Shimmergloom667

4 tanks is a platoon, not a company *EDIT* Oh, now I get what you mean. Yeah, a company losing 4 tanks is down to less than 70% and thusly disrupted. I need more coffee.

The F-18 is not designed to "clean up tank fleets". Thusly, it doesn't have a lot of mass anti armor weaponry, as per real life.

And just for completeness' sake: it's AGM-84, not -64

Basically: wherever you want, it's jsut a mission file. In the mission editor then open the file from wherever you dropped it. Generally the missions subfolder in your saved games\DCS folder is a smart choice, though, since that is used by default

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how someone would scroll 24 squares, since that takes AGES, and still thinks that's the right thing to do. Ah well. Whatever.

You have been scrolling 1.200nm that way. The system expects that pilots know that more than a few squares should probably be outside of any sort of applicable combat radius

Given the way MGRS works it's next to impossible to slew vertically to the wrong square - you have to slew 24 squares vertically to reach the same 100.000 meter square code again in MGRS-new. There's no way any person on this planet has SA so bad

Thanks Santi!

Hey @BIGNEWY, sorry for tagging you here, but maybe you can take a look at this: in both Wags' video and in the manual, the TXDSG lines should be red (solid for flight, dashed for allied flights over L16) while ingame everything is dashed green. That must have changed between Wags' vid and now, do you happen to have an info what is correct? If green is indeed correct then the manual needs an update! Thanks a lot!

Pretty sure that's intended and correct, never saw any hint about colored lines in our software version anywhere on the documents I have.

Pretty sure that has changed soon after Wags recorded that Video. Has been green lines for a long time now.

TXDSG dashed or solid (for flight members) lines are supposed to be green, to the best of my knowledge.

Referencing FF as a speed indication was pretty standard for F-14s, e.g.

Mind you: there has been no official confirmation about the implementation of boresighting Mavs in the Hornet so far.

Tankers absolutely do turn in real life while refueling. The one thing they usually do is call out an upcoming turn on freq. That said: refueling in a bank is the same as refueling in a straight line, just with a canted horizon. You still make the same adjustments and look for the same cues. It's even easier at night, where you just look at the tanker anyways.

It is the tanker altitude in feet MSL barometric. I mean: in the end you will be in about the same altitude as well, of course.

That is correct and thusly not applicable

You want a +0 when you look staight ahead. That's not possible currently. The head position in the hornet is somewhat different than in other modules as well, but even in Wags' own HMD alignment video you will see that looking ahead at the HUD has him looking at a value of aroud -15° That's just how it is, atm.

Didn't fly the A-10 in ages, so I'm certainly just giving you the benefit of doubt here. Let me rephrase it: in the totality of the TGP modeling the ingame rendition is overperforming since a lot of factors are not modeled (deeply enough), a lot of which have been mentioned in this thread. Again I will say: I hope the weather and FLIR reworks will improve on all of that.

Absolutely! Given that the 2.7 weather engine is still being worked on as well I hope that the FLIR and weather improvements in tandem will lead to an awesome rendition of optical systems where you actually have to struggle sometimes. And I am not talking about lack of contrast on the CCD circuit below clouds or stuff

It does depend on a lot of factors. But our ingame rendition suffers no quality loss at all. Literally none, as of yet. While we may disagree on the details, I kinda can't believe that doesnt strike you as odd.

While true in that DDIs that in turned have been filmed with an old GoPro at 720i aren't 100% faithful to real life: there is such a PLETHORA of older TGP videos available (as in: mid 2000s) that all show our ingame ones to be of too high clarity, without focus issues, without sensor exposure, without digital zoom quality loss that I kindly disagree. You are very true in that in the end ED have to decide what to make of all possible sources, including SME opinions of course. I, too, have some experience with hi quality civilian stuff, made very recently no less - and that again leads me to say: our ingame renditions of optical systems are way too overperforming.

You certainly will, it should look like blurry green blobs more often than not, though, that suddenly go up in a bright green overexposure blob of fiery goodness.

No, it is based on dozens of videos of LITENINGs, ATFLIRs, various civilian camera systems etc. performing in regular old athmospheric conditions. Heatblur come close with their LANTIRN implementation that features quality loss in digital zoom (not present in either EDs LITENING or ATFLIR), sensor overexposure, DIS come close with thjeir implemenation of zoom and focus in the WMD7. All that is lacking in EDs TGPs right now.

Every FLIR we have in the game right now is overperforming. I hope they all get tuned down and get more realistic visuals with the upcoming FLIR rework.