Charly_Owl

Fellow canuck here. I'd just love to see the whole London-to-Berlin area modelled... but let's be real for a second. If we want this area size to the level of detail we want... it'll take years before we can get our hands on it. From a business standpoint, the area ED is doing at the moment makes sense and leaves enough room for interesting gameplay.

The Spitfire is much harder to takeoff and land properly (you'll hear the "rudder dance" being mentioned often here). I've flown the Spitfire in DCS many, many hours. It's one of my go-to planes whenever I feel like flying. The P-51 and the Spitfire are two of my favourite modules. If you want to know more about what you're buying with the Spit, I recommend you check these out: This way -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

This way -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

When I wrote my guides for the Mirage and Gazelle, the information that I could find was super restricted and kind of vague... there is no way you'll find a NATOPS manual for any french aircraft/helicopter. You don't realize how secretive the french government is about its classified/restricted data until you've tried finding a specific information about a specific system. There is a huge difference between what's available for US-built aircraft on the internet and what's available for french-built aircraft. Also, from all the hours I have on the DCS Gazelle, the comment about the SAS is completely true. I heard lots of people complain about the "scripted" behaviour of the flight model, but when I ask them "well, try to perform a turn at this specific bank angle and maintain it", then they realize that the SAS is actually "fighting" them. The system is invasive and I immediately see a difference when flying the Huey, which doesn't have this system: you feel you have so much more control over your helicopter. There is often confusion between a "script" a la SFM and an actual system doing its job. That's true not only in the Gazelle, but in other helicopters as well. I know what you mean about mountain flights. I haven't seen it modelled in DCS, and I had the chance to talk to a couple of helicopter pilots who told me stories about their flights in mountaineous areas. The wind drafts suck you down really easily if you fly too close to the mountainsides. There are various phenomenon that pilots are trained for, and it is a very different way of flying. While it can be argued that DCS isn't really aimed at training real life pilots, I think it's unfair to say that it has zero training value. You CAN do the procedures by-the-book if you want to train this way. Lots of folks in the 229th Virtual Air Cav train as per the -10 manual of the Huey, meaning that they plan their payload, plan their torque values for different flight phases and states. These guys have pilots from all walks of life; Black Hawk, Huey, 412 pilots, you name it. DCS gives you the possibility to go as deep as you want (within the limits of this sim, limits in terms of simulation scope), assuming that you have the material to learn how to fly it "the way they do in real life".

I'd rather wait until the radio is fully functional. According to Grunf, it is not at the moment.

Mate I really can't blame you for not having gone through 130 pages of information instantly. You're always welcome to ask if you need to know about anything.

I've had this very same issue as well. It seems to be an issue on Leatherneck's side. I have no idea if this bug was reported yet. Hopefully someone already did. This is why I purposefully left the radio tutorial as incomplete.

What Dimitriov says is true. I've seen both sides of the medal, from brief experiences in a real helicopter to a full-blown level D simulator. If DCS was aiming to be a level D, the system and hardware requirements would probably say: 1) Real Cyclic and Collective 2) At the very least 6 PCs with top-of-the-line hardware 3) A motion dome with actuators 4) A perfect replication of the actual cockpit with properly calibrated pedals, cyclic, collective, throttles, etc. 5) Several full-time employees with high salaries 6) Clearance to access restricted/classified material 7) Some crazy electricity bill 8) Pay a couple of millions for the sim, and hundreds of dollars per hour of flight time Many times, I felt this urge to argue for pages and pages. However, one day I came to the realization that my relationship with flight sims will only ever be as good as I allow it to be. I can choose how I want to approach DCS: as something that will make me feel constantly disappointed for not being "perfect" or as something that is good enough for me to learn new stuff to a "good enough" level of fidelity and enjoy myself. I take DCS for what it is rather than what it's not, and I found myself having a much healthier relationship with flight sims ever since. Just because perfection is unattainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim towards it though. FM discussions have always been, and always will be part of flight simulator forums. My personal approach to FM feedback is: if you have hard data that you can share, please do share. If not, find some to back up your claims. "I don't think it's right" just doesn't cut it unless you've flown 2500+ hours in the very helicopter you're discussing about. "I don't think it's right" doesn't help the engineer/coder at all. It doesn't help anyone. More often than not, people feel a genuine need to help but don't act in a way to produce meaningful results. I found the "You've never flown a Huey" bit to be needlessly harsh though. While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (and between you and I a level D sim will never be perfect either for reasons I won't go into on these forums), I think we need to give credit to the mad geniuses behind the FM code that gave us the FM behaviour we have now (either for the Huey, Mi-8, Ka-50 or Gazelle) that needs only one medium-end PC to process. For a 60 dollar package and the level of expertise, effort and selflessness needed to develop these modules, I think DCS offers an incredible bang for the buck.

This thread should definitely be stickied and I firmly believe that John's work is of tremendous value, but please don't turn this into a popularity contest.

Hit T0 (used like a cancel button) and then T1 again, cross will reappear.

Did a first pass on the typos/mistakes of the Viggen guide. Please let me know if you find any other mistakes.

Did a first pass on the typos/mistakes of the Viggen guide. Please let me know if you find any other mistakes.

Gotcha about the RB04, yeah I kinda figured that out after a couple of tests but forgot to make the change. That's good to know about the mixes. I just assumed you couldn't combine anything... apart from the RB75/AKAN and RB05/Akan, there's nothing else?

There are some typos and mistakes, folks, so please mention them here (or send me a PM directly) and I'll have them fixed by tonight when I come back from work.

Will fix tonight.

Thanks Neil, I appreciate the kind words. Oh, and... Viggen guide is up!

Chuck's AJS-37 Viggen Guide https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/ajs-37/ Enjoy!

Nope. But dang, it's a long process.

Cobra did, thankfully. However, the redaction of the guide will take a lot more time before it's ready... 1 month easily (work is taking all my free time) .

Thanks guys, I appreciate the kind words.

Not yet.

:drink: Time to start the coffee machine.

Finally uniformized the format for the P-51, FW190, Bf109 and Spitfire guides.

I think the number of ipad users vastly outnumbers the number of oculus rift users. For screenshot-heavy presentations, a kneeboard-like format is highly impractical. Kneeboards are better used for checklists. You are free to do your own. Reformatting 1000+ pages is very time-consuming... Unless there is a huge demand for it (and I don't think there is to be quite honest), I would rather let the community create their own kneeboards.

@Lino: it can't, mistake on my part. It can only track manually entered coordinates. @taz: they are based on trial and error