney toys you need to play the game.

All entirely hypothetical now, but in that kind of situation an embargo is highly, highly unlikely. To my knowledge there has never been such a penalty involved with an export control violation. Bare in mind that ITAR and similar are primarily for commercial transactions my private companies, not an entire country/government. The likely penalties are fines (highest I've heard of is USD100 million), and/or loss of ITAR access/export licence. Both are potentially company killers.

Oh yes it does! When it comes to US ITAR (and export control laws of other countries), who "owns" something is utterly irrelevant. What matters is where the item in question (or parts of it) originated. If a single part of a item is subject to ITAR, then the whole thing is. And it's not just physical items that it applies to, software, technical information, and even verbal conversations can be subject to ITAR and other export controls. So in the context of this discussion, even if the system in question was made on Sweden, from 100% Swedish components, and is loaded with software entirely made by Swedes, if those Swedes used any US technical data to develop the software, or even has some verbal advice from the US that involved subjects that are subject to ITAR then guess what, the software is subject to ITAR as well. The same could be true for UK export controls, or any other nation involved, however small the involvement was. That said, I don't know anything about the Gripen or its development so I couldn't say for sure if any specific export controls would apply of not. But they certainly "could".

ITAR - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

This mod is mirrored on the 476th vFG website, in case there are any issues with other links etc. Tetra, feel free to add these links as mirrors in your first post if you wish. RAE Mod v3.1 RAE Tacview

Fixed for ya. ;)

In some cases I'd agree. However do you not recognise that equally it's often the case that when someone from outside the Lockon clique criticises FC regarding its limitations get attacked/excessively put down by hose who enjoy the FC products. He fact that you choose the language "belittle FC3" speaks volumes to me there. I see it often, anyone who doesn't fly on the public servers, or who enjoys flying in a more realistic manner is someone regarded as boring and/or some kind of wannabe fighter pilot, or otherwise disagreeable. Whereas in the reverse situation those of us who do do thing a bit more "hardcore" (to use the colloquialism) simply don't care how anyone else chooses to fly. And trust me, that is the case. There are some bad eggs of course, but they are the exception.

Without trying to start some childish back and forth (although knowing his place it'll end up that way regardless). What do all actual fighter pilots do every day? Yep, buttons, procedures, checklist and many other aspects of TTPs. And if you think everything but pressing the weapon release button is monotonous procedures that require zero skill set with a very small place in air combat, then I'll simply say you do not understand those procedures or their purpose. But at the end of the day, you find the simple act of firing a weapon fun and don't get/enjoy the TTPs. Well guess what, many others get their enjoyment and fun from learning, practicing, and trying to master said TTPs, and not from "shooting AMRAAMs". Especially when the process involved in the shooting of said virtual AMRAAM is much different to reality anyway. What I'll never "get" is why those of you who don't have the interest in or get enjoyment from the learning and use of real world TTPs have to constantly jump on, argue with, and in many cases attempt to berate those who do. Especially when the situation isn't (normally) the same the other way around.

No, because many fundemental and aircraft basic systems are not there. Indeed, but anyone who does attempt to use real world TTPs in FC3 aircraft will quickly run into barriers caused by missing systems and funtionality. Yes you can employ many real world TTPs (not that I've ever seen anyone doing it in the FC3 environment, although I know at least the 44th do), but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome and some that you can't. I sense from your wording that you're trying to imply that Howie just wants to click switches without actually emplying any actual realism. Well that is actually not the case, he's in the 476th and that isn't exactly an option. ;) The thing with your remark is that most people in the DCS/FC community don't actually know what real TTPs involve, and even those that think thery are flying "realistically" are usually doing nothing of the sort. Even in the 476th we're using little more than 50% of the real world TTPs, due to a combination of practicality and the art of what's possible in DCS, and what's actually enjoyable. But the fact is, that if you do truely want to fly in anything approaching a genuinely realistic manner, then you need many of those "buttons" and systems available, even if you only click them one or twice in a flight. Something as basic as correct approach and landing procedures, or tactical formation flight are made much harder to perform or even impossble without TACAN and a working HSI for example. Sorry but that just rubbish. Being forced to use arbitrary keyboard commands is just simply unacceptable to many simmers, myself included. Clickable cockpit does not have to mean increased system fidelity, it just means being able to use relevant switches in the cockpit to manipluate the systems that are available. Clicking the actual switch corresponding to a given function is considerably easier to learn than a radom key command. In my case learning some random key command is nigh on impossible, but tell me to do anything with the switches in the right place in the cockpit on my screen and that is easy, because it actually makes sense and corresponds with the actual system and its operation. Clickable cockpit does not have to equal DCS A-10C level system modelling. For example, Falcon 4.0 had a clickable cockpit on release, but the systems fidelity was actually far less than in FC3 aircraft. It's the lack of that gamplay element that turns many away from FC3, not necessarily the level of systems modelling. In my case, I simply could not/cannot fly the way I enjoy in an FC3 aircraft at present. The use of keyboard and missing systems just remove any sense of fun and enjoyment in seconds and lead to nothing but frustration. You and many others feel differently, and that's fine, just realise your view is not shared by everyone, in fact there are more out there who share the opposite view than you may realise.

Thanks Headspace.

No, nor should there be. In fact there shouldn't be a need to change profile to switch Mav type at all, you should be able to step through via china aft short. But as DCS uses some very early suite 3.1 modelling mixed with 3.2, that is what we have. A workaround (and a realistic one, used with 3.1) is to change all mavs to the same type via the inventory page, you'll then be able to step through all missiles with china aft short.

Falcon 4 used the same multiple coalition system as well, just without it being modifiable via triggers/scripts.

Yep, instead of Blue/Red and just adding neutral being able to create coalition 1, coalition 2, coalition 3, and so on with each coalition containing 1 or more countries would be a much better and more flexible system. Even better would be the ability to set coalition alliances both in the mission editor and via triggers.