GhostDog

:thumbup:

By "max target zone" do you mean maximum range?

I look at it this way. Pre-ordering helps ED to gauge product demand and influences decisions about how to allocate resources. If it's clear that there's strong demand for a product before its official release, then perhaps ED will invest more resources in marketing and developing it.

I can't get the MLRS, Akatsia or Nona to fire at all in DCSW 1.1.2.1, even when I set task to "fire at point"

After completing a mission with the Su-25T, the event log is filled with engine start/stop events before takeoff. Maybe a known bug, but wanted to report it just in case.

Hee hee, time to brush up on my tank tactics.

I agree, generally, but it would be fun to be able to do more with the infantry units in the mission editor, especially when they're attacking other ground targets. Oh well, what's there is pretty good still.

I think it's realistic for the controller to direct an attack on anything that poses a threat as long as he can see it from his position and the aircraft has ordnance that can handle the target.

Okay. I didn't know the RPG infantry was immobile either. Kinda limits their usefulness if they're basically static grenade launchers.

:argue: Zoomies :rolleyes:

The AK infantry was sliding in a kneeling position when I tested it. I don't think that's normal. Here's the .miz file. Test.miz

Negative. You can view the attached track and see.

Good info, thx.

It's not a good idea to use CH manager unless you absolutely have to. Even the documentation says so. The software is pretty wonky. What exactly is happening when you try to map controls from the in-game controls screen?

*bump* :helpsmilie:

I created a test mission with a Russian infantryman, an insurgent RPG infantryman, and a Georgian AK infantryman, all with a single waypoint and set to default speed. The Russian infantryman moved as expected. The insurgent RPG infantryman did not move at all. The Georgian AK infantryman moved, but remained in a kneeling position throughout. Track is attached. Infantry Test Track.trk

Any infantry. AK, RPG or MANPAD.

I would prefer the same, as there are plenty of Cold War aircraft in a number of nations' active inventory. But maybe they're trying to create some "synergy" with their TFC division. Who knows. Either way, if people like it and want to buy it, great. If not, oh well. I'm just happy that we'll soon have (presumably) DCS:WH+DCS:BS+FC3+Combined Arms. Flight simming Nirvana. If they manage to throw a dedicated server in there, they will have revolutionized the industry.

:cheer3nc::cheer3nc::cheer3nc::bounce::bounce::bounce::yay::yay::yay::punk::punk::punk:

Anyone else having problems getting infantry units to displace from point A to point B? I'm playing with the mission editor in BS2, and when I place infantry units and set waypoints for them on the map, they don't move when the mission is played.

I'm right there with you. After BS2, I'm not sure what the hell is going on, but as I understand it: Ubisoft was the publisher for the original Lock-on: Modern Air Combat, and owns the publishing rights for that title and subsequent add-ons. Lock-on Flaming Cliffs 1.0 was an add-on/upgrade for the original LOMAC. Lock-on Platinum is LOMAC plus Flaming Cliffs 2.0 Flaming Cliffs 2 is an add-on/upgrade that requires LOMAC or Lock-on Gold to play. FC2 added multiplayer compatibility with BS1. BS2 is a standalone expansion for BS1 that has no compatibility with BS1 or any version of LOMAC and its subsequent add-ons. BS2 is multiplayer compatible with DCS:WH. I guess this is just a move on EDs part to follow through with their declared strategy of making all DCS modules compatible with each other. Where this will eventually leave the FC series remains to be seen. I have a feeling that this may be the end of the series' life though, which is unfortunate IMO, given the limited number of DCS modules and the length of time between each module's release. I've been hoping that ED would finally give some serious attention to its multiplayer strategy, but I've been hoping that for nearly 10 years now. There's only so much you can do with a snazzy combat platform when you don't have live opponents. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and spin off FC into its own product line separate from DCS, which I believe would be a viable strategy, but I'm not optimistic about that.

Women who enlisted in a combat arms specialty, as opposed to women in support specialties who have come under fire while deployed? Really? edit: just to clarify, I'm trying to figure out if Canada allows women to enlist in combat arms specialties. I'm not questioning your female service members' fighting abilities.

JTACs are embedded with ground combat units. Women are barred from assignment to those units by law.

ATC, AWACS, pilot, sure. But as far as I know, JTACs are male only, at least in the US.

Of course. That doesn't mean we can't engage in some informed speculation. It's like sizing up NFL draft prospects. It's informative, and good fun in its own right. :joystick: