Rick50

No doubt. I hear it's similar with most large airlines for longhhaul flights: the pilots don't usually make the flightplan for a several thousand mile trip, that's done by... a scheduling office, that has to figure out all sorts of things, including how to pay for the fuel for the return flight, book landing/takeoff times, book gate times, weather at various stages, fuel cost index to choose (apparently this is variable, where burn might be increased slightly to make up for weather, or gate timings to avoid penalties). This is probably not true for small charters operating KingAirs and such, pilot probably does much of the planning... but I'm not sure at what point it's mostly out of the pilot's hands: Dash-8's doing regionals? National flights? International flights that aren't that far, like maybe 1500miles? Anyway, back to the the intel gathered about the need for the strike. Then the determination of ordnance needed for the strike. Get legal to go over each target and give a determination about each target. Then the intel on the SAM threats, to develop a proper SEAD plan. Figure out the strike package size with enough redundancy. Consider how much CAP needed. Determine the timing needed at target, then working back to figure out launch times. Route planning. Then figure out how much AAR support will be needed, how much AWACS, EW and ELINT support needed and how to have them available for the duration. Plan for CSAR rescue. Then comes all the logistics, will they have enough fuel munitions, food and support staff prior during and after the strike. Airbase space and capabilities for ramp space, fuel reserves, maintenance facilities, personel and tools parts. and on.. and on... and on... It's probably a bit like the planning needed to start a medium size tech company from zero, just get it up and running ASAP. Lots of parts, all of them "moving parts", very difficult to sort through and make a plan that will work.

The USAF had fancy networked software for full scale mission planning in 1991, but apparently it took years to program. Probably had a few replacements since then, maybe one or two before it. But... while I do think Western nations and wealthier nations have a smaller equivalent, like Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and so on... I think poor nations have very little for their Mig-21's. Maybe a laptop with some excel spreadsheets to figure out fuel burn for a mission. But the advanced software might well be ITAR controlled...

So Viper, Hornet and rotorbirds! Nice!!

Woah!!! Simulating PTSD... sweet!! jk!

Exactly. So it wouldn't ACTUALLY be silent, but actually noticing the noise from the explosion might not occur for all the reasons and factors. Just the foam in the earpiece on your Apache helmet might cut that out completely, already rather mute. And I've no idea how loud the cockpit of an Apache is when you removed helmet in flight, could be deafening?

Sweet, will have to trythis out!

Was just thinking the same thing.

Yes, it is worth it to hire a lawyer. But he must be a virtual lawyer with JAG experience, and you must pay him in Monopoly money. I suggest getting in contact with Daniel Kaffee, Esquire, former virtual USN lieutenant. Just so you don't have to pay damages for the lost virtual jeep!

I am being serious... but "technical max" is USELESS IN THE REAL WORLD. Truly. A waste. And even "max effective" value, which is NOT THE SAME THING, is often too generous. More like "in a perfect world, with perfect maintenance schedule, in perfect weather... we might be able to do this: __ ". Edit: "technical max" is more often used to figure out the safety factors for planning range firing plans, by the Range Safety Officers. It has no real world use for an operator trying to get hits. Keep in mind, this is a fairly slow velocity 30mm... it's NOT the same 30mm cartridge as the Warthog's GAU-8, which uses a MUCH longer case with probably double or more powder to get much higher velocities. I'm not even sure if the projectiles are the same or not... maybe they share the same TPT, maybe the same HEI, but maybe not even those.

Sound travels 1 kilometer in roughly 3 seconds. So if you are engaging at 5km, the sound delay ought to be 15 seconds for each hellfire. That's a really long delay that most people aren't used to! At half a KM a Hellfire would be loud. At 5km, maybe not so much, but still hear it if there was no other noise and you perked up yer ears. But then add in all the helo sounds, a busy radio net, threat warnings, crew coordination... I don't think I'd notice actually hearing them "boom", but no experience IRL. What I CAN tell you from personal real life, is that the times I rode on Chinooks, Hueys and other helos, is that even those are really quite loud. Earplugs as an infantry or just passenger. Back in the 1990's I heard several airstrikes in Croatia/Yugoslavia... they were far away, and still VERY loud. But those were probably LGB Paveways, and I've no idea really how far they might have been. Ok I just looked up using google for what it might have been and checked on a map... the bombs probably were dropped 57 kilometers away from where I operated that first day of strikes. Keep in mind though, that was me standing outside, no radio, no earplugs, no vehicle making noise, just bare ears, and those were HUGE warheads going off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstrike_on_Udbina_Air_Base I was near Zadar at the time. I don't know what size LGB the warheads were, but count on at least 500lb, and there might have been a couple 2000lb, but maybe not.

Do you think the coding would be different for the same weapon, for single player vs multiplayer? Or might they make the same decision for both modes? Me, I dunno! It might not be a multiplayer issue, might be just the calculating load, and the concern might be framerates when there's an abundance of furious action going on?

My guess is they compliment each other. A few hard actual measurement numbers, coupled with the grammetry to get the color and shape of everything else... magic + effort = superior product. Just as Brun said! But yea, I think the actual physical measurement is to make sure that the end product isn't say 23% too large or too small... because inevitably this will make the VR users upset to get it wrong "it's too claustrophobic in this tiny coffin!" or "geez I can't even look behind me because I have to move my head too far!". Getting the scale accurate might not have been important in 1998, but in 2022 it's really important these days. We have become increasingly demanding in our expectations, and fortunately for us, developer teams are rising to the challenge

Try here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/197-for-sale/

And my guess is that maybe they ARE disappearing! Remember, calculating each missile, each round fired, for all the thousands of individual pieces of ordnance fired by EVERYONE in the session, all of that contributes to data that needs to go to multiplayer servers, then pinged out to all the other players for EACH round. ED has to decide at which point the data is no longer relevant, and maybe this is a prime example!

I can't speak to the ED programming of the rounds, but IRL there are significant limits at distances like that for ballistics. The rotational energy will drop, and as velocity falls to transonic and subsonic, they tend to just give up, in a manner of speaking. It's even possible that the fuse decides to disarm itself too, when the spinning slows too much, though these days some designs decide to just explode at far distance, to prevent a messy cleanup (see RPG-7 rounds that detonate around 900m even if still flying). If that's been programmed (kinda doubting it but never know with ED's attention to real details) then maybe that's what you are seeing. Maybe. Maybe try 2000-2300m instead. 30mm on a helo is not a "standoff weapon". It's more like a mop. A mop-up of the remaining battlefield when the fighting is done. Or for use as suppression of an enemy suddenly trying to attack you, fire off a couple bursts to get them to take cover. Look, I'm not criticising, as long as you are having fun with "imaginary" ordnance, then enjoy! I just know from my own experience in real world army, that sometimes even "max EFFECTIVE" range is not really a realistic number. For instance, some GPMG's are listed as having max effective at well over 1100m. Ok, that might be technically true when on a tripod mount, with optical sight all dialled in. But 97% of the time they aren't employed that way, rather just bipod. In that configuration, even 900m is maybe ambitious, and 6 or 700 is a realistic max, further than which becomes a waste of ord. But for an effective ambush use off bipod GPMG's, I'd be picking 400-500m in open terrain. Basically, to sum up: don't use the cannon at max range like that. It's not effective use of ordnance that can be better employed at shorter distances. If getting closer is not an option... then maybe you need to consider yourself "Winchester" and fly home for more Hellfires and Hydras. Think of Hellfires as sniper rifles, Hydras as M-4 Carbines, and the 30mm cannon as a pistol. Snipers don't press home the attack using their pistols now do they? I don't know prices of these, but it wouldn't surprise me if these 30mm are possibly worth $500 USD each. Rip off two long bursts and suddenly you've expended $20,000 . Not including storage and transportation costs. To have no effect on a $5000 technical with a Dushka on it?

Well in the real world, tracers have a point at which the trace element burns out, but the projectile is still moving. It may be that around 2.95km the trace is right at the point of ending, but I'm not super familiar with DEFA rounds. There is also sometimes a trace lights up, and in army rounds this is often a bit if distance in front, so that someone can't precisely pinpoint your firing position just from watching trace. But this is generally not a feature needed for flying vehicles.

Remember too that there are natural vibrations in the helo, that the cannon is not solid mounted but on a fully articulated elevation and traverse mount, that these are not sniper rounds but general purpose 30mm DEFA NATO rounds. Then you have crosswinds at the helo/muzzle, and downrange crosswinds that might be quite different at 2 to 3 km distance. Then there is barometric pressure, not sure if that's calculated in an Apache automatically for a cannon fire solution, the way it is for any modern MBT tank. Also it's an MG, and progressive recoil from previous rounds don't help at extreme ranges. There is also the natural dispersion of the cannon. They don't follow each other perfectly like a laser, they tend to disperse randomly. Add everything together, and suddenly you get a very clear idea of the difference between max range Vs max EFFECTIVE range. It's only effective if you can hit what you are aiming at, not the distance at which the shells can go. Further out, it's not a point target weapon anyway, but an "area weapon". It's only really for point targets in close.

I love it when a plan comes together! - Hannibal

It's possible they might not have actually made a final decision yet.

And I bet there's some for whom fueling the '18 or '14 and A-10 is too difficult and don't do long ranges because of it. I'm just saying if we can have a great AI, it might be nice for those people, to be able to let the AI fuel up, and they can sit, watching the visual cues for later when they practice practice practice! And eventually get good at air fueling themselves

Sorry that post above was supposed to have a lot of text that got wiped out... Basically the Nighthawk is not a fighter, it can't do BFM, has no burners or enough speed to be good at intercepting an AWACS, it would need a LOT of luck and probably some help to do that. I doubt the Soviets would have cared about what it was named, they'd assume if it were stealth that it could sneak between SAM systems to do strikes. I think they named it a fighter more for the public, as "stealth attack jet" is not as nice as "stealth Fighter", which the public knew of the concept from Revell and Monogram fictional designs sharing the "F-19" designation (assumed to be after the F/A-18). The Monogram model certainly came from the painting featured in the add above from Loral, which appeared for years in aerospace publications, and another one from Northrop Loral

Yes, the Hornet was replacing Attack aircraft, and some Fighters too, and doing so in a multirole. Ok, but let's consider that simply carrying bombs does not make an attack plane. Purpose and cockpit layout play a factor, things like a gunsight angle adjustment, a prominent clock for coordinated timing, prominent navigation, maybe even a Time On Target device like the Tornado IDS and Viggen. So while some of your examples could carry bombs, calling them "Attack" is probably a stretch for a couple of them. By contrast the Hornet was the most advanced Attack jjet of that day, at entering service, largely on the strength of computer displays that can provide for that mission. Before it was the Hornet, it was actually two aircraft, the YF-17 and I think talk of an (A-18 ??), the landbased version made by Northrop, the carrier version by McDonald Douglas... but customers wanted carrier multirole, MD won and North lost.

Well, dunno about the whole product... but the image above seems to resemble a keyboard key/button that has an LCD display. Just like a Streamdeck. So maybe this is a direct competitor. Or maybe a "universal UFC" so that it can represent different aircraft, switching just by changing modules to use. Or maybe an MFD that features the perimeter keys that display the way this module or that module's buttons display? I just think this looks like the keys that now have full color LCD displays on them, that change dynamically.