ARM505

I must say, I was just glad to see the SAAF skin - but I confess, I did miss the bokkie in the national insignia! Glad to see you okes are working on this, great stuff. I might be biased, but the SAAF scheme is just such a great painscheme.

No track (sorry) but same happened to me - in VR and in 2D, the left mirror stopped updating and just held the same image.

What's your pixel density set at schmiefel? I have a Rift S as well, and I feel like mine is slightly more readable than yours, but I might be imagining it - mine is at 1.5

I also wanted to throw in a thank you, this seems like an amazing module, very worthwhile. I haven't had as much fun learning a cockpit and aircraft for quite a while. Brilliant job guys, a VERY worthwhile addition to DCS. The team should be very proud.

I actually hadn't watched that, good source on the 2nd fight.

Randomly off topic, but I've met the shooter (of the two MiG21s - the same guy, albeit in two separate incidents. It's a bit unclear what exactly happened, and he didn't talk about it. The first instance is quite clear, the second has a lot of difficult to piece together info). Wish I could get my hands on the gun camera footage (which is out there, I won't go into that any more!) and put it on yt. No kill like a guns kill. I also met the guy who was paralysed when his F1 went off the runway (he was indeed hit by a missile from a MiG23, a head on shot). The aircraft was salvaged apparently, amazingly enough. Because of my work, I've worked with or met a lot of the guys who flew SAAF F1's. Interesting stories. https://saafmuseum.org.za/arthur-d-piercy-27th-september-1987/

The greater surface area of the -120's would act like slightly bigger winglets (whose purpose is to reduce tip vortice drag), but now we're probably talking %'s on %'s

Carrier ops is a massive thing in and of itself. Since a young age, I've wanted to have a sim that does this in a realistic way, this is the earliest that my expectations have been met. To sit in VR, on that carrier deck, with the canopy open, the wind rushing across the deck, the sun glinting off the sea.......it's incredible what they've done. The Apache is great, it should definitely be on your list, but operating a high performance aircraft off a boat stirs the soul. Side note: I still kind of suck at operating a high performance aircraft off a boat. The challenge is never ending.

I really wanted to do one, collected all the tools, examples, etc.....then discovered I frankly suck at using picture editing software, and wasn't about to learn. So.....er, plus one from my side, I think it would be a cool skin (like the Rooivalk).

The AI Ch47 can tank the entire weapon payload of the Mi24. Sometimes it does go down, but surprisingly often it doesn't. It just ends up flying in a kind of up and down porpise fashion, with smoke and flames trailing off it as it disappears into the sunset.

100% agree on it being a 'special options' menu item, and defaulting it to 'OFF/OPEN' would save many forum posts. I even have a trigger guard on my stick, and still find it a PITA.

The AI CH47 has absorbed my entire weapons load and continued to fly, dipping and climbing back up trailing smoke and fire from two engines, off into the distance. Yeah, the AI DM isn't......the benchmark for simulations.

Mine did that when the joystick connection (that PS2-like plug between the joystick handle and base) got loose. I had a homemade extension, so it happened more than once.

DCS's tire interaction with surfaces is.......a compromise. Hard/soft, tarmac, grass.....it's kind of simplified. Resulting in some weirdness. There have been quite extensive discussions on this, the F16, the warbirds (taildraggers being a challenge) etc. At all times (IMHO), the common theme is oddities with input variables of coefficient of static and dynamic friction, normal force, velocity etc. This isn't a racing sim, but it crops up often enough, across a lot of modules, that tire modelling might merit a global rework. I might have misunderstood the gist of this though.

On the MPD :FLT -> SET -> Turn your radio altimeter on (R4 or 5, at work so I can't remember exactly which)

They actually do almost all the work on the engine 'on the wing' as it were, and a lot of it is 'on condition' as well. It's only really major stuff that necessitates an engine being removed from the wing entirely. I think it's more to be able to plan that, on average, engines will last approximately the same time before servicing if they started off together - but this is absolutely out of my domain as a normal line pilot, you're right The engineering dudes handle that side - we're just taught how to operate them, and do so as per SOP's, which the company decides on, I'm assuming for the reasons I've stated. When the aircraft goes in for a C or D check, it's easier and more cost effective to just do all the work on both engines while you've got them there as opposed to taking the aircraft off the line again.

Yup, the 737 igniters get alternated - we start using the right first (due to the right igniters being connected to the AC standby bus, and it's slightly more critical that they work, thus we run them first), then switch as we go. Sorry, off topic, but thats the reason.

OK, that is hilarious Gives new meaning to 'co-operative rockets' "Hold still buddy, WAS-ing rockets!"

I'm not sure of the TBO's on these engines, but on commercial airliners, with the typical requirement to achieve the highest possible cycles/hours on wing before servicing, there is a requirement to alternate the starting engine - given that engines are serviced based on hour spent running, and no attention is given to what kind of running (except limit exceedences), we have to 'spread the joy' otherwise over time, a significant hour buildup will occur on one engine. Our company starts the downwind engine first during pushback, which randomly spread the time over both (in theory). I can understand that the military might just keep things the same though, the difference is indeed almost insignificant (especially with such a short startup cycle in the Apache - an airliner start cycle can be a lot longer: even only one days operation might result in 5-6 minutes difference in engine running times......multiply that over 365 days of operation, and one year means ~33 hours of time difference).

Yeah, using the CPG's head as a sight might mean you're doing it wrong. Sorry, this might work, but....no. The guys head is going to be animated at some point, I'd rather focus on learning to use the system as best you can. It's not staggeringly hard to be honest.

There is a way to do it in game as well - I'm not at home right now, so this is from memory, but you can right click (I think) on a controller heading while having the CPG profile up, and select 'load profile' (or something like that) and then find the PLT profile for your controller and just load it - the controls are then imported into the CPG controller profile. Sorry for the vagueness, but it's quite simple to figure out if you play around - no need to rename files etc, although that is easy enough. Just thought I'd mention that they did allow for this in the sim.

You can also change the zoom FOV with (I think) R CTRL and the normal zoom keys (* and / on the KP) - if memory serves me right. This can give zome very nice close ups.

There is also IAT (Image Auto Track), which is not yet implemented at this stage of early access.

Unlike the pilots seat with it's rotary controllers, the front seaters IHADSS brightness is adjusted via the SYM rocker switch on the upper right side of the TDU (the center display, sorry if this is obvious already).

Yes, like a little piece of cloth, at the nose/throat area, visible if you look down.