LegionCW

That's why we're bringing 4 of em, chucklefucks . And precisely to knock out the softer targets that can still threaten us outside or near 30mm range, yet would not want to waste an ATGM on.

You beauty! Thanks for the link. This is exactly what I was looking for: the 60-2.

Not pics, but in a Mi-24V manual it describes the pylons, including an APU-60-1 and APU-60-2. Not that I remember if it came before or after the 24P. Now to see if I can find that seedy mid-2000s Russian forum again. It's like the Mi-8 missing R-60s and ATGMs kettle of fish which was in a Mi-8MT manual, though again, no idea if the nuances between that variant and the MTV2 mean it wouldn't be able to, or the MTV5, MTV2RN.

Looking forward to seeing the APU-60-2 pylons in the future on the inner pylons and the ground target tracking for IR missiles. A whole 12 missile goodness! Definitely see myself rocking the 4 R-60s on dual rack inners rather than rocket pods until their splash damage gets a bit of a buff.

Will files from 2.7 onwards help now? Or is it going to continue needing a fresh download every minor patch?

Personally I find it a major issue in the Huey because originally, I could pilot and use the turreted miniguns from the left seat at the same time, and use VR to use my head to aim the guns. Now, I can't switch into that seat, which means the front miniguns are effectively fixed. Can't say I was ever bothered about getting multicrew but this just pisses me off.

For me, some people are saying the damage of the harpoon got buffed in 2.7 but with the luas locked I can't simply see if they upped the effective warhead size. Shame they haven't even modeled damage over time and % chance to make a ship catch fire to compensate with the mediocre ship damage model. If you have the time and have experience with harpoons pre-2.7, I would find it useful if you did a damage comparison with before and after, and see if popup is doing any more damage than skim, or if the popup makes it more or less vulnerable to CWIS/missile defence.

Didn't know the difference. Regardless, I can tell you right now I must've been doing hard links as I always used /J. So...issue still stands. I just finished reinstalling it, got the popup message (again) saying the (original small capacity where DCS is) hard drive is full. Didn't click anything, copied the symlinked Syria files from _download to the Syria mklink terrain folder and boom, working. Would be nice to know why It didn't detect the already downloaded files sitting in _download from the previous time, or why it keeps thinking there isn't space, when there is (wondering if it's being dumb and simply reading how much space is on the original drive, and not how much space is on the roomy (albeit only SSHD) hard drive). Additionally, can't say I know the repercussions of having terrains and modules installed on a different drive in terms of performance. Would be nice to get a response from someone more code savvy why this happens.

Currently trying the above un/reinstall method a go, but it's annoying it hasn't detected any of the files I downloaded previously, so it's downloading all 55Gb again...

Only 2 mods - the A-4 and the high digit SAMs, neither of which should be causing issues as the servers that run them are populated. I have a sneaking suspicion it may have something to do with the way I installed Syria. Tl;dr: SSD very full. Had to Symbolic link the downloads and Syria folder on another drive. Now, Symlinking other terrains such as Normandy and Nevada has never been an issue (as you can see from it showing missions in the singleplayer for them), because I could download em on the same drive because of their small size, then move/symlink the terrains and it's all good. Syria on the other hand was too big to download, ergo I symlinked the download folder to the separate drive with the other 2 terrains, which downloaded it fine, but then a popup comes up that there's not enough space on the original hard drive. At this point I have Syria in full on the symlinked downloads, but not in the symlinked Syria folder I made. So I just copy the contents of Syria from _downloads to the Syria terrain folder and hey presto, that worked. Do you think I just "uninstall" Syria using the module manager, and with a copy of the Syria files already in the downloads folder, re-download it and hope it detects files already there and fixes it?

I assume it has something to do with this? Scripting: plugin: SKIPPED 'Syria': not authorized dcs.log

Ran the slow repair with the latest update and repair tool, still no Syria showing in MP or SP. Attached screenshots of errors but showing Syria installed and purchased. Odd because I managed to play Syria successfully in MP on several servers before 2.7.

Will the repair simply repair vanilla files, or will it also delete any non-vanilla files (such as mods or user skins?).

Says active and installed. And yes, I see 55Gb roughly in the syria folder in the terrain folder.

I downloaded the latest update for 2.7, and even though I have Syria showing in my module manager and installed (was working in multiplayer in the previous patch), Syria is now "required" in red in multiplayer servers for me. No idea why. I took a look at the autoupdate.cfg and it isn't there. { "WARNING": "DO NOT EDIT this file. You may break your install!", "branch": "openbeta", "version": "2.7.0.5118", "timestamp": "20210422-092927", "arch": "x86_64", "lang": "EN", "modules": [ "WORLD", "FA-18C", "KA-50", "RAZBAM_AV8BNA", "RAZBAM_M-2000C", "FC3", "HEATBLUR_F-14", "CA", "SU-33", "SUPERCARRIER", "A-10C_2", "PERSIANGULF_terrain", "NEVADA_terrain", "NORMANDY_terrain", "RAZBAM_MIG19P", "MIG-21BIS" ], "launch": "bin/DCS.exe" } can I just edit SYRIA_terrain into the list?

I meant search and destroy. And in POP why not just make the tanks that spawn at the airfields T-80s? That doesn't involve CTLD so shouldn't be an issue.

We know. We're complaining bluefor gets a 90s Abrams when we can't use the T-80.

The point is to not suffer missions susceptible to cheesing, by clipping tanks (or god forbid MANPADs) into buildings that contest the objective regardless of how outnumbered they are. You want mobile units in some missions? Fine. But please make the objectives in relatively open areas then, such as the open lakes on this same mission. Change the north red town and southern blue town objectives to something like capture X crossroads in the open.

True but you forget an important thing. This is a game. And unfortunately, it considers an airfield to be contested by a single igla dude, whereas irl I can probably guess that guy would be surrendering. In reality, that airfield would be controlled by the guy with the most things on it. Most of your missions already are like WTMC, revolving around static targets, yet none of them feel like WTMC. Open range has the farps, siege units, water towers, Desert has eyes has static EWR locations and defences, Sukhumi unleashed does involve fighting over that airfield, but have you seen sukhumi compared to Dubai? It's completely barren of almost any obscuring terrain. There's also the mountain antennas and fuel depot one, and probably other missions I'm forgetting. There aren't issues on search and destroy when it comes to the lakes with no concealment, but problems arise attacking the last town where blue can print defences indefinitely and hold it ad infinitum.

I know about the JTAC strat, I'm talking about line of sight to the target itself. Quick example attached. Bear in mind the T-72 gets one shot by an Abrams yet the Abrams one shots in return frontally, it's not hard to park an Abrams in a spot with high walls and only the front exposed. And I wouldn't say every mission suddenly becomes When the mountains cry, as you can imagine putting some big static targets near the airfields on Prince of persia would naturally encourage teams to capture nearby airfields, facilitating rearming for the ground attackers. After all, I find Open range decent fun (kinda boring fighting over a flat area of terrain though), and that involves killing specific static targets, yet doesn't feel at all like WTMC, and in that mission, you'll find people organically reinforce the FARP and objectives with defences, even though it isn't a mission objective. Visualise if you will, if in OR, the targets were in the same areas as they currently are, but could be moved around by commanders. I guarantee you it'd grind to a stalemate as the commanders would park their vehicles in the nearest town, the densest forest, or even try to partially submerge them and only expose a square inch to prevent drowning, yet that's the only valid part of the hitbox. Again, not very fun for the ground attackers if you combine unpredictable locations due to the several square kilometers a target may potentially be in + dense terrain. Just today, one of the GCIs told me a trick on how to make ground targets phase through walls.

@Alpenwolf Gotta say I thoroughly enjoy 'When the Mountains Cry' for the ground attackers as the targets are reasonably large, in a slight clearing and assuming you can use the map to figure out which lake you're attacking, you don't friendly fire your ground units. On other ones such as Prince of persia (where the objective is basically kill the enemy mobile ground forces in highly urban environments, if the commander hides all the ground units near the AF behind walls, inside buildings and under roofs, it becomes practically impossible to dislodge enemies. Kinda renders the ground attackers useless. I've always found mission-targets that are static to be the most balanced, as a team without a commander that captures things leaves almost all their ground units in the open. Similarly, a helicopter can just drop a single igla dude, control him and walk indoors/similar hide and seek rubbish that contests the airfield.

I thought Zachrix and the word 'casual' were mutually exclusive?

Not sure, I've seen the single inner mounts plenty, but also seen double racks (horizontal double racks on the outermost pylons, and MiG-21 style double racks on the middle pylons).

@MarkMD Only just occurred to me that I probably should have been lead, seeing as I have the FLIR camera and am the dedicated scout heli. And as we can't take mixed loads, I could only glare at the strela that got you. Shame you didn't stick around long enough to GCI me to their fighters, as unlike most people, I'm averse to foxing without GCI confirmation. According to Kirk (red GCI), we were never spotted so at least we know we did a good job. He says only I was spotted, and only when I popped up adjacent to their Sukhumi runway killing their L39. Looking forward to the next one.

@OverStratos Any idea why the link no longer works and the cockpits in the DCS user files mod section you uploaded are no longer there either?