Headspace

That's valid, I was only pointing out that it can sometimes be dangerous to denounce other ideas as improper, since that principle was something that really helped me wrap my head around the process. Obviously it worked differently for you and that is fine. I agree that it is probably a lot better if newer players have access to more diverse amounts of info and that is the point I was trying to make about how arguments can be counter-productive.

This is the kind of thing (actually, the kind of discussion really so I am not singling chaos out or anything...) that gets under my skin, in flight sim communities more than any other. These squabbles about basic flight issues--invariably on topics that are basic to general aviation so you're going to get people with limited RL experience as well--wherein people make very one-sided, extreme declarations about a topic and then argue with one another about whether or not it's right. i.e. your garden variety internet pissing match. I dislike pissing matches intensely. They're more about egos and posturing and less about helping newer players get into the game, which this thread is apparently about and the reason I do my instructional videos et al. The "power for altitude" thing was never meant to be taken as a literal description of how an airplane works, not in Stick and Rudder (the book that this principle is generally attributed to, and which was absolutely written after airplanes had engines in them) or elsewhere. Applying power will almost always induce some sort of attitude change, either due to thrust vector factors (the A-10 does, after all, have the thrust vectored a few degrees up away from the tail) and because of the very basic principles of how thrust interacts with lift. However, powering for your sink rate while you land is often a good way to wrap your mind around the process. It's not hurting anything to view it that way, and I personally found it very helpful when I was learning how to fly small airplanes. Unfortunately back in those days, PC flight sims were so primitive that you couldn't really duplicate this on a computer the way you can now. As it is, I'm loathe to bring 'real life experience' into it, because at its core, this is about video gaming (for me, at least) and not about telling a new player that I'm better than he (or she) is for having had the opportunity to fly for real. You can find numerous general aviation sites declaring that the power for altitude/pitch for speed principle is the wrong way to view it, and numerous ones declaring that it's right, and still others that say other things about it--the point being, it's not necessarily wrong when viewed from the perspective of it being a certain viewpoint to wrap your head around when executing a landing, where you need to maintain a certain sink rate and stay within certain airspeed parameters. You certainly wouldn't view it that way when adjusting for cruise, for instance. The point being, that squabbling about petty details isn't going to do a damn thing to help the OP learn how to land. I personally thought that this game is easier to land in than, say, IL-2:FB, easier than Black Shark, and it was pretty easy even with my aging, wobbly X45. But, I've been a gamer for years and years and take for granted certain things, I'm sure.

I plan on eventually releasing a development video of the Teamspeak 3 plugin I'm working on in action, which will have some radio use involved.

Alright, figured you guys deserved an update. The next video is definitely going to be SAM suppression. I figured this would be a 'fantasy scenario' involving the A-10, but I've been reading Smallwood's Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War. Believe it or not, A-10s were actually tasked for SEAD-style missions during the GW when dedicated SEAD assets were overtasked. Amazing, right? Hoping to get this video completed before the end of the month after I get back from vacation.

Just an update that I hope will address some of the above questions. The plan right now is to assume that comms can occur if you're tuned to the same frequency as teammates on any of the radios--provided you're in range. If you're on the same UHF channel but out of range, you won't be able to communicate. However, the VHF AM radio would offer additional range. REDFOR and BLUFOR or WhateverFOR functionality is going to be a function of however the TS3 admin wants to organize the TS channels--for the prototype/alpha and first release of this plugin, we're going to be ignoring stuff like simulated encryption and so on. That means that if you're in the same TS3 channel, you'll be able to talk on the radio if properly tuned and in range. I very much like to keep to the KISS law with this sort of thing. Of course, since we're still in a sort of R&D phase now everything is subject to change. Under the current model, as a tradeoff between gameplay and convenience it's set up so that it will allow communication provided you're in at least one frequency that provides enough range for comms. After we get this thing cooking we can address details like specific function of each radio type, but we need to get the basics implemented first. I'm on vacation now, but I'll be back after next week and will be busy converting my existing code to Beta 3 (if, indeed, any conversion is necessary). So far things are progressing well. We'll have a dedicated development and testing environment down the road as well, for purposes of community participation. Stay tuned!

Lua for the DCS export side, C/C++ for everything else. As you might expect.

Appreciate the feedback. Work has already begun.

Awesome idea. Yes. I've played with ACRE before. This wouldn't really be an attempt to make a "DCS ACRE," but rather a tool that enables more integrated communications with DCS specifically--especially since there's already a requirement to set up radios in the "vanilla" game. Things like terrain masking are far more of a factor on the ground than in the air.

I'm starting a mod for TS3/DCS that may supply some of the functionality that people are asking for here. This is a non-trivial project, but it's definitely doable. Read more about it in this thread.

TARS is a plugin which will allow you to integrate DCS: A-10 with Teamspeak 3. The concept is simple: No channel switching in Teamspeak to ruin immersion. Rather, multiplayer communication ought to be accomplished by setting the radio in the plane to an agreed upon frequency and using that. You have radios in the game, so why not be able to extend that level of immersion to the multiplayer environment using Teamspeak? If other Teamspeak users are on that radio channel and they're in the same Teamspeak 3 channel as you, they will be able to communicate with you over any of the radios in your aircraft. If you die and/or go to spectator mode, you will automatically be placed into a parallel “virtual channel” where you can communicate with your fellow spectators without having to switch channels in Teamspeak. We hope to release a beta for testing in early 2011. Since we are in a very early phase of development now, the TARS team's current goal is to gather input from the community at this stage, just in case there's a gem of a feature that heavy-MP users need that we can try to implement in the first phase of the project. Planned features include: Automatic control of your radio communications based on what channel you're tuned to and whether or not your radios are on. If you are on a given channel that other players are on, you'll be able to communicate with them without having to worry if you're in the correct Teamspeak channel. Dead/Spectator enforcement. If you get killed in-game, you will be sent into a spectator mode where you'll be able to communicate with other players who are dead and/or spectating. Radio effective range enforcement. VFM FM radio, for instance, has a limited broadcast range when compared to its AM counterpart. This ought to reflect in gameplay. TARS is planned around a client based architecture, with no need to install extra software or otherwise modify the Teamspeak 3 server where you play. Planned future integration with Black Shark once A-10 integration is complete. If possible (and as a secondary objective), we'll be adding radio filter effects based on things like distance and radio type, for a more immersive gaming experience. There are plenty of additional goodies that may become possible in the future. However the above are the main gameplay-enhancing goals. The purpose of this announcement is to engage the participation of the community early in the development cycle so that we can be as responsive as possible to your needs. When it comes time for beta testing, we plan to fully engage the participation of the community. Update: Here's a video from an early alpha build of TARS that demonstrates some of the above features: Last updated December 21, 2010

I've added captions to the JDAM video, but none of the other videos have them. Based on feedback I've received, I"m going to hold off on captions. There will be two upcoming videos. 1. A short one on how to add the JTAC with the mission editor. 2. Dealing with medium range SAMs. The MRFCS/Trim part 2 video is still on hold pending some final resolution with the FM or a later beta. The SAM video probably won't come out until the end of the month, since I'm going to be gone for two weeks. Just wanted to give people the heads up.

Okay, question time. Would it be useful to anyone if I fixed the CCs so that you can read captions? I understand that people may like to read the instructions as they watch. Fixing the CCs in youtube would require some effort but it's not prohibitive. At least one person has already brought this up, figured I'd put it to a vote.

Many thanks for your comments. I made a mission called MechFight where I had some mechanized units crossing a bridge and fighting each other. It was mainly to test triggers--I come from a pretty ArmA/ArmA2/OA heavy mission and scripting background and the adjustment to the Eagle Dynamics side, while fun, has required a little study. I added a JTAC at the last minute. You guys are welcome to play with it (I've attached it to this post), just keep in mind that there appears to be a bug where the JTAC won't go "off sparkle" so you only really get one run at night. MechFight.miz

They're available to the select segment of the public who have access to youtube.

Midair hookup doesn't involve Steven Segal and Kurt Russell climbing from your plane into the bigger plane? I am dissapoint.:mad:

Turns out that even though you can't see the IR pointer in beta 2 that's mounted on your pod, you sure can see JTAC's IR pointer and it looks really awesome. The IR pointer gets used at night instead of WP, other than that there doesn't seem to be too much difference between daytime and nighttime in the beta. There's also an issue where the IR pointer, once on, doesn't stop and it appeared to mess up the JTAC interaction after the first run. I'd be interested to know if this reproduces in other missions that have a JTAC at night. Haven't yet had time to test. If people are interested I will make a how-to video for adding a JTAC to a mission, tuning it in, and interacting with it. The JTAC feature of this game is a hell of a lot of fun to use.

kylania: Looks like Beta 2 introduced some new paint schemes--I'm not positive, but there are a few more there than there were before, it looks like.

I think you could lase it manually, but I haven't checked--I do not see any reason why not. However, the LGB profile causes your laser to fire automatically, so it's not really necessary. Using it for ranging, however, is a different story--you have to fire it manually for that. The IR pointer doesn't appear to have any ranging utility whatsoever in the game.

Bump. . Enjoy.

In order to do that, you would need to get DCS to render at that resolution. 3rd party software won't magically create greater resolution than the game will render at.

Hey, cool, the ballutes on high-drag bombs appear to be deploying now.

Nice use of active pause to demo stuff. Very cool video.

The next one is going to be the different methods and implications of ranging and designating ground targets with the LITENING II pod. This would've been out already but I felt it was necessary to double check everything against the changes in beta 2 to verify that things were current. Stay tuned. EDIT: Sadly, I seem to have had to institute a policy regarding the YT channel comments. I realize that people wish to contribute stuff, but this is about video gaming, not instigating internet pissing matches. If I feel that comments are getting too acerbic/argumentative and cluttering up the feed--and you do not bring it to PM--I will block you from the channel and your comments will be removed. That isn't to say that I don't take contributions seriously--I do--but this isn't about online dickmeasuring or who knows more than whom, but rather, getting newer players interested in the game and perhaps helping intermediate players get better at it. I will absolutely not tolerate a public attempt to hijack the discussion into a who-knows-more-than-who contest the likes of which litter flight sim communities and turn more casual players off to the genre. Your cooperation is appreciated.

I think if ED intended the public to be actual beta testers then there would have been some formal protocol established for submitting a bug report and a place to submit those bug reports instead of just a request to report any hardware issues. The public is a better last-minute testbed to root out serious hardware issues. That's what it looks like here. I think that's a pretty good deal, honestly; you get to play the game early, ED gets to potentially head off serious hardware incompatibility. The ArmA 2 community bug tracker is a community thing, and while it's been helpful in getting issues brought to the forefront, it isn't something that was set up by A2's developers in order to test the game. Likewise, there's no doubt that ED maintains some sort of internal testing protocols and a bug database of some kind which get updated in some formal manner by internal testers. It is an essential part of any software development process for large projects.

The half speed trick is really neat, especially since I find that the internal AVI generator takes a great deal of time compared to fraps. Give it a shot.