Ramsay

The PDU (Pilot Display Unit) attached to the aircraft and was as described by Barundus The ODA (Optical Display Assembly) attached to NVG's and was a HUD/MFD repeater focused at infinity. @EvilBert VRNeither look like the helmet pictured, what is the name of the HDU, when/were was it fielded on KW operations and how many units were equipped ?

How the start button and it's cover function has changed (as in real life the cover is spring loaded). You now • right click to lift the button cover (you have ~5 seconds before the cover automatically springs back down) • quickly left click on the start button (2 second hold) to start the start up sequence • Once RPM reaches 11% - move throttle from STOP to IDLE • watch engine RPM and TGT rise to settle at ~49% RPM / ~470°C to confirm a good start If you fail to start the engine on your first attempt and are running off the battery, you'll likely need to ask for ground power before you can make a 2nd attempt i.e. you may have drained the battery in your first attempt.

TL;DR: There's a new keybind for "Minigun fire" Detail • Master Arm ON • Minigun fire - Keybind/controller button assignment

I'm guessing it's MP sync, as it's the pilot slot that generates the MP proxy, gets the "credit" for kills, etc., so without a special "solo" option that links Pilot/CPG to a single player - switching positions is effectively switching MP slots (spawning/despawning) and although "most" of the code doesn't care, something crucial "breaks/desyncs" and ED/Heatblur block it. This is a shame as PC's Gazelle works pretty well (even if there is a list of things to do/avoid to avoid multicrew desyncs).

Not AFAIK.

In your 2nd video, the waypoint co-ordinates were invalid i.e. seconds were greater than 59. • N 42° 24' 86" • E 041° 34' 72"

Maybe but you have to remember the next Open Beta patch will contain more than just the Apache - there's • the New FLIR that will effect most modern aircraft and needs testing on all the maps and for mission compatibility • Syria's map expansion to the East • F-16C changes • lots of 3rd party patches that were waiting for the next patch cycle and now need to be retested/adjusted for the "AH-64D" build/changes If you think about the number of potential combinations of aircraft, maps and missions/campaigns - there's a lot to test and likely some bugs will get though to release, it's a question of ensuring no "show stoppers" get through and that most players aren't adversely effected - this also means giving ED and 3rd Parties time to fix issues and validate their fixes. I don't think anyone wants a release where most of the existing aircraft are bugged, have graphical issues, etc. simply because ED felt pressured to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Yes and if McDonalds was serving bad food, lots of people who ate there would tell you, the same is true here i.e. Razbam have been heavily criticised in the past for various things. Today, both Razbam and the Mirage 2000C are in a good place with many old bugs fixed and continued improvements to systems modelling, etc. beyond what most people would expect for a "game". When looking at the Mirage or JF-17 as an option, I think most players will already have (or looked at) the F/A-18C and F-16C, so will be looking for something different - a late 80's fighter or a modern 2012 multirole fighter (different but more of the same). Both are good in their own ways and it really comes down to what a player is looking for.

Short answer is yes. • It takes it's data from the mission file - so imports the mission flight plan (if there is one). • It takes the airport and Nav data from the Syria map - so the "nearest airport/direct to" list works • You can create user waypoints by slewing the map cursor or entering DDM co-ordinates • The main thing missing graphicly in Syria is any indication of the coast line. • I'm not sure how well the NS430's MagVar is working in Syria but it seems good enough to get you close to your desired bearing/course • As the NS430 doesn't load/use Syria's terrain height map, it doesn't seem to suffer from the Persian Gulf's stutters and slow downs. This Grim Reapers video covers most of the DCS NS430's options Tested DCS 2.7.10.19473

They had a serious problem • "... a serious medical condition affecting one of our team members." • "... we could not disclose the reasons behind the delay out of courtesy to the affected member and his family." Work on the OH-58D is once again progressing ...

Your waypoint co-ordinates were rejected - they are invalid i.e. seconds were greater than 59. • N 42° 24' 86" • E 041° 34' 72" I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to do as I can't read the TPOD co-ordinates in the low res 480p video but if you are copying the TPOD's co-ordinates, they are in a different format "Degrees Decimal Minutes" to the EHSD's waypoint Lat/Long data entry which expects "Degrees Minutes Seconds". This video might help if you're attacking targets of opportunity i.e. stuff spotted using the TPOD

It depends. If you want a modern 2012 fighter that can do everything (CAP, CAS, ASM, HARM, TGP/Lase, etc.), the JF-17 is your choice and fills a similar roll to F-16/FA-18 while having a unique/modern cockpit design that's very different to the usual US design/layout. The Mirage OTOH is a Fox 1, 80's fighter with limited A/G capability. The DCS version is being developed in co-operation with the French Airforce and as such, is a very realistic module with some unique/French ways of doing things. Of the 2, I prefer the Mirage on the grounds of aesthetics, system design and realism but if looking at PvP vs modern Fox 3 fighters or wanting ASM, etc. I'd take the JF-17.

Why do you think the Yak-52 is missing from your game ? Is the Yak-52 folder "DCS World\Mods\Aircraft\Yak-52" still present ? Is the Yak-52 missing as a playable aircraft in the Mission Editor ? Have you tried cleaning up or repairing your DCS install ? Tested in DCS 2.7.10.19473

This part of the forum is intended for more General/generic DCS 2.7 bugs and problems (so is less likely to be seen by Razbam) A better location for an AV-8B bug report is https://forum.dcs.world/forum/514-problems-and-bugs/ Detail I haven't seen this particular problem before, are there any other waypoints loaded in the aircraft ? Can you upload a short track that demos this or upload a longer video to youtube showing what you did prior to trying to create a new waypoint.

The IR Mav has a lock/track only when the tracking gates (open cross hairs) close. Not for the TPOD when using "area track". Point and Moving Track modes draw a box around the target/vehicle when it's locked/tracking. The TGP becomes ground stabilised or may start tracking when slewing stops, however it does not necessarily create a target point at that time. It's therefore pretty important to use TDC depress once you've found/locked your target to ensure there's a system designation (T0) for the target. It's something I forget when returning to the Harrier after a break, as the A-10C's TGP, etc. automatically updates it's SPI and I get used to a different work flow. In the case of the example video, having a "good" system designation for the 1st target meant the TPOD, DMT and uncaged mavericks automatically slewed to the first target, rather than waypoint 2 or the flight path marker. Without a designation the next IR Maverick can ending up looking far away from the targets, thus requiring a reset/reattack.

The most obvious thing missing from your list after is • SSS forward to select IRMV mode (optionally also select IRMV Narrow FOV) • lock your target with slews/TDC depress at around 7.6 NM though 5-7 NM is more usual for IR Mavs in other modules. • Fire Note if you reselect TPOD mode using SSS double tap, the IRMavs will be deselected and will need to be reselected before you can fire again. TGP point track followed by uncaging IRMav and entering IRMV mode Tested in DCS 2.7.10.19473

It's the "Citadel of Aleppo", N36°11'58" E37°09'46", 1406ft.

Air to Air Weapon trials including vs speed boats with a heat source

The question was how much extra SSD space the Eastern Syria expansion and Apache would add to an existing DCS install i.e. my existing install is 220GB and I expect it to increase by ~16 GB. Syria The current map is approx. 60 GB and guess it may increase to 70 GB when it increases in size/detail to the East. AH-64D Apache I expect DCS's base install to increase by ~3 GB due to the addition of the external 3D model and it's liveries. This effects all players including those who do not own the module. Owners of the Apache should expect to use another ~3 GB for it's FM, cockpit interiors, mission files, etc. These are rough "ball park" guesses and I expect the *real* increase to differ but be similar i.e. 16 +/- 10 GB

At a guess, add another 15-20 GB to your existing install size. Detail IIRC when Syria expanded to the west to include Cyprus, it increased by approx 10GB. Flight model, cockpit, missions, etc. add 1-3 GB but depends on texture resolution and size of any included campaigns/missions, the Mi-24P added ~3 GB Most modules add 1-3 GB of liveries to the base game (F-14 is an exception as it added 11.5 GB to the core game). Adding these together gives a size increase = 10 + 3 + 3 = ~16 GB

No, or at least not like in your picture where the downed pilot "rides" on the outside of the airframe. With scripts like CLTD it's possible to create missions were you • land near a downed pilot, etc. •make them "vanish" i.e. board you aircraft •fly back to a FARP or hospital/trigger zone • land and have the unit respawn/disembark

AFAIK the DCS Kiowa Warrior is planned to be a single airframe with a selection of loadout options to cover the most common configurations used between 1992 to 2017 i.e. it will not be like the DCS Gazelle which has separate hard coded "variants". The mentioned "1984" variant is the original OH-58D recon Kiowa i.e. before it became the "warrior" and could carry weapons. Planned (but subject to change) options include • removable MMS • removable Doors • removable weapons pylons • Alternative landing skids (rapid deployment gear) • older AQL-144 (IR disco ball) or the newer AN/AAR-57 (CMWS) that replaced it. • ATAS FIM-92 Stinger A/A • M3P .50 cal • M260 rocket launcher with 7x Hydra rockets (HE, MPP, illumination and smoke) • AGM-114K Hellfire Missiles • M18 Smoke grenades • APKWS Laser Guided Rockets Note: I haven't seen anything suggesting we'll get an option to fit the older XM296 .50 cal but the same used to be said about the AQL-144 disco ball ???

It's not so much that the FM is ported, rather building the whole system model of an aircraft is very complex i.e. engine fuel burn, torque reaction, air/oil cooling, radiator sizes, etc., etc. To speed up the development process it seems to me (as a consumer with no inside knowledge) that ED start with a system model from a "similar" type of airframe and then adjust/add features to account for differences. Given enough time/resources this *will* result in accurate system models but sometimes (due to time/resource constraints) "temporary" values become "good enough" values and wrong behaviours are untouched (i.e. pitch reaction for RH turning blades, is applied/inherited by a LH turning helicopter). This may be confirmation bias but I see this confirmed by - • bugs revealing internal variable names from a different aircraft i.e. spitfire_xxx • bugs inherited across multiple modules i.e. remote magnetic compass not being gimbaled on tail draggers, so displaying magnetic dip (when stationary) until airborne /in level flight • known early access bugs in the F/A-18C's radar also appearing in the first iteration of the F-16C's radar • The LH turning Huey having some pitch/roll changes more appropriate to a RH turning helicopter when increasing/decreasing collective • Early damage models using another modules 3D model(s) This is not to criticise ED, as starting with a blank system model would mean being unable to prototype/test the basic of features until everything was built. TBH the Yak felt "almost done" at release and only requiring a little more work/tuning to make it complete (FM tuning, damage model, ADF, LODs, Cold Start failures, more liveries), it just never got the resources/priority. As to inherited bugs for the Yak - I guess the overcooled oil temperature and suspected excess engine torque are candidates. One bug I can't explain is the Yak's none working rudder trim adjustment in Options>Special as the setting works for DCS's other WWII planes.

The video is from Aug 2018 when flap drag was higher, the FM was adjusted in 2019, and retested by AcroGimp in September of that year. The adjusted FM was thought to better represent the pitch and drag changes seen in the *real* aircraft when deploying the flaps. IIRC I didn't notice a huge change at the time, just that the initial FM's flap drag had been "toned down" and landings were "smoother"*. However I don't fly the Yak very much, so it's possible the changes were more extensive and I just didn't notice them. * I know "toned down" and "smoother" are imprecise but as a sim pilot, I really don't know how the *real* flies beyond descriptions in the POH, etc.

The video that says flap drag was to great is from Aug 2018. As I said the flap drag in DCS was adjusted and looking back at AcroGimp's comments from Sept 2019 (after some more FM changes) he said "The pitch moment and drag from flaps I would say is finally correct" however he still noted other outstanding issues. In terms of providing data, not all pilots are setup to record themselves while flying/doing aerobatics but I'd say John Knolla has gone "above and beyond" what could be expected, recording several videos of himself flying various aerobatic manoeuvres in DCS and commenting on the differences he sees between DCS and RL. This is the Russian video (from May 2020) I mentioned, you should be able to get most of his meaning regarding DCS's Yak-52 using youtube subtitles with youtube auto-translate. However, given the limit resources available for DCS's Yak-52, while it's good to know the differences between DCS and *real life*, the module is best enjoyed for what it is.