Karon

Ignore it. When you run into a troll ask yourself if your time is so cheap to waste it. Why is it so important to deserve an answer? So, don't waste your time, laugh about the effort it puts to try to annoy people and move on. Unfortunately there's no "Ignore" feature in this forum, or perhaps I'm just blind (although the Mk74 thing is funny, that's why it never has issues lol ). Back to something more useful, I have not spent much time testing the new WCS (I'm waiting for it to be finalized) but I ran a couple dozens tests in a simple scenario: TA ~60, AI flight straight and not manoeuvring or defending. Scenario 1: target does not drop chaffs Scenario 2: target drops chaffs (I then repeated the scenario with TA50 with very similar outcome). In the first scenario, the '54s never fail, they always hit the target no matter TWS or STT. In the second scenario instead, the missile goes for the chaffs almost always, even to ones deployed ~10" earlier. The TA is this scenario is very high and unsuitable for a normal employment, but the purpose is exactly showing the impact of the chaffs: how can the chaff deployed ~10" earlier still affect the PDSTT guidance? Perhaps there is something I'm missing or ignore, but it does what I would expect. If such outcome is instead correct and there is a technical explanation for it then cool, I learnt something new

It's Maths mate, if P=0 then it will never, ever, go for chaffs. No matter how small the probability of deceiving the missile is, it is not zero, especially for technology decades old. The problem is finding a satisfying value based on documents available and/or an analysis of several others parameters (considerations I leave to the devs because I have no docs and my knowledge of the topic is extremely superficial). The task is made even more complex by ED updating and changing the missiles behaviour and the fact that the countermeasures at the moment do not behave realistically, as they are pretty much a bunch of spammable saving throws. As someone who scored way too many 1 playing WH40k, I am definitely looking forward to the much-needed overhaul of the CM system.

Despite how much I love Heatblur, and I'm impressed with their work, Jester will never be good or realistic enough because it's an AI. The RIO should handle the comms (but it's a crew contract, it can be changed), he should be proactive in the usage of radar, and he in control of the intercept: can you image the AI giving orders to the human pilot and yell at them when they don't follow the orders? Besides the initial amusement, most players will just disable Jester and use a workaround. The AI for the Hind should be simpler as, besides the ATGMs, the Pilot can employ gun and rockets. The AI for the Hind does not need to do much as gunner, mostly handle the ATGM and spot for targets / threats I suppose, or follow a flighplan as pilot, perhaps with some changes or unplanned commands (such set move to a pre-defined BP or IP). This does not mean that implementing it is an easy task. Imo the hardest part to do correctly is the GUI: imagine there's a dozen targets in front of you. How do you tell the gunner to launch an ATGM to a specific target? If the gunner is human is easy, a basic talk-on would do, but with the AI? I'm looking forward to seeing what ED has invented to solve this kind of issues.

They do different things, as others already said. Also, if you are flying in an early Cold War scenario, you won't have the Ka-50 in the first place. Not to mention the number of Shark/Werewolves produced and that only Russia used it. Depends on what type of experience you are looking for

Yeah I agree, but that solution would change the interaction with CW / P radars a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I'll take whatever comes! EDIT: sniped by Mr BIG. Great news Sir, thanks for the update

I'd be happier with an exponential decrease of the "chaff factor" and a lifetime slightly longer, mate. Just to give you an idea with random numbers, let's say lifetime= 3". Then: T0 → 1.0 T1 → 0.8 T2 → 0.4 T3 → 0.0 Of course this is for gaming purpose, it's not a realistic approach.

Added article & video about a 1-1 session (but open to spectators) held on 31/03/2021.

Indeed, but what is stopping you from joining in a virtual wing? I don't want to derail the thread entirely but scripting something like that simply cannot be done. Look at Jester for the F-14: no matter how HB tries (in reasonable terms, of course), it will never be close to a human because it cannot be as proactive as a human. Therefore, an A-10 pilot expressing concerns and asking for different FAH or following a talk-on is simply not possible. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing ED for the lack of a proper single player experience (e.g. aircraft AI is still the same of LOMAC, it does not even follow the same physics rule of the player) but the tools to have a great experience are available since years ago. Speaking of Jester, Petrovich is so much easier to put together and the F-14 RIO, as it does not have to command the pilot as much as a RIO would do.

With all due respect, I completely disagree. DCS and CA need huge improvements in terms of vehicles damage model and AI and I concur, but you can set up pretty good and realistic missions with what we have since almost 10 years ago. Just stop flying in airquake servers or create unrealistic missions. To give you an idea, this is a GDC with a JTAC embedded (same person) in convoy calling A-10s to clear the way for them, in a 30 players mission, with each asset doing working on its task (CAS, CAP, JTAC, etc). A proper JTAC interface would be very welcome, to avoid the F-10 map, something similar to ArmA, where you can add proper marks and notes, but the result is quite good nonetheless. The video is quite long, so feel free to skip here and there. There are 9-lines, talk-ons, enemy concealed so the FAH had to be changed, restrictions to the space available to the A-10 due to enemy air defences and so on. Quite different from the usual airquake server, isn't it? I understand this is not feasible for SP only gamers, but I doubt that an AI will ever be capable of playing the JTAC role as a human would do. At the end of the day, it does not really take much, just a couple of friends looking for the same type of experience. Pinging @Rudel_chw and @Northstar98. This is the type of Multiplayer experience I was referring to earlier. Now, back to the MI-24P, the vWing displayed there uses Ka-50s as they use every aircraft they have a squadron for, but a couple of Hind here would be very welcomed in a Cold War setting, especially to get rid of those BMP and other soft targets and leaving the more armoured targets to the A-10s. Just imagine them waiting behind the columns and coming in N-S for a rocket run. I personally can't wait

@Rudel_chw@Northstar98that's called Airquake, usually. On the other hand, there are many simulative groups that organize realistic campaigns that take into account losses and logistics, realistic ROE, intelligence based on VID and realistic BDA. Missions where controllers are humans, so proficiency, collaboration and coordination between different assets is fundamental. There's nothing even remotely close in Single player. Although often PvE vs scripted or controlled AI, even PvP played with this mindset can be a lot of fun, as the redfor/opfor plays realistically, following their tasking and giving importance to their life. You should try at least once @BioZ as I said to our two friends above, if you don't like airquake bin it and look for a more simulative group. Join and leave until you find what you are looking for.

There are many places where the Mi-24P can say a thing of two. On top of my mind: Setting: less modern scenarios, with dozens of examples. From counter-insurgency ops similar to the Russo-Afghan war, to the more conventional Iran-Iraq war, just to name two example. No one is argues about the performance of the MiG-15 compared to the F/A-18C. This is the same situation on rotary wings. Scope: stop flying in arcade server where another dozen of tank battalions are wiped every 5 minutes. In reality there are plenty of other targets. Unfortunately atm the rockets' area damage is not as effective as a decade ago, but they do the trick vs soft or non-armoured vehicles; Depth: add logistics and supplies with costs and losses. Combined with the previous point, would you really use a hellfire vs a truck when you know your supplies are limited? S-8 or other rockets instead are really cheap in comparison! Variety/Fun: in servers where infantry units can be picked up and placed around, you have this possibility. Imagine deploying teams with MANPADs close to your location to cover you. I'm sure there are many other examples, but I hope you got my point.

I think you missed the joke: the other guy misspelled LANTIRN as LANTERN, hence the reply from Bremspropeller about shedding some light.

Happy to be part of the Team Almost EDIT: now that I think about it, the F-14A is Almost the most popular version of the F-14 in DCS! I know, I know, I'm sorry, I'll see myself out…

Added a brief overview of the Intercept procedures following the doctrine of early 2000s. https://flyandwire.com/2021/03/01/intercept-geometry-part-vii-2000s-intercepts-p-825-02/ Next, 2000s intercept progression and Demo videos.

You do not need another human to learn to play as RIO. I spent very little time with a human in the front seat since the majority of the basic concepts and techniques are in the hands of only one of the crew member: the RIO. The music changes when you move to stuff that requires crew coordination. A couple of examples: For radar training use the mission editor and a bit of ingenuity: for example you can set up targets following race-track patters, you can have a target fly between two WP set at different altitudes, they can orbit around a single WP (the simplest way to test MLC and ZDF in one go) whilst you are "floating" in the air by means of active pause (just be aware of the fact that the INS will still drift). For missile / weapons testing, you can do the same, both Air to Air and Air to Ground weapons (LANTIRN included). For other basic stuff (from NAVGRID to INS fix) you do not need a pilot either. INS fix can be done just by spawning your F-14. You need a pilot only once you start working on the procedures and something more advanced (intercepts). To practice simple engagements and timelines you hop in the front seat and crank. But even in the former case you can just do it yourself. On the other hand, learning with other people is more interesting and enjoyable, so I'd suggest you to work on the basics yourself and meanwhile follow @Saber2243's suggestion to join a group that fits the type of experience you are looking for (arcade/airquake, simulative, something in-between, etc). Have fun!

15/02/2021 Added Intercept Geometry Part VI: Demo Videos. Example: Added short study about ΔV in non co-speed intercepts.

I'm not a "hype train" type of guy but after seeing the in-cockpit shots… F*** IT, ALL ABOARD! CHOO-CHOO!

It would make sense, it's SPD and HDG of a WP, so I guess it's just a matter of hooking/selecting the WP, selecting SPD or HDG and enter the values. Something similar to how the NAVGRID works. Don't use BRG though, it will move the WP to that bearing (not the ATA). I applaud your artistic skills, @BonerCat :D

It was used, for example, to highlight ground features (handy for coasts, for example). It is a simple way to provide more SA since we do not have a moving map. I have not used it yet, but I guess it can be handy for tight IP→TGT. Perhaps highlighting the axis around the Echo point when practising and training CAS? Or even part of the FLOT if relevant?

NOTE: the full list of articles/videos is available here. This post is a bit hard to maintain Hello again fine ladies and gentlemen! I opened two threads, linking some of the stuff I put together in the last few years. I hope you can find something interesting here Thread I contains most of the basic topics and discussions. Thread II is about more advanced stuff. BVR / Stern Conversion Timelines, Intercept Geometry and so on. A couple of notes & disclaimers here: In primis this is my interpretation of the freely available, declassified, documentation. There can be mistakes and, in some occasions, I decided to diverge from the doctrine: at the end of the day, this is a videogame. Here and there you will find my suggestions to make your life easier, along what the official documentation says. In secundis, the available material is basic / IQT level. It is not used in the frontline and sometimes is too convoluted to be effectively used under pressure. Therefore, take it as a means to learn what is under the hood, but do not get overly fixated. The final result (and your enjoyment) is what matters. Finally, whenever possible I quoted the sources. The vast majority of the content linked below is my own work, but rarely I quoted other sources or used an image taken from them. In those cases, the source is clearly noted. I don't see why I should take credit for something I have not made myself. That being said, I hope you'll find something useful here! Procedures and techniques Although centred around the F-14, topics such as the BVR Timeline or Geometry can be used by pretty much any other fighter jet. BVR Timeline I wrote this series a year ago, it covers the concept of the BVR Timeline. The thing is, the Timeline can hardly be used without diving into the Geometry, and that topic is huge. What I did in this case is extrapolating the BVR Timeline and suggested means of filling the gaps left by the geometry. The ratio is that a timeline can help any player, no matter the type of experience desired, to give more structure and homogeneity to an engagement. The geometry, albeit it is a very interesting topic, it is more on sim side of the game. BVR Part I: Sanitization and Radar Mating; BVR Part II: Timeline Overview; BVR Part III: Timeline in Detail; BVR Part IV: Crew Comms. "Casual" Intercept Procedure After lots of discussions with friends and teammates, some newbie, some veterans, about issues related to the abysmal performance of their missiles, I quickly concluded that the problem is usually the geometry: you can't expect a missile launched head-on at 50nm to consistently have the same results versus a flanking target at the same range. So, I looked for a way to help without requiring a deep-dive into angles and geometry. The solution is the Collision Course: easy to set up and definitely more effective than Pure Pursuit (the most common way to engage a target by new players). The result is the "Casual" intercept. Written almost for fun, according to the feedback I received, it actually helps to "open up" the understanding of the air-to-air combat to new players. The Simplified Stern Conversion completes the series, going slightly deeper but without requiring extensive knowledge of the Intercept Geometry. “Casual” Intercept: Simplified Intercept Procedure; Simplified Stern Conversion. Of course, if you are not new to the game, you must be looking for something more complex. Keep scrolling then! Angles & Geometry: Related discussions In this category fall a number of discussions about the basics of the geometry (literal geometry sometimes, even dragging Euclid and Pythagoras into the fray). Take them as the entrée before the main course. BVR, WVR & Intercept: Recurring Concepts (TA, ATA, Drift, Collision); Closure and Collision: TID “Hot” and “Cold” Sides; Determining Target Aspect: the BDHI ΔV in non co-speed intercepts: Empirical Assessment Intercept Geometry Eventually, I decided to deal with the Gorgon. This is the topic I am covering right now, and I hope it will be completed before the end of the winter. The plan is starting from the basics, go through the modern documentation (2017) first, then use progressively older docs (2002, '70s, '50s). Eventually, you'll pick the modus operandi that works better for you and the more suitable to the module you prefer (now, where's my F-4J again?). Part I: Introduction; Part II: Definitions; Part III: Target Aspect & Lateral Separation; Part IV: Modern Gameplans [P-825/17]; Part V: DT, CT, Timeline [P-825/17]; Part VI: Modern Intercept Demo Videos [P-825/17]; Part VII: 2000s Intercepts [P-825/02]; Part VIII: Intercept Progression & Lead Collision [P-825/02]; Part IX: “Unknown Procedures” & Fleet Conversions p1 [P-825/02]; Part X: Fleet Conversions p2 & Advanced Intercepts [P-825/02]; Part IX: A brief look at the past (50s/60s) (NB: F-4E will have a separated series); Part XII: In-Depth Timeline (from “Picture” to “Crank”); Part XIII: In-Depth Timeline (continuation: FOX 3/1/2); Part XIV: Crews’ take on Timelines for DCS. Note that rather than spamming new topics on the forum, I will update this thread.

Hello there fine ladies and gentlemen! My here account is 10 years old, and I never noticed the Tutorial section. Shame on me! Through the last couple of years I put together some studies and tutorial I hope you may find them useful. The ratio was me, knowing nothing, trying to correct the status quo by learning as much as possible about fixed-wing stuff, in primis air-to-air combat. The point of view is mostly from the F-14 RIO. Since there is little documentation about the role, I figured I could adapt the declassified docs focused on other modern aircraft to this 50 years old amazing bird. Nevertheless, the bedrock concepts are the same, no matter the module you are flying. Some studies and tutorials I wrote are unfortunately outdated (for example the study about the AIM-54, where I launched a few thousands Phoenixes and collected data), others cover procedures and techniques, so changes in the module will not affect them. I plan to open two topics. One introductory with the basic concepts, a second with the advanced stuff. This is the former, and here is the latter. Basic Concepts ("Back to Basics" series plus other introductory articles) These short articles cover some basic topics. Latitude and Longitude (DMS, DD, DDM); Brevity Codes; Radar Elevation Bars and Scan Azimuth; Barometric Altimeter (Q Codes, TA/TL); Heading, Bearing, Track and Course; RIO Training in Single Player; Target Aspect and Missile Performance; Rate of Closure (Vc); The “Plus 2 Minus 2” Rule; Back to Basics: Radar Displays: B-Scope vs PPI; INS, Drift, and Navigation. AWG-9 WCS Advanced Part I (overview of concepts slightly more advanced such as PRF and Zero Doppler Filter); AWG-9 WCS Advanced Part II (same as above, but covering clutter and notching). Basic Radio Comms Very basic radio comms, aimed for newbie-friendly servers such as Georgia At War (GAW). Part I: Introduction – Frequencies, ATC, ATIS, Runways; Part II: Taxiing and Take off; Part III: Tasking and Landing. Antenna Elevation model One of the first issues I had as noob FW player was understanding the antenna elevation. Here is where Maths came to the rescue! Antenna Elevation Study Part I; Antenna Elevation Study Part II Antenna Elevation Angle Quick Formula. Various Other articles covering various topics. Bullseye in any module - A simple Spider Card Resources The following are lessons held by former or active military personnel (e.g. JTAC, Mi-17 Pilot) about different topics: FLIP and Instrument Approach; - this is useful for new clouds I guess! Introduction to CAS control – Extract from a training session; Close Air Support Theory Lesson by 132nd.AssafB; DCS Syria Map: Historical and Geographical Introduction by 132nd.AssafB. DCS Missiles Visualised - YouTube Modules-specific guides Although more focused on specific modules, the following articles can often be applied to different airframes: DCS: Black Shark This is one of the oldest guides I wrote, it has probably 6-7 years now. It dates back to when the Ka-50 and the A-10 where the only modules in DCS, and I was playing FAC/A with the Shark. Ka-50 / A-10C: Sharing Data. Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV DCS: F-14 Tomcat In the link below you will find most of the articles about the F-14. They are simply too many to be listed here, and they would be better listed in the F-14's dedicated area. F-14 RIO DCS: F-4E-45MC Phantom II Phantom Phamiliriarisation series (pre DCS release) F-4E Articles: tactics, avionics, operations, and more. Training / Presentations I do not organize training sessions as often as I used to any more, but when I do, I record them. They can include different topics, so take what interests you and skip the rest, 31/03/2021: NAVGRID, ZDF & Notching, Timeline, Geometry 29/10/2022: 3h livestreaming session split in 6 parts (Part I, the others are on the YT channel) Note that rather than spamming new topics on the forum, I will update this thread.

Brilliant, thank you guys!

As Victory said, it was not used often, so probably it is not a priority right now. There are quite a few things that either do not work completely or need tuning (from some missing keybinds to missiles, to the tuning of the aircraft characteristics, plus other missing features) so HB is working on those, I guess. As a total noob of the F-14 and aviation, I see where you are coming from, on the other hand, in this specific case, it really takes no more than a couple of seconds to eyeball the CB (collision bearing), you just need a glance at the TID AS. You can also the sheer geometry (there a few formulas and tricks you can use, especially when co-speed) or the intercept drift from the DDD. Again, I see where you are coming from, everything I mentioned is not as easy as pressing a button, but it is not complex or a blocker either (especially the TID AS). Personally, in the grand scheme of things, as a virtual RIO only I'm happy that HB is working on more important things. Heck, even something as a working button for the TACAN owner would be more welcomed than the Collision button imo (perhaps they fixed it, I ended up using DCS-BIOS to make it work and did not touch it since). That being said, at some point we'll get that button working. In the meantime I'm sure there's plenty of people happy to show you some workarounds. If no one else does, give me shout

School house indeed, but unfortunately the declassified documentation I found covers IQT-level stuff, not really much more (the exception is a paper for the F-8 crusader describing.. beam intercepts). Robert Shaw describes some more advanced intercept but at a level quite high, so I'm trying to fill the gaps starting with basics. It is also interesting how the things have changed: the more modern stuff (2017) uses gameplans to get to 40k ft of LS then counterturn, the same docs but from the early 2000 focus on collision into displacement pre-counterturn, and the displacement range was much shorter than the modern. About the geometry, I love the maths behind it, it's a blast and helps to understand a lot of things. On the other hand, I guess we can all agree that when this is your job you want things done effectively and quickly, but as a profane playing a videogame and looking forward to the F-4, damn I love it Back to the collision, if I remember correctly, in the video of the second Sidra Gulf incident the collision is mentioned, but I don't recall whether the RIO used the TID function or he was instructing the pilot.

Thanks for the reply mate! Case I I found the error I made: when you hook your aircraft, OWN AC is not deselected (unless something else was hooked). When I un-hooked my AC, I did not re-press OWN AC as it was selected already, so this part of the NATOPS drove me off. By physically re-pressing the button it did work. My bad. Case II Ah! I did not think about the fact that the aircraft does not know the MagVar at the target's location. In fact, I went down the rabbit hole and tested other aircraft looking for what I was missing: besides the F-16C showing odd stuff (110°), F-15C, F-14 and F/A-18C showed the True Heading of the target (107°). Now that explains it, brilliant! That being said, I guess the problem is just the label of the course that, as you said, it should not probably be 'MC'. Thanks Naquaii, I owe you a pint!