159_Archer

I am a mud-mover in the 159th, and don't have a great deal of A2A experience relatively. I did notice that Rule 1 of both A2G and A2A is learning to stay alive. I tried to fathom how to kill the enemy straight off in my learning days, but that will only prove useful once you learn how to dodge what they send back at you. Once you get to grips with that, you'll be much better able to get somewhere with being offensive, I think. Decoys and manoeuvring are amongst the first lessons and also perhaps, where to position yourself (if you have any choice!).

Haven't read much here re the operating of the Hind in hotter temperatures, I have been dabbling with it to see what effects they have. Generally, they seem sort of as you would expect, although I am finding that the tail-rotor authority seems very much affected -and trying to hover in a loaded Hind -even when you manage to stabilize your height, ends very quickly in the helo spinning leftwards uncrontrollably. I tried to find info on these things and not found what I was after as yet. Obviously the main rotor won't lift as well and engines not produce as much power in H&H condtions -would the tail-rotor struggle so much that it lost the ability to control directional stability?

Yes, the poise of the Hind and load on the gear isn't right; I have books with pictures of the Hind and (it is a heavy helo) the gear and tyres look loaded even when it isn't fully loaded ready for flight. Your above pics and my external views show a helo that's on the point of getting airborne with no weight on the gear. I think the 'grip' effect on the wheels (more so at rear) isn't quite modelled right yet, it feels too skittish to me. Still, not biggies but be better if they can be addressed at some point. Great job ED on it so far BTW!

As someone who loves the helos (and fast-movers), I would welcome anything that improves the CA aspect very much -although as a mission-builder, I'd hope that we would not be limited by anything such as limited distribution and low use by the MP community. Considering the detail in-game, I'd hope for better ground-crew and equipment than those which exist currently -something along the lines of the SC mod would be brilliant! Oh, and my pref is for cold-war rather than post, being a fan of the older gen of jets etc. Looking on in hope something will happen! Regards, 159th_Archer.

Since the last OB update, the 2 of us in our Squad who fly the Mi-8 have noticed that the door-gunner movement is no longer working -you can fire the gun but it will not move. I have checked the Hip controls and in-game mouse is OK etc, and it's only the Kord gunner that is affected. If a track is required, I can provide it, although I don't think you'd learn from that?

Guys, our Squadron has some experience with the Viggen -and one of our pilots loves the aircraft. I have some experience with it, and would be happy to fly it a lot more to get the best from it if others are around to fly it. Our squadron is the long-established 159th Guards aviation regiment, and if anyone would like to just pop along and see if they would like to fly the Viggen (or any other type come to that) then get in touch. There would be no immediate need to join until we're all sure it works for us -we're happy to have people try out with us before any commitments to join are made. http://159thgar.com/forums2017/index.php

I agree -I installed it on our squad-dedi which is a Hetzner cloud one, although I haven't got it working as I cannot find the correct web-port to get it working. This is odd as none of the recommended ones worked, even though the usual 10308 with our regular old install did. Anyone who has these issues should look at the DCS dedi server also.

Yes it's a client install with no-render. We haven't ventured down the DCS dedi server route -till now; I just DL it to our server and hope to forthwith run with that which should sort the issue. Thanks for reminding me it was there. Once I figure out how to sort the web port that is... -it isn't co-operating ATM. Think it's something to do with the Hetzner hosting.

Hi mate, yes we run our 'squad' copy of a standard install which we have done for many years. Is this the likely problem? Funny that ED can't answer that -been asking this for a while now.

Hi Guys, I also build missions (for the 159th GAR) and have SC but also get this (See; https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276261). Not had an answer despite ED claiming in a post that the host should not require SC, just the players. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4279575&postcount=3 Very frustrating indeed, as the 159th have a dedi-server that isn't currently functioning properly with newer missions due to this issue. Especially frustrating in that it costs us to run this server, but we're not getting -as yet- any help here as to why this should be. The missions I build work fine when I host, just not on the dedi which doesn't have SC. If we need to get SC to install on our dedi, then at least we can move on.

Thanks for the reply Ice. How is though that ED says it isn't required as per the linked post below? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...75&postcount=3 It would be a great help if someone on ED's team could kindly provide confirmation one way or the other.

I believe our dedi is a cloud type server hosted by Hetzner (I'm no PC dude and so my knowledge of such things is not good...) and it doesn't as such render, just host. Is this an issue? I don't understand how SC should be any different to all the other mods and modules that the sim runs -I cannot find anything useful here or anywhere to inform us why that should be the case. Anyone know anything?! Thanks.

Apex, this might not be useful to you, but our squad -159thGAR- is a Ruusian themed one and has a long history of operating the Flanker, although TBH we have since all the new shiny western stuff released by ED been flying them far less. I used to love flying the MiG-29, although my usual 'job' in DCS is ground-pounding. You are welcome to fly with us (as a non-member) if you want to see if we can help you. I would certainly 'get back into' a '33 or '29 or both and try to help you. If interested, either visit our forums (link on my sig) or PM me. Regards, Archer

It's a full install on a Hetzner server, although as stated it doesn't have the SC module installed. Thanks for the reply.:)

Can anyone from ED please confirm that we should be OK operating our dedicated server without the SC module. I'm an experienced enough mission-builder, and can see no obvious reason why the above problem should exist. We have our dedi (159thGAR) currently hosting a mission (Ambrolauri blizzard) with client AC placed to 'ramp-start' on the new CVN included and this works fine on my home PC -soon as I send the very same mission to our dedi, it turns these same AC to 'air-start'.

Yes, they do -I am one of these. I make the mission, test it on my home PC both in SP and MP and everything is fine. I then whoosh it over to our dedi -based in Germany through Hetzner- and when the mission is hosted there anyone that has tried to pick either of the afforementioned US AC get an airstart, not ramp on the new carriers.

Not seen this anywhere else yet, but the 159th GAR have a dedi-server which doesn't have the SC module installed, and when we try to host missions with the new carriers with client F/A-18 and F-14 aicraft, it doesn't allow ramp start -we just get air-start. I build the mission and it tests fine including in MP -as soon as the (updated) dedi runs it, we lose the ramp-starts. The link below from Wags seems to confirm that hosts will not require the SC mod to run missions though. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4279575&postcount=3

Anybody interested in flying with a squad and who doesn't want to commit themselves in any way, are welcome to fly with the 159thGAR. We're a long-standing squad who used to be Russian-themed, although these days that doesn't hold what with all these fangled western machines with all their screens and complexities Our numbers have suffered of late and especially in this Covid time, for varied reasons, so we're happy to have people join in with no commitments to us. We fly on Sundays at 20:00 UK time -although ad-hoc flights are available -although at exhorbitant cost. (Not true, actually!). Any queries, please visit ou forums (link on my sig) or PM the boss -that's me, unfortunately! Regards, 159thArcher.

I am seeing something strange also when trying to ammend existing missions. I swap-out the old US carrier Stennis and find that -what-ever I do- I cannot get client AC to start on deck any more. I did get a brief single player success when I swapped the Abe Lincoln to the Roosevelt and it worked in SP, -but not MP. I then built a brand new mission to test out a lone SC in with client AC, and this did seem to work although only tried it once. I will do this all again and get a track to post-up if this is still the case.

Similar to this, has anyone had issues with either model of the AK with AI aircraft operating to take-off or land on them? Had this pointed out to me by a fellow 159thGAR member and did a quick test with one each of Su-33 to take-off and 1 to land with only the one doing TO from 2017 AK doing so with-out drama or failure.

I had this also but added DCS to my exceptions list, and it cured it straight off. Works fine now.

Thanks for the HU Grajo -I'll get the troops out ASAP!:pilotfly:

Stratos, sorry, but I can't help with the skins, but just a head's-up for the 'Royal-Army' thing. I know it's a bit confusing on the face of it, but although in the UK we do have a Royal-Navy and Royal Air Force, we don't actually have a Royal Army. It is actually called the British Army. Why? Well basically you have to go back nearly 400 years to the English civil war, when the 'Royal' Army representing our then King, was defeated by an army called the Parliamentarians -(lead by Oliver Cromwell later on) and the King was eventually defeated, and it is the descendants of this army that we have now -not the Royal one! Thus, no Royal Army in the UK! Hope this helps for future ref.:)

Might be worth me just mentioning that I ammended my 'test' mission with a small group of vehicles which 2 were BTR and a BMP. TBH I admit I didn't ever check in the AAR to find which vehicles had actually hit me -having just heard repeated bangs. I do know I was hit by a TOW from the BMP which did have fatal results in a subsequent running of the test, although I was able to land after that. The troop engagements were purely troops only. I will run this test again shortly, and actually study the file after to 'count the hits'... I will also make a track-file and watch it to see what/who fired and when. I can post it here if anyone is interested?

Hi Alpenwolf -I cannot say my testing was done scientifically, but I have flown the Hip ever since it was introduced, and as such I am well aquainted with how easy it was to shoot down since then. Be sure though I only fly using (and have installed only) the openbeta and it is only since the last updates, that I became aware of the change. I have deliberately flown into danger with the Hip against lighter threats -Infantry, BTR and BMP- and having taken many hits as such, am basing my opinion on these flights only. The difference is quite clear in the flights since the last updates, whereas before the Mi-8 was still very vulnerable. I might be wrong, but I don't think so, and cannot see why my experiences would be so 'obvious' if it weren't for the fact that they have changed something. BTW I do wish someone in the team would confirm or deny this...:doh::)