StrongHarm

Attached are pictures that will be in the ordinance analysis I'm working on: 103 left, 105 on the right. As you can see (unlike IRL) the 105 is much more effective against troops than the 103. Same point of impact, same HOF. You'll find similar effects against unarmored vehicles. Again, ED and DCS are awesome.. they just need to give some attention to ordinance. It'll happen..

I agree with everyone's assessment on choosing the ordinance for the mission, but only if the ordinance in DCS was as realistic as it's flight model (instead of 20% effective), but when 105s work better for troops and soft targets than 103s, AGM-65Ks have twice the blast radius and PK of a 2000lb bomb, and you have to get a headshot with 30mm HEI to kill troops (exaggerate for effect); it's necessary to compensate.

For those situations that call for nothing short of brutal annihilation, I reach for my AGM-65K. It will have a 200+m effect on light armor or squishier (it shouldn't have twice the effect of a 2000lb bomb.. but it does in DCS). For Armor I like to spread the lovins with the trusty CBU-105. This WCMD is like a sawed off shotgun blast from the heavens. According to my tests, the 105 is more than 10 times more effective against light armor and troops than the 103 (though it shouldn't be.. but is in DCS).. so it's a one size fits all carnage, glorious instrument of destruction. Now, I don't want to downplay the use of the AGM-65D.. when I need to reach out and touch a single target, this is my fave because you can carry more of them. Although, it should be noted that if you want to try and stay true to IRL ordinance use, they only carry 4 instead of 6. AGM-65K = Mother of All Bombs (though it's a missile...) CBU-105 = Kill all, shotgun from the heavens AGM-65D = Sniper IRL 65D and iron bombs would be most common, but we have some ordinance disparities in DCS. They're only about 20% effective compared to RL figures.. so we must adjust accordingly. See http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135598 for analysis. I'll soon be publishing my full ordinance test results.

You can clearly see the bomb pairs splashing down in a single segment. The first pair gives a little puff of dust.. then the second pair impacts.. then the track is cut and you see the aftermath. So granted, you can't see the actual explosion from pair 2... and that makes it look odd. I'm a firm believer in the penetrating/non-penetrating pairs theory... as GGTharos said earlier in the thread.

I like the theory from that post that the first two bombs are extreme penetration to a deep underground facility. If the area of the underground facility was large enough, you would only see small plumes of dust from the building on the first pair. The second pair is simply for the above ground facility... I'm sure some of the previous posts in this thread were trying to say exactly that. :doh: Forgive my density on the matter.. Thanks Weta43

So what's with the first pair not detonating until the second pair impacts? They could very well be SBDs, but that doesn't explain the fusing behavior of the two staggered pairs, does it?

Very cool vid! I noticed in the other vid that there was a pretty long delay, and the detonation didn't occur until the second set of bombs impacted. That just seemed strange to me. When I said FAB I really meant FAB-like. Is it possible that the first set of bombs were some type of catalyst? I could buy the idea brought up by OutOnTheOP that the first pair were kinetic to weaken the structure. I don't think it's a pair of bunker busters followed by a pair of impact bombs... at least not that close together. Though!.. it would be kind of brilliant to have the proximity of the second pair trigger both pairs.. and the second pair goes off in the air.. a blast multiplier. That's interesting to consider.

In addition.. I don't think those were 2k's.. 8k of 'typical' blast would have brought the building down even if the walls were 10m thick. Look closer at this vid and try not to dismiss this as routine.. at least humor me. Why did the overpressure push the blast out hundreds of meters through a relatively small breech but not destroy the other walls? A typical blast has abrupt, even, and intense pressure. Could it indeed be something like a FAB? Also, carefully consider the sequence of the drop.. south north, north south instead of two and two.. Also it looks like the blast doesn't occur until the moment the second pair of bombs hit. What would be the purpose of dropping impact bombs on top of delayed fuze bombs.. and is it at all possible to time their detonations perfectly as to not destroy one pair with the other? Typical bombs don't detonate with good effect when hit by other bombs... tends to interfere with even blast distribution, etc etc. Unless.. the first pair weren't typical bombs.. Maybe I'm making something out of nothing.. but take a moment to consider it before you dismiss it. It wouldn't be the first time we mortal civilians didn't know something about military technology. This comes from a civilian who used to be very close to that technology in the military. I know there are things I don't know.

According to CentCom it is.. what do you know that I don't? Please elaborate.

So, in this declassified vid of ordinance delivery to an ISIS compound by an F-22 (09/2014).. what I believe I'm seeing is this: One object breeching the roof very precisely in the center of the south wing Another object breeching the roof very precisely in the center of the north wing Both of these objects showing very little explosive effect.. maybe a little kinetic [*]Two more objects dropping very quickly through the holes made by the previous two objects!! .. [*]Only after the second set of objects breech the building do I see blast effects... Am I seeing this right? What IS THAT? :surprise:

Agreed GeorgeLKMT, that's a good visual 'Funcational' Reference. The previous is a better visual 'Analysis'. Former is good for learning and remembering, latter is good for a quick glance if you forget in flight.. no doubt.

bunraku, while learning the TGP and Mav you'll be doing a lot of work with the HOTAS. Here's a reference card that puts all HOTAS functions in a more manageable and understandable format. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=59306

They can all be found here, in a nice manageable index.. But here are a few that are good:

I'm not seeing 2m lethality in my HEI tests

There are many inconsistencies with DCS weapons right now. I'm trying to get them to revise the damage and lethality parameters. HE should actually have a lethal radius of 3m for troops.. and there are many other inconsistencies. Contribute to this thread if you'd like to voice the fact that you'd like to see weapons lethality revised: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135598

Most welcome, np. I only knew about it because I went through the same hell after making a mistake while trying to change my snapviews. Glad you resolved it.

RIP BB! He was a humble guy, which is exceedingly rare for *any* guitarist much less for one of the greats. I was stationed in Memphis TN in the 90s for an aviation school. I went to a festival called 'Memphis in May' where they block off Beal St. and have lots of blues acts play on multiple stages. Struggling guitarists also bring amps out to the street corner and play for tips. BB King loved playing so much, and was so humble, that after playing on stage he later ended up on a street corner with a little amp playing his heart out for passers by... simply for the love of sharing his gift. As someone who glued himself to that street corner, and as a guitarist, I say "rest in peace BB King.. I know you must be shredding that harp with all the angels a'rockin' "

No, don't reinstall to fix this. You simply need to reset your default snapview. You probably hit RALT+KPD0 (set default view) by accident while in a funny position. Replace: D:\Users\%USERNAME%\Saved Games\DCS\Config\View\SnapView.lua with C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\View\SnapViewsDefault.lua Really considerate of the devs to provide that default file.. smart. The alternative to replacing the SnapView.lua is to reset your default view manually: Use the views keys on the keypad to get in the view position you want Hit RALT+KPD0 Hit F1

Sethshark, it's very important that you don't skip number 1 in Sabre-TLA's last post.. Have the self discipline to RTFM or you'll be spinning your wheels. Flying the hawg requires you pay the toll: it's either reading or time.. if you don't read the manual you can expect your learning curve to take a whole lot more time.. it will be very long and jagged. If you do read the manual it will cut your learning time in half and double your effectiveness. Unlike other 'games' out there, you can't get around paying the toll.

That's hard work Boom. Thank you for your service and your sacrifice. I started IS but moved to AME. Since there were never enough ADs and I was a pretty good troubleshooter and loved the birds, I crossrated AD. I later ended up crossrating AMS and AE as well. Only problem with that was they started putting me in charge of all 224 day inspections. No good deed goes unpunished! :) Stay safe and keep'em flying, Boom.

Don't you agree that this is more specific to the A-10 and military politics in light of current events?

NeilWillis.. your pattern of frequent derision has me concerned for you. I'll be your friend. These are country roads with extreme line of sight. I'm a 44yr old veteran with a family of my own.. if I kill someone it's not by accident. I'm not too concerned about 'getting in trouble' for my driving.. I know all the cops around here and I'm not a criminal. We're mostly intelligent people on these boards right? It's not a stretch to assume I had it covered.. If you really want to attack me for me my 'excessive freedom' we should have a discussion about my firearms sometime. I'd hate to see the left wing palsy it would induce though.. messy those. Back to the OP topic of HUDs.. I was simply stating an example of their usefulness in this context, as that was the line of discussion. No need for derision here. Carry on.

G reading is good to judge max corner threshold.. speed isn't as much of a factor as speed*angle.. so G force is a good relative indicator of how hard you can take a turn without losing traction. I'm not concerned with lap time, max speed, or bragging rights.. it's all about performing to max threshold while alone on the back roads. For this purpose the HUD is invaluable in my opinion.

Get behind the 6.2L V8 and performance features of a Camaro 2SS and try to drive it to it's limits. The point is.. because of its computer augmentation you now can drive one to the limits without being a professional driver. This is not exaggeration; a racecar driver tested the new higher end Camaros and Corvettes and became angry.. he said "I spent over 20 years learning to brake and corner properly and you a**holes have programmed a computer so anyone can do it now.. " A professional driver doesn't need the indicators but we mortals do.. they have intuition via experience... and being a mortal I'd rather not take my eyes off the road. The usefulness of the HUD on a car like this is not hype.. but I'm not sure I can convince you without you experiencing it.. it's kind of like the Oculus Rift.. you can't explain it visually or verbally.. you just have to see it yourself to understand it. So.. try it out and see for yourself.

Actually, with my Camaro, it would be unsafe not to have the HUD. The capabilities of the car are stunning.. they had to put features in it to protect the driver from himself. If I turned the traction and stability features off I know I'd lose it in a matter of minutes.. it's just too powerful.. and once you start taking corners at 50mph+ you'll be glad to see the G force, speed, and tachometer reading in the HUD so you can keep your eyes on the road. You can move the HUD around and turn it off though, and there is an analog gauge for every digital reading as a backup (though the thought of going eyes down while in the max performance envelop does induce a pucker factor of about 10).