Bushmanni

Radar is active sensor unless in HOJ mode and hence it will trip RWR. Maybe it could be possible to make the missile home in the enemy radar itself but there's probably some technical issue why it's not done. Other thing would be putting AIM-9X block II sensor (can lock to the target after launch and has similar range as the AMRAAM radar) in the AMRAAM and you would get the ultimate ninja missile. Well I don't know if it would work like that actually but it would definitely be pretty nasty thing if it would, especially when launched using datalink.

With wheels on I can do about 20km/h on average compared to 7km/h on legs. That's with additional weight of the bike and friction of the bearings and wheels. I don't know if that gives any kind of representative figure for the efficiency of wheeled and bipedal locomotion but I'd like to hear what you guys think of it.

Manual has a chart that describes safe altitude/speed combinations for autorotation. Basically if you have enough speed you can make an autorotation landing from low altitude but if you are hovering you need altitude to get enough forward speed for autorotation landing.

You can cover a small mech with small arms resistant armor (same stuff infantry uses for their bullet proof vests) and maybe active protection system and mount some weapon on it and use it as a support weapons platform in environment where tanks can't operate like mountains and jungles. It wont stand up to a tank but it doesn't really have to. It's somewhat niche capability but it's something only a walking machine can do.

What mechs have over other kind of vehicle platforms is mobility over uneven terrain at the expense of speed and range. So the question is if this kind of trade off would be useful in some scenario. Considering that US Army is developing walking robots I suppose it's not so stupid idea. Though I doubt a 10m tall walking humanoid mech is useful for any other purpose than teenage power fantasy. Two legged setup is more power efficient so maybe at some point we might see some kind military use for them but because of it's relative height it probably wouldn't be used for direct combat role. Like already said power armor is much more likely way for the future, larger mechs could be used more as mechanical horses for transporting power armored troops, their stuff and maybe artillery missile tubes and other indirect weapons. Future warfare is headed more and more towards small recons units and UAVs finding the targets and directing artillery and air power to destroy them.

I ran two matches, first one ended when DCS on my computer (server) froze after 1h but the second one ran to the finish taking about 1.5h. There were only four players playing including me. After about 1h the battlefield was so full of wrecks that my fps started to suffer when looking at the front line, especially when looking through EO systems. No one reported any warping except when my framerate pummeled below 10 few times and there were no client CTDs.

I have left the fighters out to give a little chance to A2G planes to do their job as they will have their hands full with just the human operated AD and enemy A-10s. Adding a fast mover isn't out of the question though but it would probably have to be multi-role to work out gameplay wise as pure A2A planes would most likely just isolate the air and ground components from each other. Stability has been good so far with small amount of players (<=4). There's only around 200 moving ground units but they are concentrated on a fairly small area so there's still lots of action going on. Hopefully I get 10+ players today to get a better sense of stability and how the gameplay works.

I'm hosting today my DCS Battlefield mission 19:00 (GMT+2 - daylight saving time). It's PvP mission with a bit more casual theme in spirit of Battlefield series games. More info about the mission here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=108086 In short both sides have equal amount of score in the beginning of the mission and the enemy score gets reduced by capturing control zones and destroying enemy units. The side which runs out of score first loses. Control zones are mainly captured using ground units but can be captured also with helicopters. Ground units advance and capture zones on their own but can be also controlled by players. Aircrafts start on the ground engines running and have about 5min flight to the front line. The mission has CA, Ka-50, A-10C, UH-1H and Mi-8 slots available. Ground units are US for blue side and Russian for red side while air units are symmetric. Transport choppers are used to rescue downed pilots which restores some lost score and to transport MANPADS to the front line.

There's several SSE functions that work in SP but not in MP and this discrepancy isn't usually documented in any way. It would save a lot of trouble for mission makers if it would be documented.

pelit.fi It's the website of the best (most professional IMHO) Finnish gaming magazine. While it's general gaming magazine they do have reviews of simulators like DCS and other more obscure niche stuff which is great.

There's a SSE command Group.destroy that removes a group without raising any events.

I didn't find any better methods to merge tables than for-loop using ipairs iterator. [font=Courier New]local tempUnitTable = mist.makeUnitTable( { "[g]" .. _groupname }) for index, val in ipairs([/font][font=Courier New][font=Courier New]tempUnitTable[/font]) do[/font] [font=Courier New][font=Courier New] _u_table[#_u_table + 1] = [/font][/font][font=Courier New][font=Courier New][font=Courier New]val [/font][/font]end [/font]This for-loop will go through tempUnitTable and in each pass it assigns the key of the next entry (with numerical key) to first variable (index) and value to the second variable (val). Inside the loop the val variable is then added to the end of the _u_table. Val has same value as tempUnitTable[index] and ipairs automatically picks the next entry with numerical key in the table for each pass of the for-loop until the table ends. There's more rules to how the ipairs picks the next entry but I don't want to repeat the lua documentation here.

First you need to make unit name table using the _groupname and then merge the unit name tables. I'm not exactly sure what would be the best method to do that so unless someone else beats me to it I will find the answer and report back.

What exactly are you trying to do with this line as it has wrong syntax? _u_table[#_u_table + 1] = ("[g]", _groupname) Are you trying to add "[g]" and _groupname together as a single string? In that case you need to use .. instead of , ie. _u_table[#_u_table + 1] = ("[g]" .. _groupname)

It's actually possible to design a hydraulic cylinder so that it centers itself and locks up when pressure is lost.

Slew problem occurs for me too and I'm using CH HOTAS. There's nothing wrong with my axis settings or pots or anything else as I have checked multiple times and TGP, MAV and Shkval slewing is the only occasion this problem occurs. It's a bug in the game.

The Wired article mentioned that CV might have a built in forward facing camera or something similar so we could have this kind of capability out of the box. If it turns out like that it would be really cool.

Not US ones, but at least Japanese can though.

Hellfires can be used against choppers in real life. Israelis shot down a Cessna with one and at least Brits train to engage helicopters with them. While US Apache can't carry Stingers OH-58D should be able to carry them and AH-1W should be able to carry Sidewinders. I think it's not possible in DCS though.

My hands were shaking and heart was beating really fast after the first fight. I had to take several deep breaths in order to calm my body down and clear my head. There aren't many games (other than other "dogfight simulators") out there that can give you such a rush. Well, that's likely a personal thing but dogfighting works for me. I wasn't paying attention much to the betty after it's first announcements so I didn't bother to shut her up until later when the situation cooled off a bit. It's different when you are in the fight your attention is much more focused than later on when you are watching it from a video. The bandit of the second fight went down but the game froze (and recording stopped) just the moment when I was pulling the trigger. When the game woke up again he was dead.

I sawed off bandits right wing in the last fight but he still flew pretty well!!

One thing sprung to mind about the acmis. You should employ guns defence maneuvers against AI when he's in guns range and nose pointing at you at least during practice to get more realistic feel of the flow of the fight as the defence maneuver can have big impact on your energy. Shaw's book has a pretty good explanation of various ways to defend against gun. The basic guns defence maneuver will also help you to see how to initiate rolling scissors which is very nice maneuver to be able to use. You will own every HUD fighter with it 100% of the time and it will look like magic to them even if you can barely do it right.

I'm no expert in vertical either but here's something I know about it. Main difference in vertical maneuvering as opposed to horizontal is gravity which makes a constant g and speed 360 turn in vertical asymmetric while its symmetric in horizontal. When plane flies straight and level gravity pulls it down with one g and wings pull it up with one g hence net acceleration is zero. When the pilot flips the plane upside down the plane is still trimmed for one g level flight and wings pull one g but now down as does the gravity hence the plane arcs down in a "two g" turn (the pilot still feels only one g). In both cases wings work for one g but the difference in plane trajectory is considerable. When you loop aircraft in vertical you get gravity assist when your lift vector points below horizon and gravity resistance when lift vector points above horizon. If you approach a bandit nose pointing above horizon and after merge you both go for vertical turn you will get gravity assist for the majority of your turn while the bandit gets gravity resistance for the majority of his turn. Other use for the vertical is to trade speed for altitude and then turn with smaller turn radius and then dive back and recover some of the lost speed like is done in high yo-yo or displacement roll. Energy fighting with Eagle is still somewhat mystery for me so I wont go there. Vertical maneuvering is in general harder to do optimally so a better pilot might go for it just for the sake of taking advantage of the relative skill gap. Besides energy management it's also harder to keep track of the bandit visually in the vertical.

Military choppers are designed to have more skin surface area than they would really need to provide the necessary volume for the internal stuff to increase survivability. When you make a hole in the skin the relative size of the hole to the overall structure is smaller and hence reduction in strength is smaller also. You can't prevent penetration against even the weakest projectiles so you need to make the structure hold together even if there are some holes in it.