#4369528 - 07/16/17 11:48 PM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Frederf
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
|
IRL, 'Bogey' is used when air traffic is sighted and it's unknown whether it is friendly, or enemy. 'Bandit' is used when it has been identified as enemy. Hostile -- confirmed enemy, includes permission to directive to engage Bandit -- confirmed enemy, does not include permission or directive to engage Outlaw -- meets enemy point of origin criteria Bogey -- not having satisfied other ID criteria Neutral -- obvious Friendly -- obvious There are more depending on what you consider to belong in this category of proword. Funny, ever since Jayhawk's joke the objective fact that BMS is superior to DCS in the sophistication of its AWACS ID categories feel deflated. I mean, we all know the objective information; it's inescapable. But after the humorous interjection of a few other silly words it feels like maybe DCS is better. I mean they are all silly words so who's to say that BMS is better because it has more silly words? Surely that wasn't the intent of the humor. I've referenced copes of Joint Brevity from 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005 as well as AFTTP 3-1.1 (2001) and they're consistent enough on these to my satisfaction. Tally/visual isn't really in the same vein as the ID prowords. It's "I see it". You wouldn't use those words in the same grammar as the others, i.e. verb vs. noun. "The bogey flew over me" makes sense while "The tally flew over me" does not. "I tallied the four-ship south." vs. "I bogied the four-ship south."
|
|
#4369533 - 07/17/17 12:48 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
It looks similar, but does not differentiate between sensor and mk 1 eyeball as you put it. Anyway, long story short, you tally an enemy, contact something neutral, and visual friendlies. Therefore, you don't tally a bogey. That was all I was getting at.
As for your reference (jp3_09 doc), do you have a page ref? What I found in p.145 says more or less the same as above.
Yes, it was as you said, page 145 of the .pdf, page III-78 of the pub, figure III-20.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369534 - 07/17/17 12:56 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: Frederf]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
Tally/visual isn't really in the same vein as the ID prowords. It's "I see it". You wouldn't use those words in the same grammar as the others, i.e. verb vs. noun. "The bogey flew over me" makes sense while "The tally flew over me" does not. "I tallied the four-ship south." vs. "I bogied the four-ship south."
Absolutely correct. I never said they were interchangeable, only that tally, contact, and visual were used with specific other brevity words, as seen in the JP 3-09. If the call was 'Bandits, 10 o'clock, 4 ships, 1 mile level', you would answer with 'Tally'. If the call was 'Bogey, 1 o'clock, 2 miles level', you would answer with 'Contact'. If the call was '4 Hornets, 3 o'clock, 2 miles, high', you would answer with 'Visual', assuming you know that they are friendly.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369536 - 07/17/17 01:39 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
It looks similar, but does not differentiate between sensor and mk 1 eyeball as you put it. TALLY - Sighting of a target, bandit, bogey, landmark or enemy position; opposite of NO JOY. CONTACT - 1) Sensor contact at the stated position. 2) Acknowledges sighting of a specific reference point. 3) Individual radar returns within a "GROUP or ARM".It totally does. Tally is SIGHTING... aka MK 1 eyeball. Contact is SENSOR CONTACT... aka a radar return. How much more differentiation do you need? Anyway, long story short, you tally an enemy, contact something neutral, and visual friendlies. Therefore, you don't tally a bogey. That was all I was getting at. Again, wrong as per definition above. You can TALLY a bogey... you can even TALLY a landmark...
- Ice
|
|
#4369538 - 07/17/17 01:51 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
It totally does. Tally is SIGHTING... aka MK 1 eyeball. Contact is SENSOR CONTACT... aka a radar return. How much more differentiation do you need?
Again, wrong as per definition above. You can TALLY a bogey... you can even TALLY a landmark...
Not per the JP 3-09, which is both more current, and more correct.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369539 - 07/17/17 02:06 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
Not per the JP 3-09, which is both more current, and more correct. How does a document for JTAC and FAC(A) override a document specifically for brevity? Hint: it doesn't. Futher proof? The word "bogey" never even appears in your JP 3_09
- Ice
|
|
#4369541 - 07/17/17 02:14 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
Not per the JP 3-09, which is both more current, and more correct. How does a document for JTAC and FAC(A) override a document specifically for brevity? The main reason is that it's newer. The second reason is that all of these things that we're talking about are encompassed under a large umbrella within the military called 'Fires'. Aircraft exist to support the ground force. It's important that aircrew and ground force members speak the same language. The JP I referenced is from 2014. That brevity pub is from 2007. Brevity and terms within the Fires realm have had a major overhaul since then in order to further define terms. This is why the definitions I gave are more specific. The terms have been further defined over time, which is a natural occurrence.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369561 - 07/17/17 03:08 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
The word "bogey" never even appears in your JP 3_09
It doesn't need to. From the APP-7, a Bogey is defined as an unidentified aircraft. It is neither labeled Friendly, or Enemy. It is merely a specific reference point in space. From the JP 3-09: VISUAL Sighting of a FRIENDLY aircraft or ground position. Opposite of BLIND. CONTACT Acknowledges sighting of a specified reference point (either visually or via sensor). TALLY Sighting of a target, nonfriendly aircraft, or enemy position. Opposite of NO JOY. Again, you can believe who you want, I'm merely telling you as a pilot in the military what is understood.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369577 - 07/17/17 08:08 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Frederf
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
|
Absolutely correct. I never said they were interchangeable, only that tally, contact, and visual were used with specific other brevity words, as seen in the JP 3-09.
If the call was 'Bandits, 10 o'clock, 4 ships, 1 mile level', you would answer with 'Tally'. If the call was 'Bogey, 1 o'clock, 2 miles level', you would answer with 'Contact'. If the call was '4 Hornets, 3 o'clock, 2 miles, high', you would answer with 'Visual', assuming you know that they are friendly. I agree with you on this one, at least to tally and visual. My personal stance is tally/visual are brothers and contact is a cousin. Thinking of tally/visual/contact as brothers requires a realignment of my thinking. I would no problem "contact the road" but thinking it's in the same bag as tally/visual is weird to me. I would agree that reporting seeing a smoke marker would be a contact (as DCS 9-line script has it). You tally a bogey, visual your wingman, and contact a smoke mark. Apparently "tally the mark" is also acceptable. I could see the push to "contact bogey" but in quite recent examples I've seen "tally bogey" is also fine. On matters of authoritative document, the service-specific documents are built upon the joint publications. I doubt you'd find a substantial disagreement between modern documents. Each service branch will rewrite the JP in their own format and may add or clarify. The JP for Joint Fires and CAS are authoritative in their own contexts. There's nothing wrong with a service or even a squadron developing brevity on their own, just that they won't be assured of joint interoperability with it.
|
|
#4369583 - 07/17/17 08:57 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
The main reason is that it's newer. The second reason is that all of these things that we're talking about are encompassed under a large umbrella within the military called 'Fires'. Aircraft exist to support the ground force. It's important that aircrew and ground force members speak the same language. The JP I referenced is from 2014. That brevity pub is from 2007. Brevity and terms within the Fires realm have had a major overhaul since then in order to further define terms.
This is why the definitions I gave are more specific. The terms have been further defined over time, which is a natural occurrence. The APP-7(E) [2010] supersedes the APP-7(D) [2007], just as JP 3-09 (12 2014) supersedes the JP 3-09 (11 2014). The JPs, however, do not change the fact that the APP-7 has defined these terms for "general use." Your definitions may be more specific --- in a CAS situation. That is why your document does not have terms for BOGEY, OUTLAW, DECLARE, or other airforce-specific brevity words, because these are irrelevant in a CAS environment. Now while aircraft exist to support ground forces, your examples above (bandit, bogey) are in an air-to-air context, not CAS.
- Ice
|
|
#4369642 - 07/17/17 03:16 PM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: Frederf]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
I agree with you on this one, at least to tally and visual. My personal stance is tally/visual are brothers and contact is a cousin. Thinking of tally/visual/contact as brothers requires a realignment of my thinking. I would no problem "contact the road" but thinking it's in the same bag as tally/visual is weird to me. I would agree that reporting seeing a smoke marker would be a contact (as DCS 9-line script has it). You tally a bogey, visual your wingman, and contact a smoke mark. Apparently "tally the mark" is also acceptable. I could see the push to "contact bogey" but in quite recent examples I've seen "tally bogey" is also fine.
I can definitely see it not being natural. I was only recently (4 years ago) corrected on this terminology when conversing with an instructor pilot whose primary duty was as a gunship. The real truth is, not everyone uses the terms correctly, but in the right context, it's understood most of the time. The only time I could see it being an issue that the air-to-air and air-to-ground terms were not completely coincidental would be when all assets are talking on the same net as the JTAC, which can/does happen. For example, if the JTAC asked an aircraft if he had eyes on a point on the ground, and the aircraft responded with 'Tally', while at the same time, an aircraft on the same net called out a bandit for the SA of all in the stack, with a subsequent 'Tally' from someone else in the stack, it could be confusing for the JTAC as to who said what without further clarification, keeping in mind that most aircraft do use their callsigns when answering, and the aforementioned situation would be quite rare in today's fight, but it is a consideration. I don't think responding with 'Tally' to a bogey is a big deal, it's definitely understood among all players the difference between a bogey, and a bandit. However, if you are more concise, if things get busy, and multiple categories of traffic are being called out, it's much easier to know which traffic another aircraft is talking about if they lead with the correct term. On matters of authoritative document, the service-specific documents are built upon the joint publications. I doubt you'd find a substantial disagreement between modern documents. Each service branch will rewrite the JP in their own format and may add or clarify. The JP for Joint Fires and CAS are authoritative in their own contexts. There's nothing wrong with a service or even a squadron developing brevity on their own, just that they won't be assured of joint interoperability with it.
True, units do take their own liberties, especially as different personalities take jobs in standardization. If a unit's SOP differs from Joint doctrine, It then becomes a question of which hat the aviator is going to wear during a mission, and hopefully he/she choose the right one when it matters.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369646 - 07/17/17 03:33 PM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
The main reason is that it's newer. The second reason is that all of these things that we're talking about are encompassed under a large umbrella within the military called 'Fires'. Aircraft exist to support the ground force. It's important that aircrew and ground force members speak the same language. The JP I referenced is from 2014. That brevity pub is from 2007. Brevity and terms within the Fires realm have had a major overhaul since then in order to further define terms.
This is why the definitions I gave are more specific. The terms have been further defined over time, which is a natural occurrence. The APP-7(E) [2010] supersedes the APP-7(D) [2007], just as JP 3-09 (12 2014) supersedes the JP 3-09 (11 2014). The JPs, however, do not change the fact that the APP-7 has defined these terms for "general use." Your definitions may be more specific --- in a CAS situation. That is why your document does not have terms for BOGEY, OUTLAW, DECLARE, or other airforce-specific brevity words, because these are irrelevant in a CAS environment. Now while aircraft exist to support ground forces, your examples above (bandit, bogey) are in an air-to-air context, not CAS. I agree that both documents exist in parallel veins, although I will definitely track down the newest version of the APP-7, as I am relatively sure the newest version isn't available via Google search (most likely neither is the JP). Both documents agree that Contact can mean acquiring of a reference point visually, or via sensor. The reference question that seems to remain is whether or not a bogey is 'Tally', or 'Contact'.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369670 - 07/17/17 07:28 PM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: heloguy]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
I can definitely see it not being natural. I was only recently (4 years ago) corrected on this terminology when conversing with an instructor pilot whose primary duty was as a gunship. The real truth is, not everyone uses the terms correctly, but in the right context, it's understood most of the time. Oh, I agree with you here 100%. I used to swap tally/visual all the time, but more and more use of the terms makes usage more natural. Tally is when I see an airborne contact.... hostile, unknown, or friendly, I call tally... most of the time I can't tell friendly anyway unless it's Lead and he's trailing smoke Contact is for when working with radar and sorting out targets... or being "talked on" to a ground target For Lead or anyone else I'm sure is friendly, Visual. So sometimes, "Two is TALLY aircraft, my 2 o'clock, Angels 22... Lead, pop smoke.... ah, Two is VISUAL on Lead."I don't think responding with 'Tally' to a bogey is a big deal, it's definitely understood among all players the difference between a bogey, and a bandit. Again, TALLY bogey and TALLY bandit are both correct. TALLY MiG-29 and TALLY Emirates 747 is valid. So is TALLY red car on the parking lot (landmark) and TALLY AAA site (enemy position). Having said that, I guess CONTACT bogey and CONTACT bandit are both correct too, provided that this is done through a sensor (radar, TGP, FLIR, etc.). CONTACT red car on the parking lot is also correct. I think the distinction of CONTACT and TALLY with reference to airborne targets carry with it the indication of the user's range or distance to the target. Anything called out as CONTACT means "I've found it" (via sensor) but is still a good distance away whereas TALLY means "I can see it" (MK 1 eyeball) and is thus in closer range. I do agree with you that interchanging these terms IN ERROR will still result in a roughly-understood message, but we are talking about correct usage here. I agree that both documents exist in parallel veins, although I will definitely track down the newest version of the APP-7, as I am relatively sure the newest version isn't available via Google search (most likely neither is the JP). APP-7(E) seems to be available on scribd with an account or here or feel free to download and install BMS to get the documents. I don't really see the need, though, as the terms remain unchanged between (D) and (E) versions. Both documents agree that Contact can mean acquiring of a reference point visually, or via sensor. The reference question that seems to remain is whether or not a bogey is 'Tally', or 'Contact'. Visual acquisition of a REFERENCE POINT, sure. So you can call CONTACT on that big lake... and you can TALLY on that big lake... both visual. Sensor contact is different. You can call CONTACT on the bogey at bullseye 130, 40 miles, 22,000 and this bogey is 40nm from your aircraft. You can call CONTACT on the same bogey once he's close enough to make out on the TGP (20 miles? 30?). You call TALLY on the bogey when you're WVR and you spot him with the MK 1 eyeball. Otherwise, you can have CONTACT on the bogey as your radar and TGP are still tied to him, but you are NO JOY as far as getting your eyes on him. When Lead has TALLY on the bogey but Two cannot get TALLY, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get TALLY on the bogey. Two then calls out TALLY when he sees the bogey. When Lead has TALLY on the SAM site but Two cannot get TALLY, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get TALLY on the SAM site. Two then calls out TALLY when he sees the SAM site. When Lead has CONTACT on the SAM site via his TGP but Two cannot get CONTACT, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get CONTACT on the SAM site. Two then calls out CONTACT when he sees the SAM site via his TGP. Again, this is all spelled out in the APP-7 document.
- Ice
|
|
#4369731 - 07/18/17 05:47 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
Oh, I agree with you here 100%. I used to swap tally/visual all the time, but more and more use of the terms makes usage more natural.
Wasn't talking about swapping tally and visual, but correctly using the word CONTACT. Tally is when I see an airborne contact.... hostile, unknown, or friendly, I call tally...
That's fine in the sim world, but IRL it's not, especially when related to known friendly contacts. Tally is for targets, non-friendly aircraft, or enemy positions only. If you want to play a sim that way, again, I'm sure everyone will understand what you mean. For Lead or anyone else I'm sure is friendly, Visual. So sometimes, "Two is TALLY aircraft, my 2 o'clock, Angels 22... Lead, pop smoke.... ah, Two is VISUAL on Lead."
This is correct. Again, TALLY bogey and TALLY bandit are both correct.
Again, this is in question. In fact, the pub I reference below uses the word 'CONTACT' to describe a bogey. The ATP 1-02.1 is now used by all services, and oddly enough specifically states that a bogey is an unidentified air CONTACT. The pub (and most of the previous references) state that contact is used to describe visual (mk1 eyeball) and sensor acquisition from air-to-surface. Air-to-air doesn't seem to make the distinction, and only references radar. TALLY Emirates 747 is valid.
Sure, if it's a known enemy, or non-friendly aircraft. Having said that, I guess CONTACT bogey and CONTACT bandit are both correct too, provided that this is done through a sensor (radar, TGP, FLIR, etc.). CONTACT red car on the parking lot is also correct.
Correct, well done. I think the distinction of CONTACT and TALLY with reference to airborne targets carry with it the indication of the user's range or distance to the target.
This is not referenced anywhere. Both documents agree that Contact can mean acquiring of a reference point visually, or via sensor. The reference question that seems to remain is whether or not a bogey is 'Tally', or 'Contact'. Visual acquisition of a REFERENCE POINT, sure. An unidentified aircraft, vehicle, thing, etc is in fact a reference point. When Lead has TALLY on the SAM site but Two cannot get TALLY, Lead may ask Two to CONTACT on the big lake at their 2 o'clock (REFERENCE POINT) and then ask him to look about 5 miles north from there to get TALLY on the SAM site. Two then calls out TALLY when he sees the SAM site.
This is correct. I did a little research through work for what is used to define interservice brevity currently. The APP-7 was not in the inventory, so I had to go with something more local. While I can't provide a copy of the most current document, I was able to peruse it. I also found an old copy, which I linked below. Here is a link to the aforementioned pub: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm1-02-1.pdfThe newer version is actually the ATP 1-02.1, and was released last year. I was able to get a copy to read, and noted only a couple of differences from the 2005 version I linked. TALLY is no longer associated with landmarks. As I stated above, it is only used with targets, non-friendly aircraft, or enemy positions. CONTACT adds the phrase "either visually or via sensor" to the second definition (I think this is in one of the previous references). The class I received a couple of years ago on the subject mirrors the new manual.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
#4369732 - 07/18/17 05:47 AM
Re: DCS F/A-18C To Be Released Soon
[Re: Frederf]
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
heloguy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 126
|
If it were my squadron I would push heavily toward tally being used exclusively with enemy status. "I tally bandit to the south." "Looks to be an airliner to the west. You see 'im?" "Yeah I tally." That kind of exchange has bad news written all over it. I agree.
Sim 1 I7 8700k Nvidia GTX 1080ti 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Samsung Odyssey Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, BRD Black Stork, BRD F1 Pedals Rotary Wing: Microhelis EC-135 Collective, Komodosim Cyclic (135)
Sim 2 I7 3770k Nvidia GTX 1080 32gb RAM Windows 10 x64 Oculus Rift Fixed Wing: WH Throttle, VKB Gunfighter, Slaw Viper Pedals Rotary Wing: Komodosim Collective (135)
|
|
|
|