Eddie

Daily Mail. LOL. Apparently, Argentine Hercs were used to attack ships during the Falklands War. Oh really?!

Yep. Defensive aids are much more complicated, and clever, than we see in our sims. Some aircraft can even give the pilot directions to perform the correct defensive manoeuvre at the optimum time. Again, another area of DCS (and every other sim) where simplification actually gives far less capability than seen in reality.

You mean like, TARS. Because all that stuff is in Headspace's plan. But unless he starts charging for TARS (honestly I think he should if it brings faster development) and it formally becomes a 3rd party plugin, it's going to take time.

Well, we in the 476th use TARS for 100% of flights, and have done since the beginning. And it works fine for us. More than fine in fact. The only problems we ever see are with people new to MP and/or less computer literate people having setup issues, but they are very quickly solved. Most issues are down to people never having flown MP in an environment where realistic comms procedures are applied struggling to keep track of which radio they should be using. As far as ED developing their own comms system, I do see arguments in favour, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a long way down the list. I'd much, much rather see the missing aspect of aerial warfare such as the electronic battlefield, more realistic weapon modelling, FLIR that is more than a basic texture filter, a realistic weather and atmospheric model, realistic ATC & AWACS, the list goes on. Also things such as the dedicated server are far more important. And of course the fundamental fact is that as the vast majority of people who play the game (and therefore the bills) do not play online and therefore have no interest in features such an online comms. So all the things I mention above, and many more besides would be a much more effective use of developer time and resources.

You can. But if you do that you can't hook anything else. Hooking is fine for rejoining, but using it to maintain formation means you loose the ability to hook anything else, such as target assignment.

There are many areas where DCS does not match reality. Knowing how it really works, or wanting to do things as realistically as possible has little to do with it, you have to work with what can be done in the sim, and also in such a way that people without real world experience and access can learn and understand the material. And frankly 100% accurate AA TACAN procedures isn't high on the list, when compared to weapon delivery and tactics amongst other things.

It's a known bug.

Set your TARS PTTs to different key assignments than your DCS radios?! I'd have thought that one was obvious. You only need the same 3 HOTAS buttons to use DCS with TARS as you do without. Just use a shift function to bring up the DCS comms menus and unshifted for TARS PTTs. But as for the OP, why waste time designing, developing, and testing a function that is already available using 3rd party software and supported plugins? Especially given how many other things there are to be done.

No. Not if you set your control config up right. TARS does exactly what you say can't be done with TS. It does everything IVC can do, and potentially more besides.

You'd be surprised how often pilots get "excited" and say things that aren't in the brevity manuals. Especially when they actually get to shoot a live weapon. But yeah, AMRAAMs.

In that case it's an axis configuration problem. Remove all axis assignments from your pedals and then reassign only the toe brake and rudder axis. DCS has a habit of assigning rudder pedals to pitch and roll on initial setup.

If you mean that the aircraft slowly rolls into the turn and also slowly pitches up or down, then well yeah. That's what aircraft do. If you mean actually elevator and aileron control surface movements are obeying commanded by your pedals, then yes there is an axis mapping issue. Call up the controls display via RCtrl+Enter and watch the pitch and roll axis to see if they move when you use your pedals. And most importantly, post a track.

Here you go. All altitudes to be used as AGL. As for bank angle to maintain base dist, that'll just be a judgement in the cockpit as it'll vary by airspeed etc.

How many weapons are you releasing in the string, and what base/release airspeed are you looking for? Also if you know it, what is the target elevation? High Altitude Dive Bomb

No, nothing had changed at all. SOI and SPI has always functioned this way.

Well if there is a requirement to deliver the weapon on a heading that will give a high crosswind you need to select a delivery type that will minimise the impact of any wind. That means high angle and low release altitude to minimise weapon time of fall. Such things are a big weakness of an AI JTAC/FAC(A), they just can't interact with you as a human could/would, and they can't consider every possible parameter. A situation where high winds impact the accuracy of a given weapon is exactly the kind of situation where a pilot would advise the JTAC an alternative weapon would be better, and/or refuse to drop. Something you can't do with the AI. The other thing to consider is the weapons you are carrying to start with. If you know that MK-82s are not suitable for the mission due to the target(s), threat environment, weather, etc, then select an alternative weapon type for the mission.

The first thing would be to select your attack heading to deliver with a head or tail wind. That combined with a 45 DB or 45 HADB will maximise accuracy and minimise wind drift.

Couldn't replicate the "invisible" IR Pointer in 1.2.6 (test version) or in the internal test version. However, it appears that the texture for the IR Pointer is missing, so I have reported that issue. I dare say it is related to what you're seeing.

Auto correction is just letting the IFFCC do its thing. It seems that people keep missing (or sometimes it appears ignoring) the fact that IFFCC corrects for wind all the time, even if you don't enter wind data. When doing so it uses the measured wind speed and direction (as shown in the CDU) and applies an algorithm that assumes the wind speed drops to zero at -4000 ft. This is adequate correction in most cases. You only need to enter wind data if you're flying in/dropping through wind layers that vary greatly in terms of speed and/or direction. In most cases manual wind data entry is simply not necessary.

Ok guys, I've done some testing this afternoon and the short of it is, everything is fine and working exactly as it should. I've performed around 40 deliveries in both still air, and high winds both with and without manually entered wind data. And in every situation the weapons landed on target. I've done these tests in the current test version, and confirmed the results in 1.2.6 with the same outcome. My thoughts on the issue are as follows: 1. You guys are perhaps not appreciating how inaccurate dumb bombs can be It gets said a lot, but remember PGMs were developed for a reason. Scoring a "hit" on a point target such as a single tank is not easy, especially in high winds and from high altitudes. There is a reason that an impact within 100 ft is considered a hit in real world training. 2. By not performing deliveries correctly (dive angle, release altitude, CCRP/CCIP, etc. you are performing inherently inaccurate deliveries. Shallow dive angles, low release airspeed, and long weapon time of flight, all reduce accuracy and by quite a significant amount. If you want an accurate delivery you need at least a 30 degree dive, if not 45 degree and it needs to be a dive bomb with a release altitude of around 4000 feet. Even a 45 degree high altitude dive bomb will have a release altitude below 8000 feet. 3. You are expecting 500lb bombs to do more damage to hard targets than they should. The "lethal" blast radius of a Mk-82 is only around 75 feet (depending on terrain and fusing) in the real world, and DCS does a reasonable job of simulating that. Don't expect an impact more than 50 feet away to kill a tank. Anyway, those are my thought and results. It may not be what some of you were expecting, or wanted to hear, but that's how it is. I've attached 3 of my test tracks in case anyone wants to take a look, there were recorded in the internal test build, but seem to work ok in 1.2.6. 82 45HADB - No Wind.trk 82 45HADB - Auto Wind Correction.trk 82 45HADB - Manual Wind Entry.trk

It will, when time & resources permit.

Thanks Nate, saves me a job.

It shouldn't. That is a bug.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112872

What's not right? I don't see anything wrong in that screenshot. You're going to have to be much more specific than just saying "clearly not right", because it isn't clear at all. Your view problem is likely because, as I understand it, something has changed between previous versions and 1.2.6 so old snapview configuration will no longer work.