winz

What public sources list ALQ-184 or ALQ-131 as noise jammer only? Just a quick google allowed me to find several sites that state them as capable of deception jamming. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-131.htm http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ALQ-184 http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123361669 Even the older pods, like AN/ALQ-119 are labled as deceptive jammers: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-119.htm http://books.google.sk/books?id=Y8kePYFK1L8C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=AN/ALQ-119&source=bl&ots=hOzazOxau8&sig=r0KCiWlQ1mpzoQGiu8tfwCh4RpM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yC1U-XHJOqO7QaEqYDIDQ&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=AN%2FALQ-119&f=false For me it looks like you based your opinion solely on the way DCS: World simulates jammers, which is known to be wrong and very very simplified.

If you're interested in a subject then you'll spend money on study sources. Not because there aren't free sources of information, but because publications/papers written by people who studied and work(ed) in the field cost money. Also because credible publications that aggregate information from various sources cost money. It is much more cost effective to pay some $ than to spend years trying to find all the relevant pieces of information, and gluying them together...Also you, as someone not experienced in the field, will have hard time realizing what free information is actually correct and what is not. you have provided no evidence for your claim that the pods used by A-10C are noise jammers. Noise jamming is primitive and ground radars have so much more power than the jamming pod that I cannot see a way for it to be effective. Not to mention that your jammer is big "here I'm, come and HOJ". There is no logical reason why SPJs would not use deceptive jamming.

If those self-defense pods would be able only to noise jam then using them againts SA-6 and newer systems would do more harm than good ;)

I've problems believing this. If you intend to guide the missile to the target then the laser has to have enough power for the sensor to be able to register the laser, and use it for guidance And if the sensor on the missile is able to register the laser, there is no reason sensor on the target would not. And AFAIK the Skhval doesn't send commands to the vikhr via laser, the vikhr just looks backwards for the laser and tries to fly down the laser beam. If it would send commands via laser then firing vikhrs in pairs would be problematic.

I image it must be hell to control a missile that is flying backwards, decelerating using a powerfull rocekt engine, so that it doesn't do a 180° turn... or start spiraling out of control.

GTX 770 2GB

:doh:

Working with AI in DCS is a huge PITA. It is complicated to make them perform in a meaningful way. Few things I've learned while working with the A.I.: 1)Lower their guns to 0% if you want them to RTB after they run out of missile/weapons. 2)Generic tasks like SEAD, Fighter Sweep, CAP are useless most of the time, because the plane will just engange any target it detects, no matter the range. It will try to engage a enemy fighter on the other side of the map, trying to get there at full burner, eventually running out of fuel. Using enroute tasks like 'search and engage' with maximum range, and search and engage in zone yield much better result. Just keep in mind that the maximum range in "search and engange" is in relationship to the fly-path, not the position of the airplane. So the AI will start to engange unit on the other side of the map if it has any waypoint close to the unit. 3)Use ROE - Weapons hold/return fire and switch it to weapons free when appropriate (part of flight in zone, unit in moving zone...etc) 4)If you want the AI to attack an target that is able to defent itself, i.e. TORs or Ships, you better use 'Attack unit' command and check the 'group attack', so all units in the group will attack simultaneously. 5)Outside of 'Attack unit', never will two AI units present in a single group attack the same target, even if there is no other target present. So, if you have a 4xFigher flight engaging 2xFighter flight only two airplanes of the four ship flight will ever engage in active combat. If there are no other targets they will just fly around do nothing, if there are other targets, then the rest will have no problem chase the targets, even if they are 40miles away. It is therefor sometimes better to spilt a four ship flight into two two ship flights. edit: Sniped is some points by Exorcet :)

Fly by wire means that pilot inputs are interpreted by a computer and it decides how much deflection is required on control surfaces. The hydro-mechanical system in A-10C is still a manual system because the pilots inputs are not interpreted, but translated directly into control surface deflection.

Wow, this is pretty clever...Thanks for the tip :)

Gary Hartstein, former F1 doc is not optimistic. http://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/good-news/

No, simulating helicopter physics isn't piece of cake, where did I say that? Do you think that simulating physics for a trainer is a piece of cake? Simulating any kind of airframe at DCS lvl is not piece of cake. I will not compare a DCS level aircraft to Combat Helo, because I don't really know what the simulation fidelity will be. Considering their videos so far, I'm not really convinced it will be on par with DCS.

No, they made the Uh-1 and tbh I don't think the Uh-1 is much more complicated than a trainer jet aircraft. It is a simple helicopter without any advanced electronic, able to cary just basic non-guided weapons, just like a trainer. Then they made the Mi-8 which is one step above the Huey and similary, the Cobra is one step above the Hip...

This is a huge oversimplification... They are developed on PC the same way Iphone apps are developed on PC...

"No, this is not attractive." but it is what is it. The thing is I don't complain about something when I understand why the situation is what is it. Am I 100% happy about the state DCS World is in now? No, I'm not... Would I be happier if some of the trainers would be a full blown monder fighters (Tornado, EF, Su-35, Su-34...)? Sure as hell I would be. Why don't I complain? Because I realize that each and every DCS lvl aircraft is a simulation that is on par in terms of fidelity with "real" commercial/military simulators (and it is reasonable to assume that it surpass them in some aspects). And these simulators cost milions of dollars, and that's not because the developers are greedy for the sweet taxpayers money, but because this type of software is that complex and that expensive to develop. I'm amazed that anybody is able to offer this kind of fidelity for $50, to such a small market as is ours and not to go bankrupt. So I will not voice disappointment when people putting their livehood at stake are entering this market with smaller projects, testing the water and their ability to pull something like that off. 2 years ago there was no DCS World and there were no 3rd party devs. Is four trainer aircrafts, Uh-1, Mi-8, Mig-21, Sabre, Cobra better then we were 2 years ago? In my eyes yes. And as long as the DCS World is groving things are good in my eyes.

I'm sorry if it came out aggresive. It wasn't aimed directly at you, but at the kind of attitude that is present in topics like these. And it's the attitude that I'm really tired of. I'm tired of topics that could be sumarized by "Why are devs doing X, I 'm not interested in X, it's old/out of place..I want them to do Y". And the base of these topics is simple "why dev isn't caring to my preference", and that is entitlement in my eyes. These topics go on for a few days, without bringing anything new to table, after which they end up in Chit-chat where they are burried and forgotten. What's is even worse in my eyes is that these topics are among the first topics created after every new module is announcement. I just don't understant why it is so difficult to realize that dev chose X, because he is confident of pulling off X in reasonable time, with his current budget, with his current understanding of the DCS platform and with his access to information about X (in the form of documents and SME), and he thinks that X will sell. And no amount of "I don't like X" will change that. And imho every dev would love to be the one to bring a DCS level simulator of an technologicaly advanced platform...But trying to create that, as a first module, might be bigger risk than creating even 5th trainer aircraft.

Really? Most of gamers asks similiar question when they see DCS, who on earth would buy something requiring 700 page manual to explain the basics and weeks of training to get somewhat capable? Every 3rd party project got these posts, by people feeling entitled and believing their preference is the preference of the rest of the community. Just because you're not interested in a trainer doesn't mean others are not. I, for a matter fact, am interested in a trainer aircraft. I really, really hope you'll be able to pull it off. Because on paper this sounds fantastic and something that would be a cool experience.

You can also look at it from the other side. These 3rd party devs are only starting to develop for DCS. Doing a full-blown modern fighter as a first project might be liitle to ambitious. Doing a simpler trainer jet is a better way to learn how to develop for DCS. edit: Mi-8 is no less 21st century than F/A 18, EF...etc. ;)

No, you don't turn DCS into arcade flight game by removing all the hard-core stuff. If you remove all of the simulation then you removed everything that sells DCS. DCS doesn't have the graphics, action, story to compete with HAWX, Ace combat and other arcady flight games.

I enjoy them all. But the basic Su-25 version holds a special place, something about the rudimentary and rawness I just cannot help, but love.

If it would be better. And what's better is not objective, but based on individual preferences. Even if you created F-16 that would mach BMS level of simulation (or even surpass it), there are still things that DCS lacks and BMS has (like there are things that DCS has and BMS lacks)... i.e. IADS, Dynamic Campaign, multiple theaters..etc... People who would emphasize these aspects would not switch because BMS is, for them, a more complete package. Also people might not want to make the switch (redo their keybinds, external monitor setup, learn the DCS way of making things...) just to fly another F-16... That's why F-16 is risky. You're competing with an established brand.

Even if you could, you wouldn't see any difference. The A-10C has inertial navigation, and Ka-50 has it as well and as gyro drift is not modelled their precission would not suffer.

Wild guess would be because AI is handled differently and doesn't really use datalink ( AFAIK you only see your flight in ABRIS)

Possibly related - http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125262 looks like all text areas got a reduced line limit in last update.

Or it will spark "Why is ED focusing on non-game breaking issues, when there are AI units pilling up on bridges" posts. Just saying...