Ramsay

Not sure, I think "orange" text means there's a duplicate definition (which there is) - in my tests, the 2nd "Missile Launch Button" definition can be bound to other devices (i.e. joystick buttons) and fired. I didn't have an issue firing with "Space" or "JOY BTN8" when testing in single player ... Tested using DCS Open Beta 2.7.14.23966

Would need to see your mission .miz There's a sample mission in this post :- ... you can compare your mission to, if that helps.

Mostly complete, with a handful of bugs/regressions that Razbam are working through i.e. 3 steps forward, 1 step back type of bug squashing. The only thing that really annoys me is that in INS mode, the target point slews opposite to everything else i.e. TPOD, IR MAV, DMT TV, etc., at this stage I'm not even sure if it's WIP/low priority or if Razbam don't consider it a bug. The AV-8B is especially nice if you want to spot 10 targets with the TPOD and TOO (target of opportunity) them to JDAMs and drop 10 in a single pass. It's still the module that has my most flight hours. AFAIK everything is in but for example AWLS/ILS doesn't work in Nevada and hasn't been updated to include AWLS/ILS channels for Syria and Marianas. IIRC there was some discussion of modelling the DITER BRU-70 ejector rack to make modern loadouts more realistic but the AV-8B is already a bit of a bomb truck and I'm not sure how much they'd add to DCS - adding them is likely far behind getting the avionic logics correct (IIRC there's still some TPOD logic that needs "tuning").

AFAIK (discord) the underling control logic has been reworked for multi-crew, this unfortunately introduced a number of bugs and unintended changes in behaviour. Most of these have been fixed internally and submitted to ED for inclusion in the next update whenever that may be.

Is this only for cold starts or is it the same for hot starts ? Can you share a track/video of your start up procedure ? The only way I could reproduce anything close to your description was to leave the INS mode switch in "FAST" after the alignment had completed.

Are you sure the datalink was working and there wasn't a conflicting TCN station/tanker ? If you could "see" friendlies and it was was only enemy contacts that were missed - detection can very much vary depending on mission geometry i.e. altitude of the AWACS, target sizes, etc. - in particular DCS's AWACS radar limits/detection ranges seem weaker than publicly available data. I haven't looked at the datalink in detail recently but last time I looked at a "problem" mission (IIRC 2020) - everything worked out correctly with detection issues explainable by • mission geometry (hot/cold/flanking) • poor E3 radar angular limits • hard coded RCS and detection ranges The best thing would be to break the "suspect mission" into smaller pieces and test individual groups to see if detection works/is explainable or if your problems are limited to MP/late activated units. Note: I have a SP mission (SP and Coop) that uses MOOSE to spawn in enemy AI aircraft and play on the 4YA Syria server without issue but these mostly depend on a single AWACS, rather than other AI or player aircraft.

Yes DCS's Link-16 datalink is modelled "as a thing" but it's greatly simplified compared to the real i.e. • there is only a single "NET", • it doesn't frequency hop (so is "jammed" by certain TCN channels in DCS) • messages can't be relayed beyond the range of a single aircraft/radio i.e. in many cases Link-16 is limited to LoS of the AWACS and it's radio range (~120? NM) • AWACS acts as a "HUB" to translate between different formats (i.e. A-10C SADL) and share data (PPL?) across different groups. • IIRC, although AI aircraft data is passed though the NET, player data is limited to fellow squadron/aircraft (may have been a FA-18C or EA limitation - I'm mostly on PvE servers) • the data link isn't an "Eye of Sauron" that sees everything, there are times AWACS will call out contacts that it isn't sharing or miss contacts whilst in a turn, etc. • an element of data lag/signal delay is modelled

I'm sure they'll do their best but the question is, if/when they receive or find information from SME's, etc. that they've modelled something wrong or ED add support for a new feature - do you want Razbam to ignore the problem/opportunity. Comment • While a few of the problems with the early access M-2000C were from misunderstanding of how various things worked, most of the changes we see today are thanks to working with the AdA and receiving much better info. • As to the AV-8B, AFAIK the original plan was to model a mid 90's - mid 2000's variant, however there was a desire among players to deploy newer weapons such as Gen 4 TPOD, GBU-54 and APKWS. Razbam could have ignored these requests but instead took advantage of the availability of SME's to add newer weapons and OFP systems/limitations. Your only cost was time which is offset by having access to a module that later receives improvements and updates for FREE.

The Maverick and DMT are contemporary systems (~90's) with the wing pylons wired for Maverick video. When the TPOD was added to the inboard wing pylons (~2003) it reused the Maverick pylon wiring, so "shared" the Maverick's video feed. It was only later (~2012) that another upgraded allowed the TPOD to be fitted to center pylon. Speculation - continuing to share the Maverick video feed likely allows the continued use of the TPOD on the inner wing pylons i.e. when carrying an ECM pod on the center pylon.

No idea !!! I don't usually use the AP/trim in the Gazelle, as it didn't work well with my MSFFB2 (if I switched to a non-FFB Sidewinder 2, trim/AP worked as described). Thought I'd boot up the Gazelle and check nothing got broke in the latest OB - was surprised AP Altitude mode worked as well as it did - I'd guess that's because the Mag Brake adjustment I made (from center) was relatively small. The trim hat VVI adjustment also worked much better than I remembered (IIRC small increments weren't strong enough to for the FFB force to move the real stick accurately). Polychop have made some changes to the flight model/control scheme and while it's not EFM 2.0 (from the Kiowa), it does seem to have changed for the better. Comment/Speculation How FFB now seems to work is - you should fly the Gazelle like you have a spring centering joystick and always set the mag brake when the FFB stick is near the center i.e. 1. push stick forward to nose down 2. allow FFB stick to return center 3. depress Mag brake to "set" the trim for "nose down" in DCS 4. The "Trim Hat" makes small changes to the aircraft's trim (these don't "double up" with the real stick as the FFB forces are too weak/small to make it move) This may be less a change in control scheme (by Polychop) and more a better understand (on my part) of how the DCS Gazelles' cyclic "works" i.e. is coded for spring centering joysticks.

TL;DR: Unfortunately all I can really tell from your picture is that you're not in stable flight i.e. well trimmed for level flight, and that the helicopter is ascending due to the collective applied. Comment I can describe how I set my trim/autopilot, however it may not be exactly the same as I use a FFB stick (instructions assume compensating for roll changes with the cyclic, maintaining altitude with the collective, yaw with the pedals, etc.) (After each manoeuvre, the players "spring centering" joystick should be allowed to center i.e. pitch the nose down, then allow the joystick to center) 1. Set the desired speed by pitching the nose down with the cyclic 2. Adjust collective to maintain the desired/current altitude 3. Once stable and in level flight, set pitch trim with mag brake 4. Further adjust the collective (if req'ed) and then use the trim hat up/down to fine tune the VVI for level flight (do not try to set trim by using the Controls Display as it is not sensitive enough, make trim changes while watching the aircraft's instruments) Optional/recommended 5. Select the Altitude Submode on the AP panel 6. Turn on the AP using the cyclic "Autopilot Master" button, so the AP will maintain the current barometric altitude. Notes As I use a FFB stick, I have FFB enabled in • Options>Misc --> Force Feedback=ON ... and • Options>Special>SA342 --> Individual FFB toggle=OFF

The Gazelle uses a different control "method" to the other DCS helicopters and it's cyclic inputs are much more sensitive - both to fly and for control issues. I feared as much. These are my control settings, though I doubt they'll help.

If 2.5.6 supports "keyless" copy protection (for all it's modules) and doesn't use Starforce CD keys, you should be ok. Steam has a 2hr/two week grace period to test programs, so it should be straight forward as long as you are timely in testing and requesting a refund (if needed). My old DCS versions of the Huey work but I bought it several years ago, so have an associated Starforce CD key, I'm not sure new purchases do, so it's something you'd need ask support about. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/

Do you depress "Autopilot" Master on the stick and see the SAS indicators center (default attitude hold) ? Is your airspeed above 120 km/h (ideally 150km/h or greater) ? Have you manually trimmed the aircraft (Magnetic and or trim hat) so it is already flying straight and level before engaging the Autopilot button on the cyclic ? Does your joystick show any "jitter" or "sticksion" that might require a dead zone ? Remember - the Altitude/Speed modes are sub mods and maintain the selected Altitude/Speed by adjusting pitch. Here's an example of using the Autopilot and Altitude Submode in case you're missing something basic.

TL;DR: Threat assessment is based on the predicted range from the reporting TAF station/airbase in the next 5 minutes. Detail: From Page 284 of the current manual "DCS World\Mods\aircraft\M-2000C\Doc\DCS M-2000C Flight Manual EN.pdf" RedKite made an excellent TAF video (@5:57) describing TAF's threat logic

I had to install the "SAM Asset Pack" mod to test and use the ME to find the JTAC's radio frequency (VHF 133 MHz) but otherwise the JTAC's coordinates seems good. You've missed off the last 2 digits of the northing. The co-ordinates in the mission editor of the SA-13 are "36 S YB 57966 83389" This is correct and simply the previous 10 digit MGRS rounded to the nearest 6 digit MGRS (3 easting and 3 northing) = YB 580 834 AFAIK IRL MGRS coordinates are truncated, not rounded (as 6 digits "define" a 100m grid square where the target can be found) - perhaps this changes for stuff that you are going to drop a bomb/missile on. With regards to the Apache, it takes 8 digit MGRS coordinates, so YB 580 834 --> YB 5800 8340, and is input/edited as "36SYB58008340". Here, I used the TSD cursor to create a target point near the target area and edited it's coordinates to match the 9-line, before "placing it"

This is by design and part of the copy protection. You should be able to launch the edited mission from the mission editor, though you won't be able to edit/change mission scripts, triggers, etc., and will need to make the same edits every time you want to play an edited version.

TL;DR: SP "autohover" is a simplification for gameplay, with an AI "co-pilot" providing auto collective, heading hold, etc. so the player can switch to the CPG position and fire HOT missiles, etc. Multicrew removes this simplification and requires the pilot and CPG to work together to maintain a hover/firing solution. Detail: AFAIK • Auto-collective isn't a thing in the *real* Gazelle, as pilot, altitude control/stabilisation is your responsibility. • Heading hold may or may not be modelled correctly in multicrew. The heading is likely set by the rudder pedals AND stabilized by the autopilot but how this should be modelled for spring centered twist sticks/rudder pedals is another question. For now you should use the ADI VIS needle to ensure the pilot lines up with the Viviane's camera/target. • IIRC Polychop has said the Pilot's "auto-slave" button should stabilize the Heading to the Viviane's LOS but I don't recall it working like that in multicrew. • When the cyclic "Hover" button is engaged, the AP tries to keep the helicopter in a 10x10m² position by adjusting the cyclic trim actuators i.e. the multicrew pilot doesn't need to focus on the cyclic so much and instead can concentrate on holding the required heading/altitude. From this, I understand that the "Hover" button in multicrew is an "assist", not a hands free "auto-hover".

Before carrying out the test you need to wipe the controls (move your stick in a circle like you would to calibrate a joystick) to warm up the hydraulic fluid and expel any trapped air from the system.

Nope, the L-39 works in a similar way with a magnetometer feeding the magnetic heading via a MagVar "correcting dial" so the RMI displays the True heading. GPS and INS natively align with True North, so by their very nature have to be adjusted using the local MagVar to match the local magnetic compass readings. While it's standardised in western (most) aviation, it's an arbitrary convention and isn't the only way to do things. The Ka-50's ABRIS can use True or Magnetic and the PVI-800 uses True, I suggest you embrace the difference.

An airbase/FARP can only be one side or the other, otherwise it is considered contested and owned by neither side. The mix of Blue and Red FARP objects, etc. at Pagan Airfield make the airfield "contested" and red aircraft can't rearm/refuel there. Removing the Blue FARP objects allows Pagan Airfield to switch to the Red side and refuel/rearm red aircraft.

I can't reproduce, which aircraft are you flying, can you post a short track i.e. an air spawn on approach to RWY 21 with a runway headwind component of zero or +6 knots (there are known ATC/ILS issues for head/tail winds between 0 and 6 knots that effect all maps/modules). DCS 2.7.11.22211 Nellis RWY 21 ATC and ILS tested using the A-10C in various wind conditions including • zero wind, • 6 knot headwind towards 40°T, • 30 knot headwind towards 40°T

You need to have support vehicles/structures near to the FARP to supply the services you require i.e. M1025 HMMWV (radio), Transport M939 (rearming) and M978 HEMTT tanker (fuel) for BLUFOR. https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/FARPs This is a roadside FARP example for the JF-17 using the "invisible FARP" but the Apache is similar Suntsag FARP Video

Have you also bought the base 2D NS430 popup module, it contains the core 3D model, features and logic required for the 3D NS430 to work. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1725570/DCS_NS_430_Navigation_System/ No. Yes. When installed the 2D NS430 appears in Options>Special>NS430 and has options to enable/disable the 2D popup and/or the 3D cockpit model for various aircraft. You can check if you have the 2 NS430 folders required for the Mi-8's 3D NS430 by checking your DCS World\Mods\aircraft folder The Store page description for the "NS 430 for Mi-8 MTV" does mention the requirement to own the base "2D popup" https://store.steampowered.com/app/1690513/DCS_NS_430_Navigation_System_for_Mi8MTV2/ ... but I guess it's easy to miss when browsing during a sale.

It seems to be a shader/texture bug that's been reported (haven't seen it myself), it seems to be intermittent or related to dynamically spawned units i.e. the same missing FLIR textures are viewable in other missions and in the model viewer. If the issue persists, you can clean out the "Saved Games\DCS\fxo" and "metashaders2" folders and retest. If it's reproducible please post a short track and a copy of your graphics settings/dcs.log For info. NeMoGas's videos Original report, marked as solved ??