Ashilta

By 'the same bug' I think Pikey means that the crash log is identical. He and I, with the help of another in our group, were able to repeatedly reproduce this by passing FL200 doing about Mach .85 with 15 degrees nose up. We tried changing the FBW settings, payload etc to no avail. The only thing that I think was consistent for us was the RWR and perhaps D2M being on. On each reproduction, the error mentioned earlier was identical.

Huzzah! Any chance you can tinker the size of the pickup zone?

Hi Steve, There's no real way around this, you just have to find the capabilities of your aircraft and stick to them by practising time and time again. There are several videos on YouTube of competent pilots dogfighting, but there's no substitute for you being in the aircraft. There's a lot of science to dogfighting, but you've hit the nail on the head - pull back too hard on the stick and you lose speed. If you have fuel tanks loaded then you ought to jettison these at the earliest opportunity to reduce the drag on your aircraft, which will in turn help you make the most of your power output. Try to out-think your enemy rather than out-turn them, especially where 29's are concerned! You might want to consider starting with 1v1, then 1v2 and slowly crank up - 1v4 is an adventure even for experienced pilots. Good luck.

I think as well that the hover 'box' for an acceptable pickup needs to be larger. I have never load lifted myself, but my instructor has several videos of him doing it and he can be in a surprisingly wide variety of places for the hook to be loaded. I've only tried to pick cargo up once in a Huey (and without pedals, it was quite a challenge) and found you had to be in exactly the right place.

Confirming this. Another of our group had an identical crash, but up at 27,000 feet - full re-heat, 15 degrees nose up and around Mach .85. Identical crash logs.

Sometimes, you'll see something your dog wants and you'll call them off before they go to it - that's the helicopter mentality. You alluded to it about using torque reaction to steer - I don't bother with pedal inputs now when I'm putting the heli down outside the hanger IRL. Predict what it's going to do rather than react; know, absolutely, the effect that each control input has on the airframe and start to automate your reactions. Helicopter collectives really are that sensitive! It's interesting to compare the behaviour of this to my RL experiences - some things are a bit removed (I've never experienced the seemingly continual sway of the Huey, but then I've never flown a Huey) whereas some things are modelled absolutely spot on, for example the loss of translational lift - really well modelled. I had expected an easier transition into the DCS Huey then I've had!

1 like = 1 prayer (for better netcode)

No, I didn't. It isn't correctly modelled yet, and so they need to finish modelling it. They've told you how they intend it to work, they need to make it do that and it's not correctly modelled yet, ergo what needs modelling is very much self explanatory.

Are you literally incapable of reading? Teeter wrote: Just so you guys know, that clickable canopy functionality is WIP, and isn't correctly modeled yet...but we wanted to give you what we have for now. Here's how it works:

Yes XCom!

It seems to me that RAZBAM has more or less decided that both will be developed eventually, which is fantastic news. I look forward to there being more varied options for ground attack. I do wonder, however, if RAZBAM would consider making the EMB-312 Tucano a considerably cheaper or even freeware module, introducing an affordable mutli-seat training option for the multiplayer environment, whilst also providing the Super Tucano has a full priced module displaying a greater capacity and more in-depth systems. Whilst I appreciate that this sounds like giving products away or operating at a loss, I'm firmly of the belief, having flown the Mirage, that RAZBAM's quality would be demonstrated in the EMB-312 and actually improve sales for the Super...

I'm pleased I'm not the only one with any real helicopter experience (although I'm nowhere near 1100 hours, let alone 1100 hours in a given airframe!) questioning the relative ease with which DCS whirlywopters enter Vortex Ring State!

Greg, I still think there's a problem concerning the time in which things on the airfield repair. We had a situation yesterday where two A10s working very well together were able to clear a FARP in 12 minutes. Unfortunately, our helicopter pilot had managed to flatten his battery and as a result, we couldn't get there within the three minutes required to capture the FARP. Even in the best of circumstances, with a helicopter standing by with rotors turning, ready to move, three minutes is incredibly optimistic. I truly feel that the unit respawn timer needs to be reconsidered. Perhaps, in the interests of balance, the respawn timer could be longer for FARPs than for airfields to 'simulate' units moving to the FARP to support it?

I love that the three of you were working well together, but this is a side vs side event. ALL of the side need to work together to achieve objectives. If that means you need more assets to clear and secure a FARP or Airfield in less than fifteen minutes, then you need more assets.

The download link appears to be broken...

Dart, Purely from a curiosity point of view, what's this all written in? C++? Massive thanks for what you're doing for the community. Can't wait for IFF and datalinks; any suggestions yet on what you hope the Datalinks will do? Ashilta

Not sure if this has been fixed already, but when I was playing yesterday, I noticed that I could see every object at every airfield in the server, including redfor controlled airfields!

There's a sub-forum that only BLUFOR pilots can access over on the BuddySpike forums. We can, and used to, discuss things in there.

Morning! So yes, some very intense flying yesterday which I thoroughly enjoyed, until the rubber banding started! I've never seen a Huey dodge a rear-aspect Aim-9 before, and then I saw one helicopter do it twice! He was dealt with by the power of cannons eventually - such fun. I did spot a bug yesterday and took a picture, however now that I'm at work I can't get to the picture... Whilst taxying out at Beslan, I noticed one of the pillbox bunkers. It was on top of another pillbox bunker. It was quite comical, but I'm also quite sure that it would complicate destroying them to close the airfield. Whilst I'm not sure, it's possible that this same bug prevented us from closing Nalchik later that evening. A

I predict there will be many more!

When it's modelled correctly, yes! But it's not, and consequently if Greg had opted to place the Mirage on Blue and make the MiG a Red exclusive, there'd have been a monumental imbalance in favour of red.

My £0.02: Considering just the airframes themselves, and not the associated support network of AWACS, AFAC, other CAP assets etc., the Mirage is simply not an equal beast to the MiG-21. The 21, in the right hands, is an absolutely lethal interceptor with a real hit and run capacity. It can quite independently discern friend from foe, engage and disappear without much of a detection window. The Mirage, on the other hand, can cruise about quite happily and is a nimble beast, but detection capabilities? Nerfed through phantom radar returns. Safety of engagement? Hampered by a lack of IFF. Even if they do get into an engagement; escaping reliably? Big old IR signature at the back and an unreliable countermeasure dispenser. Guys, I'm not knocking the Mirage, it's a beta and I love it. But comparing it to a MiG-21 is like comparing a Eurofighter Typoon and a Sopwith Camel at the moment. Greg will find a happy balance regarding the Mirage, but the one thing I've always loved about BlueFlue is that RU vs NATO style philosophy.

Thanks, Sith, this is promising.

Smiley, This is great news, but forgive me for saying that I'm not convinced this is the highest priority. Surely better functioning combat systems would be preferable; fixes to RWR, radar performance, ground attack and the countermeasures systems... Surely...

Now that the ED team are back from holiday, I wonder if Wags or similar would be in a position to comment? I'm not asking for "when will module X be released," I'm asking for "can ED confirm the order in which they plan to release modules" or something of that ilk.