VTJS17_Fire

You're right, my flaw. :music_whistling:

A good idea, IMO. I use a macro in my Saitek SST Software, but to use only the ingame mappings one day would be fine. I think, it shouldn't be difficult or time eating for ED, to implement a second one-click eject command, which would be unassigned by default. :thumbup:

We fly always with wind and in most of our missions with dynamic weather. Wind doesn't affect your ground or indicated airspeed. It affects your true airspeed, but you don't need this for combat or simple navigation (only with a estimated time). Becauce of that, it doesn't matter. Only altitude has an effect on GS and IAS difference. Example: Set your tanker to 425 knots GS in the MS at 16.000 feet. That should be around 325 knots IAS. Intercept the tanker and fly to the boom with a few knots more We do this currently with the M-2000 and it works fine. No problems with tanker speed and dynamic weather/ wind.

I think you mean the "tanker speed bug", right? IIRC this one is solved, at least for the IL-78M in DCS Nevada. We don't have speed changes by the tanker since a patch a few weeks ago. as we very seldom fly DCS 1.5.x, I can't comment the tankers behavior in the open beta. The aircraft speed at route is also ground speed, if you don't set a arrival time to the waypoint. So, why should the tanker change its speed, when route and orbit parameters are both in ground speed? The only moment, the tanker changes its speed, is while turning to the opposite leg of the orbit. If you want to use airspeed, calculate your desired CAS to ground speed and that's it.

Wenn du bei einem Seitenverhältnis von 16:9 bleibst, ja. Es gibt jedoch seit Jahren einen kleinen Trend im TV Bereich, das Blickfeld dem des Auges anzupassen - mit 21:9 Verhältnis. Diesen Weg könnte man im VR Bereich auch gehen und so Pixel in der Vertikalen sparen.

Three and a half months left and two modules need to be released ... hm, I don't think so. But that's no problem. I want a good module, not one on time.

DCS looks so fu**ing hot. Awesome!

You can download departure and approach charts for the Nevada map at airnav.com and save them in your kneeboard Folder. There are charts für the Caucasus region, too. Use google and the code of your airport.

If you have it at all, it will be available for the entire time of the conflict, from a maintanance point of view. Such airplanes are heavy protected (by CAP, escort or great range to any possible fighters) and I don't know any early warning air asset, which was shot down in the last 40 years. Yeah, the Iraqi Airforce flew some of these missions with MiG-25 Interceptors (but not at low altitude) in Operation Desert Storm, but they were often unsuccessful. One of the reasons were the lack of proper GCI guidance. For myself: I don't ask and I don#t have the time to create such complex missions and/or campaigns, I just don't fly in open public. ;)

But this wasn't the point of the threads author. The point was to implement it, for players with cheap (less precise) hardware. And as I said, that's an excuse for not practise it.

It's really easy. In real life, there is no major country, which would going in for war or a battle without proper SigInt, early warning capabilities and C² (such as AWACS or GCI). And I can't imagine that any well trained air force today would send out their fighters as single ships, with that little SA and a 80% probability to get shot down. With that changes, a lot of the used tactics wouldn't work, due to a better SA and mutual support. Maybe some of the mission designers should read The air campaign by John A. Warden III, which is a collection and analysis of a lot of air battles in history and showing, in which circumstances they were or what would be possible today. What I see public (except BlueFlag, but on RedFlag YT videos too) is a mirrored situation. Both attack and defend their own 120 miles of airspace. With that, there can't be a dynamics. It's like, if two boxers hit the others fist, again and again. :huh: Show me one conflict, in which both sides are aggressor and defender in the same battle! I know only the 6-day war, but even there was always one offenive and one defensive side in the daily battles (maybe, they were both offensive in the air campaign). You're right. Peacetime procedures or ideas (maybe) won't work in the stress of a battle and maybe your adversary has some surprises, which intel didn't know. But even in this situation, the circumstances are not the same as on public servers.

I have to disagree with that. I have a 9 year old Saitek X-52, which is very worn on it's spring and axis. Nevertheless, I can air refuel in the A-10C, F-15 and M-2000C without problems. It's just practise, practise, practise. ;)

I can ask a buddy of my squadron, who flew sometimes on this Server. Maybe he has an acmi for you.

There are some videos on YouTube.

I read about the last round of Operation Blue Flag and found this concept very interessting. But I read also about the scenario of the next round, which is limited to Fox2/ Guns and no AWACS/GCI, IIRC. :(

But the AIM-54 was delivered to the U.S. Navy around about two decades before. And that is/ was a Fox 3 missile, as well.

Not only that. You have another adversary: The ground. You have to fight against the enemy and with concentration of all the systems and your tactic, you also have to fight against the mountains. That's a factor, you don't have at mid to high altitudes. You can't say, they're wrong. You can say, they're not real or work only against new virtiual pilots, in these simple airquake scenarios, where you often meet one vs. one or similar situations. As long as you reach your object - shoot down the enemy aircraft - it's the right tactic. I also tried some real life tactics from the 70s, such as that one from Operation Bolo. It has some disadvanteges, but it worked. But most of the used tactics I've seen in public, don't work against organizied groups (with TS3) in a more real scenario, with AWACS and SAM so to say. And these hide&seek tactics don't work in every terrain. In the Caucasus you have high mountains and tight valleys, great to hide and pop-up. But in Nevada or the Strait of Hormuz map, you don't have such an environment. So with the new maps - more sea and flat terrain - all these pilots have to adapt new tactics to get to WVR range.

Maybe some, but not at all. Their MiG-25 interceptors did often a straight climb to high altitudes to intercept strike packages. I agree with you in general, but the radar is less a problem, IMO. To leave out the AWACS support in combination with restricted export rules (for LotATC for instance) is a big issue and a no go for me. But more important to me is mission design. Where in reality do you have two coalitions which fight against at a invisible line over and over again? You always have an attacking/ offensive force/ coalition and one defensive. Sometimes more on one or both sites, but as good as never "neutral" to their intentions (attacking/ defending). Except WWI.

In real life, you would counter a F-15 flight only with GCI/ AWACS support in the M-2000C. Since the other side have also GCI/ AWACS available, it doesn't matter. I also hate hide&seek tactics for my own playstyle, but the North Vietnamese did the same in the 60s/70s with their MiG-17/21 jets against the Phantoms. If I'm inferior in technology and/ or firepower, I would (and do) counter it with manpower, say more aircraft (this is also, what the North Vietnamese did). With that, you can use more advanced tactics than alone or in a two ship. In reality, you try to counter a force always with advanced technology (US, F-22) or with a higher number (Chinese philosophy).

Ja, zur Blue Flag habe ich mich auch schon belesen. Wobei die nächste Runde mit den neuen Rahmenbedingungen bzw. dem neuen Szenario auch kritisch diskutiert wird. Das wäre aber schon eher etwas für mich.

Hi 51st, find's gut, dass es solche Events in der Community gibt und verfolge den englischen Thread dazu. Leider ist mir das Setup zu arcarde, da fehlt einfach der Realismus an allen Ecken. Ich wünsche euch dennoch viel Erfolg und Spaß mit dem Event.

Das glaube ich nicht. Piloten (über)leben seit den 70er Jahren, weil im Cockpit und am HOTAS viele Knöpfe einzigartig geformt sind und "automatisiert" betätigt werden können, ohne hinzuschauen. Das Prinzip kann man am TM Warthog gut erkennen. Dort hat jeder Schalter eine einzigartige Form und kann anhand seiner Lage und Beschaffenheit ohne Blickkontakt gefunden werden. Alleine mit einer VR Brille wird das nicht funktionieren, weil die Haptik fehlt. Die Immersion ist zwar sehr geil, aber der Mix machts. Habe am WE auf der IFA mal die Samsung VR Gear getestet, kein Meisterstück wie Oculus oder Vive, aber für den ersten Test nicht schlecht. Meine dreijährige Tochter fands auch sehr cool, "auf einmal draußen" zu sein, musste sie auf dem Arm aber festhalten, sie wollte immer weiter nach unten schauen. :D

When you fly a DCS aircraft, you can change the radio channel.

Be sure, I will. :) But to expand the caucasus map would be great, as well. As I wrote, maybe later or as payware DLC with a little bit of the north of Turkey. I loved the terrain there.