Grievo

Would love a Wessex. I agree the HU.5 is probably the best choice though.

Hey DishDoggie. I've not tried the new Huey yet, and I've not flown a real one, but have flown Bell 47's, 206's etc. Forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but when transitioning from the hover to forward flight, there is a distinct phase of the transition called "flapback" which could be the ballooning you describe. This is a real thing and will happen in any machine to my knowledge, and it requires a very positive forward push on the cyclic. It's caused by the change of airflow through the disc as you start moving forward. Also, during the transition, particularly at heavy weights, or on uneven surfaces, you can sort of "fall off" the cushion that is the ground effect, usually though you're either into or just about to hit translational lift, and that reduces the power required and you can climb away. I hope that sheds some light anyway.

I appreciate the detailed posts gents, thank you. I don’t doubt the enormity of the task of introducing it into the sim. But I do feel there’s a place for it. But if there was to be an announcement of a Sonalysts naval assets/environment pack I’d be a guaranteed pre-order! Dangerous Waters was in fact the thought in my mind when I posted this, and the fun I had chasing subs in that game. I agree about the problems facing modern ASW platforms, but I think modelling older systems such as Viking, Orion and Seaking (I’d like Wessex but I’m odd!) etc may be possible, and may simplify the introduction of mechanisms into the game by being more limited than more Modern platforms. I think definitely the detection modelling would be the most difficult part. I’m no programmer but I’m not sure how difficult modelling things like torpedoes or depth charges would be compared to missiles or bombs. Just because graphically it’s underwater doesn’t mean it is computationally, if that’s a word! The game just knows object a is travelling through space at x speed, and has y range and z limitations etc.

I know, I know, Awfully Slow Warfare and all that. I think this could be an interesting and unique addition to DCS. It would open up a variety of new aircraft such as Viking, Orion, Seaking etc to the simulation, and a new angle on crewing etc. I also think that a multiplayer sub hunt would actually be quite challenging and dynamic. Just a thought, be interested to know what you all think.

+1 menu system is quite good, but like many others I use voice attack and fly in VR. This generally works okay, after a lot of trial and error, but it would be far more intuitive to have discreet commands mappable. This would also overcome some of the limitations with VA. As instead of two or three button presses for a command it would only be one. Incidentally, this is also the case for the communications menu, wingman commands etc.

The obvious next question is... Will they do a cyclic grip?

Seconded. This would be a marvellous addition for the Mozzie, or any other multi-crew ww2 aircraft in the future.

Nevermind. for those interested.

Out of curiosity, anyone who's knowledgeable about this subject. I'd be interested to know how similar or different the two aircraft are, in terms of weapons, systems and avionics. Thanks in advance.

I can second this. Excellent read. “RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands” by Jerry Pook is also excellent. From the perspective of No. 1(F) SQN RAF flying GR3’s. But if you’re a true aeronautical connoisseur and know that rotary aviation is the pinnacle of human development, I can recommend Scram! By Harry Benson, who flew Wessex HU.5’s, but the book is a collection of stories from various junglie (troop support/utility) helicopter pilots. And also Down South, diary of Chris Parry, who was the observer on the Wessex HAS.3 (ASW variant) who took part in the rescue of the SAS on Fortuna glacier on South Georgia, and the crippling of the Argentinian submarine Santa Fe. And finally Special Forces Pilot, by Richard Hutchins, who flew Sea Kings in troop support. And the squadron he was part of pioneered the use of NVGs, figuring it out on the way down to the Falklands, and he personally also took part in the ill fated SAS mission to mainland South America. Happy reading!

Would love 47, 53, Sea King (Westland version though. ) or Merlin. I Also wouldn't mind a Wessex. But I'm a bit odd like that. Ch-47 I think would be the best choice. Ubiquitous, used for a long time, and in a lot of militaries around the world. Ch-53 would be cool. Would go well with the Tarawa and AV-8B module. Also gives opportunity of things like helicopter AAR, which might be novel. Pave Low would give some great missions I bet. And lets be honest, they just look right. Westland Sea King. South Atlantic. 'nuff said. But since you ask... long service history, in service with quite a few nations around the Anglosphere and Europe. Been very busy with the British, from the Falklands to Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan. Plus all the other smaller stuff in between. Naval pedigree great for Maps such as Marianas, Scenarios operating out of Eastern Med in Syria Map, and of course the South Atlantic map. Also as RAF and RN, Belgian, Norwegian etc. SAR machines. Merlin's are cool and pretty and would be lovely, but might be a bit new to get the information on.

Yeah I have "Petro" to bring up the reticle, then it's just "look there" "first target" "fire" It's actually pretty immersive and works well with the pace of things. Once I'm finished with the reticle I just have a joystick press to get rid of the Petrovich reticle. I'd love it if it was just a dot or something, but I'm not one to nitpick when I get to fly a Hind in VR From what I've seen, I think George will be even better. Obviously the Apache is going to be an issue socially. I doubt I'll be seen by friends, neighbours or family members for a while!

I use Voice Attack fairly effectively for Petrovich in the Hind. The only sort of clunky bit is the "look there" command to search a spot. great if something is there, but if there's nothing and you have to say it ten times, it's a bit of an immersion breaker. But I just bound a few different voice commands to the same action "Twelve o'clock" "eleven o'clock" etc. It's not perfect but it retains most of the immersion, and I think this will improve with time and fine tuning of the AI copilot.

Out of that lot I'd say either a Cobra F or W, or Ch-47. I'd love the little bird, but the infantry fidelity needs to go way, way up before it can really be done justice. But it would be amazing once we get there. To be honest though, I'd much rather see a Lynx, Whirlwind (H-19/S-55 or turbine powered British models), Wessex (British Turbines or H-34/S-58), Westland Sea King, Alouette II, Puma, Scout/Wasp etc, or failing that, some of the Soviet stuff. All of those airframes had plenty of users all over the world. Bell-47 or H-13 would be amazing. A new era for helicopters in DCS, an airframe that was used all over the world. I'd also like to see a facelift of the Huey, and possibly the inclusion of the B/C/E style airframe, which I think would be reasonably easy considering the flight dynamics wouldn't change too much, but we'd have the proper US style gunships, and the correct model for many UH-1 users that never ended up buying the H model, and many early users who got them before eventually buying the H model. Of course Twin-hueys, particularly the UH-1N or bell 212 or 412 model would be very welcome, but would be whole new module. Still though... beats a UH-72 in my book

Check out Chucks guide. Chuck’s Guides – DCS Mi-24P Hind | Mudspike He has a section on recommended bindings.

It certainly did. But I still think of DCS in the old LOMAC days where it was more of an air to air sim. As a rotorhead and old artilleryman myself, there's nothing I'd like to see more than improvements to artillery functionlity in the game, and things like the ability to call for and adjust fire would really make the game for me.

+1 With DCS increasingly being a CAS centric simulator (Blackshark, A-10, Hind, Apache, not to mention the other CAS capable other modules) Things like different artillery round types more smoke/illum/HE Point detonate or airburst for me, would make for much more engaging scenario building.

+1 I'll buy the UN and Communist asset packs separately, just to sow the seeds of discontent.

Right. Well since you're determined to be wrong. I will wish you a good night. Have fun on your oppressed, faux-segregated server.

And I disagree with the basis of your argument. That it's a downward spiral for DCS. In fact I think very much the opposite. That the sales of the asset pack will drop off precipitously if the units in it can be used without paying for them, even if the model is replaced by something else. As I said above to @Northstar98, if you have an 88 or a searchlight in a mission, it has to function as an 88 or a searchlight. So if someone then comes onto the server flying a lovely new mosquito, and gets lit up by a highly illuminated cow, or shapeless blob, he's unlikely to see the model, but will benefit from the function of the unit in the game. He shouldn't. He should get his bloody mitts in his pocket and shell up, like the rest of us did. Steam!?? You sell-out!!!

Because Supercarrier is an experience from inside the cockpit as well as external eye candy. It is also unique in that it's a paid asset that replaced a freeware model in the game. Well then don't place the hay bale my dear chap. Again, I don't think it is a problem. My heart doesn't bleed for people who can't play multiplayer DCS on servers that have things they haven't bought. Call me callous, but I think there is far more to worry about in the world. However, as I said. Under your proposed solution, where the item is replaced by a blob or placeholder model, the item can still be used. The functionality of the unit would have to be in the game, because it's an 88mm gun, or a Searchlight, and it has to behave as such for the people who have bought it. So whether it's modelled as a blob, a naked lady, Georgian infantry or a T-72, that paid asset is being USED by someone who hasn't paid for it.

I don't care that there's two teams. That is your concern. You're asking me to justify not having a solution to something that I don't think is a problem. You may as well ask me my drainage solution for the Sahara. I do not care.

Because, many people don't spend their time in external views, gawping at the assets. The asset is being used, even with a blob or placeholder model. When I'm flying a ww2 mission say, I'm not put out at all by a placeholder flak gun shooting at me. I don't see the unit as such, just the effect, I'm still 'Using' the asset I haven't paid for. As I've said. I see your point. I just don't agree with it. For me, I wish there were more asset packs to buy and have more people being paid to build and place new assets into the game. I couldn't really care an inch if that means somebody can't join a multiplayer server and have a 1930's Japanese AA gun firing at his F-16 over the Caucasus. Let him weep.

+1

I have. You believe that having an asset pack as a separate "module" splits the community, and that this is a problem. I disagree. Comments such as this, dripping with condescension and arrogance, are probably why the only people who agree with you now, are the ones who agreed with you before they read any of your comments. I'm not interested in changing your mind. I don't know you, your esteem and opinion have less value to me than an asset pack. ED seems to agree with what I'm saying. Rail against asset packs all you like. Best of luck.