Paco

I disagree. Nellis is much nicer.

The most common types of CAS control are type I and II. Type III is rarely used especially in a COIN fight, where the avoidance of civilian casualties are paramount. However, Type I and Type II controls are highly interactive and were difficult to incorporate into an AI format. Hence the Type III's for the simulation. During development and beta testing, I used the interactive JTAC and it was awesome. While we are talking JTAC issues. Here is a link about JTACs in Afghanistan. This is an op we did just before we left country, three weeks ago. Really explains what we do and other considerations besides just blowing things up. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/07/135139406/airmen-on-ground-aid-effort-to-avert-afghan-deaths

Okay, I'm the exception. I'm a professional pilot with a little over 7000 hrs of military, corporate and airline time. I love flying computer sims and have just all of them. I went through flight school in 90-91, wish we would have had these sims back then.

I'm an ex Navy pilot and have over 7000 hrs of flight time. I fly flight sims all the time but realize they are not the same thing. Some pilots will never touch a PC sim and others (like me) it's a hobby. Just my two cents.

Crunch, That did the trick, thanks a lot.

Disregard again, downloading modman pack

Forget it, just did some checking and discovered that TACView has three files in the export config folder...........any ideas for a work around?

Just discovered that I can't log on to any servers due to failed integrity check.....and I recently installed TACview. I've been looking at the stickies and some other posts. Can anyone confirm or deny this is the problem. Thank you. Paco

MadTommy, How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Yes, it may seem overwhelming but take it one step at a time. Learn how to employ one weapon at at time. I echo Nate's comments....learn the four SOI's and then how that translates into SPI. That's the heart of the Precision Strike Suite. Leave the CDU for last, that's the most complicated. This is a great sim, can't wait for it to get out in the community. This coming from a long time Falcon fan.

Actually it's government procurement....leave it to the US govt to spend a ton of money and buy junk. So while the guys sitting there may be competent enough, the contracting office won't be. /r,

Actually.....in my old Navy flying days as an IP in the training command, I'd come in for the break at home field, pull about 4.5g's and purposely look at the contrails coming off the wingtips, thinking...this is cool. Now granted it was a teeny weeny T-34C and we weren't pulling as much as an F/A-18, A-10 or F-16, but we still did it. I know those guys do too.

Just picked up LOP at Best Buy. Flew a few missions. So far impressed with it. Never flew any Lock-On. Started my ED experience with Black Shark.

Oh yeah they would! Happens all the time.

Actually the first thing the development team will do once A-10C is finalized...is take a well-deserved vacation. They went from Black Shark, to FC2 to A-10C, back to back to back. I hope they take some well deserved vacation.

Welcome to realism.....it's why we have JTACs and/or intel resources. Paco

All, I downloaded the patch and have noticed zero drop in FPS. Maybe it's something else. /r, Paco

This is indeed good news. I for one have never played Lock-On and I'm glad I will be able to get all the stuff in one neat package, patches and all. Paco

I'll be watching. I'm at Fort Leavenworth this week, with an Army Brigade working on CAS integration. I'll take all the help I can. Paco

Everyone, Just want to be clear since we are talking about two things. Creating a graphic simulation engine capable of FPS level of detail while at the same time creating a pilot-level of detail. That's one issue. I've seen this. Sidebar: One could even argue that a JTAC simulator wouldn't need FPS shooter detail. That arguement has merit. A level of detail similar to F4AF or TBS would suffice. As far a a battle sim capable of simulating ALL aspects of joint fires from a Brigade to Corps level fight is an entirely different matter. I can't imgane the level complexity of that program and I'm not talking about if from a graphics/visual POV. More of a battle staffing POV. Simulating a BN or smaller echelon with specific exercises and training goals yes. But lager campaigns, tough. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, remember I do this stuff for a living and I will tell you that Joint Fires integration from a planning and execution standpoint is complicated stuff. Now having said all that, there are military simulation systems out there that dabble in what we are talking about, but not from a FPS aspect. Anyway, good discussion. /r, Paco

Interesting Very, very interesting thread. I work somewhat closely with military sims and this concept of a scalable battlefield has sparked much interest in the military side of the house. In my area, we are looking at the pilot/JTAC training aspect where there is a unique need for the pilot and JTAC to see exactly the same thing. Hence the need for a common image generator capable of scalable graphics as one zooms down to the FPS details. A few thoughts: It's not impossible.....hard, yes, but scalable graphic details (from FPS to pilot style visibility) is possible in the same IG, I've seen it. In fact I have it in my squadron (real life squadron). We have a complete village replicated from an actual one with ARMA level of detail. I can then zoom out too a pilot's view overhead 20-30 thousand feet, miles away and fly around this region of the earth with photorealistic scenery. Very impressive. Right now only one village exists but it just takes time to make more. The magic is that I can at one moment be in FPS mode, up close and personal looking at blades of grass sway in the breeze, detach from that entity, zoom out and fly around at airliner alitude in the bozosphere with a pilot's viewpoint. Those you familiar with Falcon and ARMA know that we get one perspective or the other, not both. In ARMA you go higher than 5000' and further than say 10km laterally an stuff drops off, ARMA II is even worse. No good for a JTAC trainer when we have targeting pods that see things from much farther. Conversely in Falcon 4.0 AF, we have excellent pilot view disances but FPS graphics...not so much. Long story short there is potential in this area, just need the some one or some organization to fund it. There is a military market but the right folks need to be heard and given purchasing power. 5-10 years from now we may see the combined sim. Exciting stuff on the horizon. The sims we have now dedicated and accredited for JTAC training...suck. Especially when compared with what's on the civilian market. Second point. Be careful what you wish for. Is there a gaming market for such a sim? Don't know. Cominbed Arms is a complicated, boring, mundane practice which wouldn't be fun to the average gamer. As I type this, I'm in a hotel room where I just spent the weekend with an Army Brigade Fires staff practicing/planning in the area of joint fires. Tomorrow I travel to Ft Leavenworth to do a week of the same thing. If this sounds like fun, it's not. When I game, I want to blow stuff up. I don't want to come up with plans to combine the effects of all these fires. Who wants to sit and play howitzer dude. Not me. Who wants to do a CAS battle drill in the TOC and see how fast you can clear fires to enable a stirke on a town...boorrrringg. Anyway, I digress. Neat things on the horizon. Tired going to bed. Paco

Okay, I'll weigh in. I have over 7000 hrs in military and civilian aircraft. Could a person having been trained only on FSX or BS fly the real thing? Doubtful. Desk-top sims teach procedures, sim mock-ups teach procedures and to some extent muscle memory. But Airmanship comes from air under the butt. At major airlines and corporate jobs, pilots transition from plane to plane with only simulator time. But these pilots have thousands of hours of real airtime. As a datapoint. I have never flown an F-16, but have lots of Falcon 4.0 time. I jumped into an F-16 dome simulator recently and had zero problems flying the thing, but it was a sim. I don't think I would be as good in a real jet on the first try. By the way, that sim was a lot fun and I want one in my basement. Just my two cents. Paco

I also just got track IR 5 about three weeks ago and can't believe I flew flight sims without it. First day I fought it, second day I thought it was okay, by day three I can't fly without it. Makes flying the Black Shark much easier. Paco

You get 70 FPS on FSX with all sliders maxed? I want your computer. I get 70-80 on Black Shark, sometimes more and get 35-40 on FSX with my sliders halfway. Something is amiss. i7 3.3ghz overclocked, 6 gig ram, gtx295 vist 64 bit. Paco

Is this the same Dusty I used to fly with on Falcon? If it is, I'm flying BS now and can't wait for the A-10. Paco

Wags, Great patch! Makes the game all that much better. Especially the new trim system. Can't wait for A-10C. Paco