mahuja

1) presumably there is some logic to figuring out if it's the same contact. I frequently find it does not, but sometimes it does. I'm guessing the target not maneuvering, but just continuing along the same course/speed/altitude, would be a factor. 2) See "Raid Assessment" at http://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab04.en.html This does not require a lot of processing. As soon as you get a usable signal (close enough, correct aspect, etc) there isn't much to do.

SAM Threat circles appear at the site of sam sites that are listed 'visible on map' in their group settings, at least for those present at the start. If I've understood it correctly, anyway. I haven't experimented with them yet.

I think it's more that the mount only allows it to separate by forward movement. Therefore jettisoning involves firing the rocket engine to make it move forward.

In HSI, DATA, A/C, there is a button to change the format from decimal to seconds, but I'm not sure if it has any effect yet. As far as entry is concerned, the entry field may be a bit too cramped for decimal entry.

Is there a way to configure this dud limit? I seem to remember that being a thing in the A-10C, but if there is a way in our F18 it's not obvious how.

Much as I'm looking forward to it, I'm worried it'll be too effective as far as balance goes. I'm not expecting the enemy sam sites to be effective at counter-sead. There was that one IADS script, made for dcs 1.5, though it may work still. It then needs to be added to the various missions one would play. Alternatively, you'd need a player who knows how to do it, doing that instead of flying.

Another place this will affect is the warehouse functionality on airbases, which determines what weapons are available, and in what numbers.

This should not matter if you're sitting in a HAS, enclosed on all sides but one.

The problem with specialization of airframes is that you have to decide on the airframe mix a decade before a conflict occurs. Whereas if you were to have an all multi-role fleet, you can mix and match every day during the conflict. The LCS is often criticized as a bad or pointless program - some saying they should instead have bought the danish ship of its type instead. These all overlook one thing the lcs program brings: experience designing and operating modular ships, which can later be applied to bigger ships. The LCS, even with its problems, is cheap compared to doing the same mistakes to a Burke replacement. Again, a fleet of modular ships can be reconfigured in months, rather than three decades for a traditional fleet. What wars are we going to be fighting in 2030? You have to select the mix of combat craft for those wars right now. You have until the end of the year. Multi-role/modular is a way to hedge that bet. -- How these issues affect and are affected by the training of personnel - pilots and ground crew alike - is a topic of its own. -- AFAICT swing-wings have always been more maintenance intensive. As are new planes where we haven't you found the right way to fix/maintain them. As are old planes where the structure needs thorough inspections often. Naval aircraft, with their "controlled crashes", age much faster in this regard. Consider the stresses on the hinges the wings are mounted on, and raise that to the power of a controlled crash every few days. If the hinge were to fail, the wing becomes its own aircraft. If it never happened, they were on top of it, but that takes time in the hangar. -- Consider the idea that auto-flaps is a lesser form of swing wing - you're changing the wing shape to match your maneuvers. Who knows how far they may take that idea in future aircraft.

I'm wanting land-based arrestor cables separately, just as much for improvised airfields as for FCLP.

This looks like you turned -down- the O2 flow. It starts at max, and if you move it down you get hypoxia no matter the circumstances. In particular, the obogs system switch, power, or the fact that you're at ground level where you'd take your mask off, doesn't matter. And last time someone reported it they filed it under "working as intended".

Maybe one could instead focus on how they are deployed. Random air patrols, possibly from other air bases than the one your mission is against. Not specifically placed in the mission area. If nothing else they may give more RWR contacts to make decisions about, or they may actually come over to interfere. Other ways of making them less predictable may also help. -- Speaking of randomizing. Escort offsets. If you have two flights trying to escort the same plane, they'll try to occupy the same relative positions. Mid-air collisions are inevitable in that case.

I only tried once where I loaded them, but it appears to me that it didn't quite catch that I loaded a lmav rather than an imav. In particular, in the tac page, the imav display is an option on the upper right, and it shows a camera from the ocean surface somewhere.

Afaik HOBS missiles like the 9x are special not only in their seeker, but also in vectored propulsion to execute the turn. Even if you can use the hmd to give the 9m a target, it will have a much harder time turning onto that target.

3 - You are confident you're in a head on engagement without surprises and want your BVR missiles to reach a bit further. 4 - You want to keep some sa-10 tracking radar(s) busy for as long as possible (max range, max missile flight time) while your friends pop up and attack something. Imagination ;) @op: Try to tell him to fly in a trail formation. That should leave him flying through roughly the same place you are, rather than try fly off to the side where terrain may be higher. Also, AWACS seem to lose you when you're beaming them while near terrain. (AWACS says clean even as I have a radar lock from another angle...) If you have two radars looking for you from different directions though, you can't beam them both.

You'll have to set key combos for these yourself. If you want to ensure you're not colliding with keys used for anything else, try left and right ctrl (strg?) plus a number or letter. Another alternative is to bind buttons directly in DCS, avoiding the stick profiles where possible. You can add a button as a modifier to other buttons to have the 'extra sets' you'd have in the stick profiler. This will avoid a bunch of problems down the line where the saitek software conflicts with other software, in particular I've had problems with teamspeak and discord.

82Y?

This word reordering is something I hear every time I do the fire test, regardless of the incompleteness. I suspect this is because the word reordering makes them more audibly distinct, to ensure you notice that yes, it was the other engine she's bitching about now. IOW that this makes sense to put in the real plane, so they did, and we're getting a faithful reproduction of it. (Including the original sounds, delivered from Boeing.)

If you want the less math-y version, you're on a direct intercept when the bearing to target does not change. When flying straight, the target does not slide left or right on your radar b-scope. If you want to come from behind, you need to be doing a lag pursuit. Point your nose directly at the target, and look at which direction they drift. That alone will say a whole lot about their aspect, in particular if they are headed left or right of you. If you then maintain a course a little to the side they drift away from (relative to the intercept course), you'll eventually be behind them.

With the gbu-12, you'd have to drop at the right area somehow, without too much instrumentation. With the agm-65e, you also get a built-in LST, and will know if it sees the target before you launch. You may even be unable to launch without tracking the target.

They want to fix the issues that presented themselves in open beta, before pushing to stable.

It's my understanding that the mavericks with penetrator warheads (EFGJK) are never multi-mounted. This is also true on the A-10C. It just happens the F18 doesn't appear to mount the lighter(?) variants.

A transsonic release is probably a bad idea for a dumb munition. It's not just the changing drag coefficients, if simulated properly, you can easily get very highly asymmetric drag in unpredictable directions. What I've observed in game seems to bear this out. Mk82Y (ballute retarded) has similar issues in all cases - but it doesn't matter much in its intended use case, very low and straight drops. I suggest no higher than 200ft AGL for a convoy-sized target. I call them shotgun bombs. Haven't seen anyone mention it in this thread, but apparently the cluster munitions need to have their activation altitude set to 1500 ft to be accurate too. Certainly the only case where it hits what I aimed it at.

I watched the shorter track, and around 3min30 the player vehicle crashed into the side of a hill. I'm guessing it's a version mismatch issue. LOL @ win10. Then what planes are you flying, if you don't mind me asking? This is such specialized minutiae - you have to start inspecting the dark corners to find this roach. For the more obvious use case, extending the range slightly by draining one set of tanks first and dropping that as it empties, doesn't help by much more than a few miles. Reading into the natops, stopping external tanks has an interesting second use case. You can stop the fuel flow so it mostly drains the internal tanks, but as the internal tanks reach a certain low fuel state, it will automatically refill from them. I'm assuming it'll only pull a little at a time, which keeps the internal tanks mostly empty. If I keep selective jettison set up (it's part of my preflight checklist) and very handy (on hotas) that gives you LOADS of maneuverability any time without sacrificing station time until I need that. For that second use case, this bug half way automates that, still leaving you with a bit of added drag. (Presumably)

May be related to https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=221304 but this does not require setting the tanks to stop before takeoff. See also https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219851 whose description appears to be opposite and track file leads to a plane crash in ~3min30. Also, setting the tanks to feed again, even override, does not refill other tanks, so the fuel appears to actually be gone, rather than just a sensor malfunction that would feed into the aircraft weight calculation. It appears to happen the moment I go from negative to zero G.