Yurgon

I guess he means "map".

Just echoing what was already said, Syria is a fairly large map and covers southern Türkiye, all of Lebanon, most of Syria, northern Israel and even a little bit of Jordan. It includes many beautiful and unique buildings and landmarks in various places. The map goes from green-ish vegetation in Türkiye and along the northern Mediterranean coast to more desert-like landscapes in most of Syria. Then there's Cyprus, including the UN posts along the divided island, also beautifully modelled. One recent update gave roads "give way" signs that add a lot to the immersion when flying down low in helicopters. Syria is by far my favorite map in DCS right now and I highly recommend getting it. Kola is just fresh out the door and a lot of content is yet to come. If you like the fascinating landscapes and fjords of Europe's northern tip, this map is certainly also a big recommendation, but as of today, I simply haven't spent nearly enough time on this map to give a good summary. It certainly adds more diversity to DCS, which is a big bonus in any case.

Eine allgemeine Anleitung für den modular Server gibt es hier: Und das Terrain sollte heißen: KOLA_terrain

Und hier noch der wie immer sehr hübsche ED-Trailer:

Das ist aber, wenn ich es richtig verstehe, eine fixe Einstellung, die immer den angegebenen Viewport über das normale Bild legt. Das kann man also nicht mit irgendeiner F-Taste im Spiel ein- oder ausschalten, und man kann auch nicht wählen, dass sich das auf irgendeine konkrete Waffe beziehen soll. Mir würde kein Weg einfallen, wie man die Waffenansicht, die OP gerne hätte, damit hinbekommen kann (vielleicht geht es auch, ich bin da kein Experte ). Huh, sieht an! Das Modul habe ich nicht, aber das klingt interessant. Ist dann aber modulspezifisch nur in der MB-339 verfügbar, oder?

Ich lege noch eine Schippe drauf und bin mir extrem sicher, dass das nachträglich in der Videobearbeitung passiert ist. Ich meine dass er das auch mal erklärt hat, aber fragt mich jetzt nicht mehr in welchem Video.

Well this ain't no Airbus. It's just CDU, and the control in question is the STEER PT dial on the Auxiliary Avionics Panel. I find that it always helps to have a quick look at the DCS A-10C manual and pick the "official" designation, because every DCS player will know these names (or can easily look them up in that very same manual). Like ASAP already said, when your target is not moving, it's usually preferable to use AREA track instead of POINT track. Any particular reason you prefer POINT track in this case? China Hat Forward Long is "Slave All to SPI". In this description, you're slaving all sensors to SPI, don't to anything with that SPI, and then slave all sensors again. That's one step that's not needed. With TGP on the right MFCD and MAV on the left MFCD, a single "Slave All to SPI" will slave both the TGP and the Mav to the same SPI simultaneously, regardless of SOI. For starters, when you slave the Maverick directly on the desired target, you could just as well hit TMS Forward Short with MAV as SOI to command a track, which was already explained above. And then, why would you attempt to FORCE CORRELATE when you already get a good track? That's not needed here and it's a bit unclear why you would try force correlate after already achieving a track. The original NO TRACK LAUNCH INHBT happens when the Maverick is not tracking and is not using force correlate. Either a track or force correlate are enough to get the missile off the rail, and using both methods together doesn't (usually) offer any benefit whatsoever and just adds a step that's not needed.

Seen these guys and gals live a couple weeks ago. Never even heard of them, but the place was crowded, the audience was enthused to say the least, and the band played for at least 2 hours. Since they're from my town, I hope they'll be on stage again soon. Evelyn Kryger - Billy Wolke

With a purely virtual flying background, I can only compare the old and the current Huey flight models and contrast both of them to the other DCS helicopters. The currently required power pedal on takeoff seems excessive compared to the old Huey FM and also compared to all other DCS helicopters. The Huey will now gladly fly quite a bit faster than it used to, which may or may not be a correct representation of the real helicopter. From what I read here on the forum it sounds like there was an update to the engine model which was in itself a good update, but fails to take some other factors into account, meaning that the overall feel of the current Huey FM is at least as unrealistic as the old one was, just in another way. Best I can tell, the current FM is stuck between half-implemented features. I can get used to it, it just feels odd having to put in so much left pedal on takeoff.

Don't look at me! I'm just following ASAP's lead. But yeah, it's a bit OT, and in this regard there's simply nothing for me to add on topic because ASAP already covered everything there.

And here I thought binding the Apache's controls to my HOTAS was gonna be the biggest nightmare DCS could offer...

My high school physics is a few years in the past, but for starters I'm pretty sure that acceleration is not the same as speed and you're missing a second squared here or there. It's also a but unclear where you get the 530 that gets multiplied with 40,000 (530 knots? Or 350 knots converted to feet/second, in which case it should actually be closer to 590 feet/second?) or what the 65 means in the second calculation - the number of bullets for a 1 second burst? The thing is, assuming all your math was correct, then... That's 21,200,000 ft/lbs of energy vs 97,500 ft/lbs of force per 65 bullets, and with an 18 seconds burst (expanding the full gun) that would still bring us up to 1,755,000 ft/lbs and thus about one twelfth of the aircraft's energy, which I'm sure would lead to a fairly noticeable reduction in aircraft speed. But once again, there's usually not much of a reason to fire the gun in horizontal flight, and when we add the typical acceleration that happens in a dive, that should easily overcome the stopping power of the gun's recoil. Without further context regarding the above quote, I'll go ahead and assume that the Colonel was not in fact referring to firing from level flight. Ultimately, though, no one said the gun would stop the jet or even slow it down to a noticeable degree (well, I actually did, but this discussion wasn't started by that argument). The question was if the gun generated more recoil than a single engine provides in thrust, which according to multiple sources is a true statement. Put differently, if the gun was fired at the beginning of a takeoff roll, the jet would accelerate as if one engine was simply not producing any thrust. And if two GAU-8s were firing from one A-10 (ignoring where the second one would go, and the weight that it adds) at the beginning of the takeoff roll, it seems that with two good engines operating at full power, the jet would still go backwards while the guns keep firing.

Wikipedia and, more importantly, Randall Munroe of xkcd both agree. Wikipedia: xkcd: So yes, the GAU-8 has slightly more recoil than the thrust of one of the engines. Of course my favorite quote from that xkcd is still this one: In a typical one-second burst, there shouldn't be much of an effect. Since the gun is typically fired in a descent, we also have to factor in the pull of gravity in a dive that would further counter the recoil's effect. However, in level flight, a full 18 second salvo that empties the entire ammo drum should actually lead to quite a significant speed reduction.

Thanks for sharing! Sam Eckholm certainly knows how to get the audience engaged in the topic!

Hier gibt es eine Aufzeichnung der gesamten Q&A-Session:

Aus genau der gleichen Überlegung heraus habe ich mich seinerzeit beim Ka-50 entschieden, es ganz genau so zu machen wie du. Hat 15 Jahre für mich super funktioniert - bis ich letztes Jahr die Gelegenheit hatte, einen richtigen, großen EC-135-Simulator auszuprobieren. Da hat es mich dann wiederholt in den Allerwertesten gebissen, dass meine Bewegung am Throttle genau verkehrt herum ist verglichen mit dem Collective im echten Hubschrauber (bzw. im echten Simulator ). Seit zwei Wochen bin ich jetzt dabei, 15 Jahre Muskelgedächtnis umzutrainieren, und immer wenn ich denke "cool, endlich fühlt es sich nicht mehr so schlimm an, geht doch ganz gut mit dem Collective" reiße ich den Heli wieder in die Luft, statt sachte zu landen. Das wird also noch etwas dauern, aber ich glaube die mentale Verdrahtung "Schubregler auf Anschlag = Nachbrenner = Collective ganz oben" ist gar nicht nötig und da rechne ich nicht mit Problemen. Bin aber gespannt, wie lange es dauert, bis ich mich an die für mich invertierte Collective-Achse gewöhnt haben werde.

The JTAC/FAC was pretty clear: "Abort, Abort, Abort! You have no permission!" You dropped the weapon without clearance from the FAC. That's like the worst sin of Close Air Support, and you'd be lucky not to be grounded after such an incident. In case of collateral damage or blue on blue, a court-martial would be a likely consequence, and given this gross disregard for proper procedure, there'd be little an attorney could do in your favor. When you work with the DCS in-game JTAC, open the comms menu again and follow the flow. For the most part it'll be fairly self-explanatory: Check in, receive 9-line, receive remarks and restrictions, read back 9-line and restrictions, call IN, get clearance, drop. It could get more complicated when the JTAC does the lasing, or when a specific final attack heading was requested that you are required to adhere to. But for the most part, just go with the flow. All that said, the DCS in-game JTAC is fairly limited. If you get the chance to learn about CAS and experience it with a human JTAC/FAC it'll be 500 % more immersive.

Thanks, I've amended my bug report, it really sounds like this was added on purpose and we're just missing a changelog entry (or it would be the strangest kind of bug, accidentally emulating real life behavior in a module that's been feature complete for 10+ years ).

That's a great find! What's the source? In case mentioning the source would conflict with forum rule 1.16, can you DM me?

Awesome, thanks!

Good catch, I don't think anyone pointed that out yet! I only ever crossed that border through the official checkpoints as a child and am certainly not a historian, but it does indeed look like the inner-German border aka the iron curtain. Together with Wags' recent hint at two "green" maps, one of which he specifically said would make the community very happy, I am getting my hopes up for a bit of a Fulda gap map. Then again, maybe some kind of DMZ in one of Afghanistan's green zones?

Achso, und das Timing ist natürlich auch echt gut, weil die Bundeswehr ja gerade ein paar CH-47F gekauft hat und die ersten Piloten jetzt gerade in die Ausbildung gehen - ich weiß von einem der sich wie Bolle freut, dass er das Ding in echt und bald in DCS fliegen darf.

Kreative Missionsdesigner dürften da eine ganze Menge Optionen haben. Einfache Ash&Trash-Einsätze, also das schnöde Versorgen von Außenposten, dann ähnliche Missionen aber während laufender Kampfhandlungen, Medevacs, Infil/Exfil, alles davon auch mal bei Nacht, kombinierte Operationen mit Scouts und Angriffshubschraubern, Fat Cow (mit vorbereiteten FARP-Objekten), Transportieren von Außenlasten, das Aufbauen von Außenposten - all das kann man mit etwas kreativem Umgang mit den vorhandenen Triggern in DCS schon jetzt machen, und mit der Chinook macht das alles ja auch durchaus eine Menge Sinn. Für mich klingt sowas super spannend und wenn es gut gemacht ist finde ich das durchaus interessanter als "einfach" Wegpunkte d, e und f abzufliegen und da alles zu zerstören was sich bewegt. Soweit ich weiß hat ED schon länger gesagt, dass Logistikaspekte in DCS erweitert werden sollen, und wenn man irgendwann Truppen und Fahrzeugen beim Einladen und Ausladen zuschauen kann oder wenn z.B. eine Fat Cow ohne Trigger und ohne vorbereitete FARP-Objekte funktioniert, wäre das natürlich noch cooler. Und dann gibt es für solche Hubschrauber ja auch im Multiplayer fantastische Möglichkeiten. Die Erweiterung von DCS um den spielergesteuerten Logistikaspekt mit CH-47F und später dann auch mit der C-130J finde ich einfach brillant, und ich hoffe, dass z.B. die Mi-8 davon dann auch profitieren wird. Ist ja ganz einfach, wer daran kein Interesse hat verliert nichts, gerade im Multiplayer gewinnen eigentlich alle, und diejenigen wie ich, die das super interessant finden, kriegen in SP und MP nochmal deutlich mehr Optionen. Aus meiner Sicht ist die CH-47F ein ganz klares Win-Win-Szenario für uns alle.

Let's compare that to the existing DCS helicopter modules. In my 2.9.4 Stable, the module-specific installation footprints are (rounded a bit): AH-64D: 1.7 GB Ka-50 II: 1.2 GB Ka-50 III: 0.99 GB Mi-8MTV2: 0.9 GB Mi-24P: 3.5 GB SA-342: 0.6 GB UH-1H: 0.67 GB I'd say it's rather improbable that the Chinook is going to take up 100 times the average helicopter module size all on its own.