Devastator

Is this app still working? We just tried to upload a dcs.log file and no passes are shown on the board..

1130 was not for landing? I thought for taxi and takeoff 1200 is needed

if you set them seperate then you will not see them in datalink with the letters as they will be seperate flights... Repeating the inbound call does not give new pushtimes for other airplanes but repeats the initial one for everybody. So it is not working

that thing does not work as far as I see. Everytime when someone talks from my flight, SC is using my own flight number and on top, they cannot talk if I did the talk first. This was the case for a long time, is it fixed with the latest update of SC?

my question is exactly for the above part. So just to get it clear 1- For Case3, how do you seperate the complete flight in respect to push times? I can imagine that the seperation for altitude and distance is clear (1k feet per 1 nm) but what about the time to leave the stack? 2- For Case 2, so if you have 4ship formation you split into 2 unlike to the case3 where everybody is splitted?

Hi Guys, as the current tower in supercarrier not recognizing the complete flight but just the leader, how do you guys plan the holding point and pushtimes if you have, let's say 4 ship flight? What is the RL procedure for such flights in case 2 and 3 approaches? Also does a 4 ship flight break together in Case2 or they come one by one like in Case 3 and do single breaks into case1? Thanks in advance

Then ED should fix the internal AI comms as they report "mudspike" and it is considered by many as the correct brevity due to that

I am not sure if this is the correct forum location for this question but I hope that it is. Is there a brevity call "Mudspike"? I cannot find that neither in NATO "JOINT BREVITY WORDS PUBLICATION" nor in "MULTI-SERVICE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR MULTI-SERVICE BREVITY CODES" documents. There is Mud and there is spiked but not a combination of them. So is DCS AI using its own creation or there is really such brevity code but not well documented? Thanks in advance

Thanks!!

After the latest SC update is link16 removed and we have only link4 now in F18? So no more MIDS coms?

AN/ALR-67 RWR page needs a small tweak I think. The EW page caption at the right side of this page shows it as "RWR EW Page" and it should be "EW Page"

Is there any opposite brevity call for this? So for "Master Arm" switches off?

in coop mode the rocket allignment cue should be alligned to TADS symbol or to pilots LOS cue?

by the way, it happens also if you have a centerline and open the fuel probe for refueling (tried with a speed of ~320knots).

I see this first time that we can lock something beyond 40nm. Even if they are B52s, they are at 92 nm! Our radar is improved maybe

ok but after mini update you will get the radar broken even further. Deal?

if that is correct as it is, then why there is TOO1 and TOO2 in first place? What is the usage of them, can someone from ED also shed a light on this one then?

I doubled check this with someone who has some idea about the RWR and F16 RWR is not able to show if missile gets closer or not. Coming to center only shows that threat is high priority threat (evaluated by the system) which is same what f18 RWR able to do

Hornet can reflect the RWR just infront of your nose, to the HUD. Put it to the hud and you dont even need to move your eyeballs to see the rwr

I am DCS F18 flyer but I am not sure about this comment. High speed and high altitute makes a big difference in BVR. F16 can fire earlier and can escape also easier from incoming missiles. Ofcourse the sustainability of the BVR is not just making the first shot but still it gives initial advantage to F16

ah!! I thought you guys mean like CAS or something!

how do they use it in ground ops?

Hi Guys, one of my friend bought the vaicom today but he is facing issues by the installation. After he installed voice attack and vaicom, we observe that the Database folder under Vaicom is empty and at initilization it shows this error below (orange colored line at top) Anybody has any idea why he is facing this problem? Thanks in advance! log file attached VAICOMPRO.log

idea of replace was due to its ugly model. It will be already beautified by ED based on their announcement, hence no replace is needed but as addition would be great to have a superhornet AI as tanker

No idea if correct place to open this as wish, but it would be great if the low polly model of S-3 is replaced with a nice Rhino model (not playable as the S-3 ) and can be used for refueling from it