rogorogo

notice how the application of a contemporary and NATO-associated paintscheme transforms the airframe into something more contemporary itself in perception (hello recently repainted Iranian tanks with fake add-ons). Suddenly even something as iconic and thus clearly associated as the Hind is perceived different, without or with different prejudice... maintenance related quick gear operations too btw...

hmm.. not that I have any noteworthy opinion but I think you might want to be a little more differentiating and factual there. The "Huey" as pop-culture defines it was there first - and thought to be the one solution for anything. The "slickships" came later, as an actual solution, first field mod, then bandaid, then production run. The "Cobras" came even later as the evolution of the application outpaced the evolution of existing airframes, an original design for the problem. And they all worked together in any combination at all stages, or not, as there was nothing else.. jut like the other two you mentioned (and there was not just those two there either). You also kind of overstress the lift generated by the weapon pylon collection framework. They are wings, they generate lift, the provide an additional characeristic to the flight envelope. But neither is the hind-family a sturmovik nor is it an autogyro-envelope heli beyond walking pace. The tactics were develope based on what needed tactics and defined by the envelope the airframe had after solutions for its mandated requirements had been found. Not the other way round. Not for any other rotocraft, any craft. And as others have pointed out - the third paragraph needs a litte more research. It is all over the place. The Hokums, the havocs, the Apaches, the Tigers (ouchie, fail) exist as an inevitable original design for an everchanging enviroment creating new eras. Also scenarios and theatres. None of which is about "good, bad, better", it is about scenario, theatre, mission - suitablity, flexibility, unforseen or intended for. As a DCS product the Hind will - by likeliness, all outliers and distribution nonwithstanding - attract those that like how an asset with character and quirks translates as a module that has you involved in all aspects of your DCS loop. Just as many other modules are more likely to attract those appealed by clickplaying weapon system management instead of flying, piloting. And btw.. that "too small cargo compartment" has seen a lot of use, standardized, highly specialized, clandestine use. And its airframe also was never intended to be a "true troop transport", or any form of "troop transport". But again.. that is yours to read up on, that simply exceeds what a short exchange in a DCS forum is able to provide for.

well.. I added screenshots originally.. but if you happen to have one... ty in advance... otherwise.... too much effort. It should be clear what the issue, the topical and the behavioural ambiguity is. This is just a bug report about unusual, unclear, arbitrary function behaviour, not a "I need, we need, gib, REEE" anything . Again, you can directly add and comment, without having to create any account or verification at: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1134

can you please add the track and your comment to my bug report: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1134 I think this would help a lot to trace and clarify. Moreso since in my variant I had some events "snap" the tanks to capacity with or without the gauge "snapping" into auto-set (and the intended work state for either is not clear), but this just shows a general issue.. possibly with an EagleD blackbox function. So the more structured and tagged the information is available, the better that is might one day get resolved.

Of course I find it interesting, because it shows the quirkyness and make-do-with-what-is-there of many solution approaches. And even the manual itself on its own is quite interesting. As for the rest: Well... I have to admit, I do not own the F-5 module. Simply because it never had garnered any interest from me. For a multitude of reasons. But when limited to the scope of DCS I always liked the "21er" for it being like the Eastern Block Lightning. You have to actually "fly" it, hands on, fully involved, all the time, even on taxi... Just making it to 5k from Anapa and reaching Sochi with the external tank in supercruise before diving into the mountains with still a full internal load to go has a special feel to it. Not that I ever got to really enjoy it since I bought it many years ago.. I get to fly it once in a while (I also definitely need to replace my DCS rig soon™ - again) - and then a long pause will ensure me to stay insufficient in PC-flying it . Same goes for the 29 (one day maybe in full fidelity, and hopefully from the "A" era, while the "K" could go Kuznetov, it would be out of date, and the 29II would be an entirely different airframe that just looks the same) - it flies, exceptionally, and you have to fly it. With dampeners, not fly-by-wire while nintento-gameboy-SPAMRAMing. Pulling a tailslide, a cobra airbrake, just landing it, seeing the Vortex as a properly simulated event feels involved (even in the PFM but lowfid FC3 airframe) - but flying that one is even more scarse. The many details, the attention to detail makes the entire flight enjoyable, there is no lull.. in fact any lull is a welcome break to take a sip from a cup of tea, or coffee (as if the Migski Traktorski supersoniski of ze people did not wake one up all by itself). Which is why I got the Hind - you have to be proactive, not reactive. Which is why I am afraid if the Ligthning comes out as a proper module - where to find the time, where to find the server suitable to fully experience and enjoy all these aiframes properly, in a fitting scenario, with other people... in proper PvA. Hmm.. despite staying focused... too many proper airframes for proper involvment already for what time there is. lol

well.. thank you again. And that was my SOP thus far, all 3 pump groups and drop the central tank once the light is on, not flickering and has been on for a while (nice manual, what a find). There used to be a tweak too.. as the module can never be a full fidelity simULATOR but I am not sure if that still applies. Basically you shut one of the groups off so the drainage tank would be ensured to get only pumped into from the external one... but again.. I think that does no longer apply. I also leave them on all the time... despite the internal ones being gravity-fed in theory - and lo and behold, just yesterday managed to trigger a flameout in soft-nose-down-pitch-down-stick-forward in supercruise nonetheless... naturally too low to achieve and emergency restart (back to rolling nose over like a Schpitfeuer we shall!) As for the MPside... I was referring to the servers with no external views and the most sim settings available. I only noticed as I was just flying around enjoying the changed vistas (even at my humble settings) and surviving AND having a soft landing thus did not repair first (as is usually the case). Actually... I now have to test if that gauge-bug also manifests when I repair first (as it might help tracing the source)... well.. a normal landing of mine should do (burst tires are a given as I enjoy my supersonic traktors combat landing speed of around mach ,97 )

well yes.. thank you. But carefull... we are mixing a potential bug , player agency and oversight and the general ergonimic dadaist art experience that is the "21er" (and what makes it so great, makes us being cognitively involved with it all the time) here The intended module behaviour thus far was that the RRR (or rather RR, the third R is a different quickcomm groundcrew action) did the "auto set" for the pilot (no application of the knob) as the dropped/jettisoned tank was replaced and all tanks (internal and external) fueled after (fueling sound coming on in the absence of animated external generators or fuel trucks, service crew aso aso). That both actions sometimes happen at the same time, sometimes after each other, sometimes need to be triggered in quickcom one after the other in separate lines at the same place (in the very same server on the same settings version) does not help either (nor that the accidental amiguity in formulation of the original model manual that also 1:1 transferred into the Chuck's guide) - but that is #justDCSthings, ;). And this - thus far - intended module behaviour of RR triggering the auto-set does not work/trigger under the conditions described in the bug report (if it was really saved, otherwise the shorter version in the OP). If said behaviour is good/bad/improvable/accessible to server settings overrides I would not dare judge. To this day I am never really sure if I use the pump switches to drain my "ventral external fuselage droptank" first and if it is reaaaallly empty as far as it should be (by my actions) when the light comes on - so while an interesting threoretical discussion beyond the potential bug for sure... we would need someone more competent than me to participate. Maybe I can finally figure out what do to better.. and maybe even use my pump group switches to have the best CoG in the airframe at all times. But nonetheless - this mix of comfort auto-sets and full-sim fidelity in the native module behaviour can be tricky.. especially as it is not properly described anywhere at source (extensive playerbase knowledge accumulated over time nonwithstanding - but that is not a primary source). P.S. need to copy that in my mantis report though.. for clarity and to avoid ambiguity.. so again.. thank you.. never thought of that angle of potential misunderstanding. P.S. I seldom land with empty external tanks... but not because I am that dilligent. I just seldom get to land anyway - if someone or something does not shoot me down.. a TREE clearly working for the other team usually gets a maneuver-frag on my poor "supersonic traktor of the people"

this was supposed to be an entry in https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/bug_report_page.php - but a constant activity/spam message made this impossible (will keep trying though): build: DCS 2.7.0.5659 Open Beta description: fuel gauge does not react to refueling when central droptank mounted and jettisoned. workaround is using airframe REPAIR, then gauge snaps to correct value steps: - central droptank - fly mission - jettison tank - land - RRR - notice fuel gauge not reacting to REFUEL additional info: DRAG CHUTE legacy bug also still aplies, also gets only replenished via AIRFRAME REPAIR original description was far more extensive and suitable, but was lost because system reporting activity limit and SPAM exemplary screenshots AFTER full REFUEL and AFTER airframe REPAIR update: hah... waddayaknow.. it might actually have been correctly saved on mantishub https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1134

just an earnest question out of interest - or rather a suggestion. I would like to re-read all of these excellent, and source-heavy contributions to be commented on from their OPs purely from the angle of the Mi-24P model (fixed ГШ-2-30К under pilot-cmdr control, SACLOS guidance with pilot cmdr weapon release). Both from real life era knowlegde, what little there is known about the Petrovic AI and its (speculative) jester-like radial control-UI and the implementation potentials and necessities in the few existing correct-era multiplayer locations and for the HIND-airframe multiplayer (crewed by 2 players). The latter of course in purely fictional but era-correct scenarios as the most suitable terrains actually are Caucasus, Syria, Persian Gulf by proliferation and immersion.

DCS 2.7.0.5118 Open Beta same bug, as always, since 2016 List will not only freeze DCS, alt-tabbing will even cause other windows in WinX and WinX to not react. Workaround(s) - as always, since 2016: alt-tabbing until Windows starts reacting limiting server-list to "favorites only" or a specific map or a ping range by default Performance state: cpu in os-idle ram in baseline + DCS client in menu ui state idle ssd in baseline idle ISP connection, no load beyond baseline ethernet local, no load beyond baseline local sys 16gb board + 32-64gb fixed pagefile on ssd gen 1, dcs on ssd gen 1, rx570 8gb, i5-2400, winx, all updates, all drivers upated latest whql

^^ as with fe the "Supercarrier module" - there simply is not yet a licence there to "transfer", just a pre-order transaction. Once the module actually gets released, there will - hopfefully, do not jinx it - a licence for transfer show up once you click the button in the DCS account. And fear not, you are not the only one in this situation - and as so often it was forgotten to proactively mention that anywhere once the Steam-preorder was launched.

As others have already stated, dear OP, please use the correct wording. You - and surely many others, me among them - express desire for a rendered "Pilot Avatar", be it in VR or headtracking on Monitor. If - and that is a very big "if" due to it being not easily understood by most and ressource-intensive in coding - possible a Pilot Avatar that supports postional offsets, has animation resolvers imlemented that sync witht he VR or headtracking pitch/yaw/roll/x,y,z coordinates (at least to some extent as general fidelic boundaries would be a global ED topic)