Ramsay

Some players read up on the RL documentation and wonder why it doesn't work like the real. Others assume DCS is correct but then don't understand why there's no way to enter an ILS frequency for unsupported maps such as Nevada, Syria and Marianas. Errors matter to quite a few players as it confuses what should be a "simple" system (a microwave landing system with a limited beam width and 20 fixed freq. channels). As I use DCS to learn/appreciate how combat aircraft work in the real world, it was important (to me) to get AWLS modelling fixed/correct in the first year of the AV-8B's EA release. IMHO it's become a moot point as the years have passed and Razbam have doubled down on their implementation i.e. by adding the AWLS "ILS" pages to the kneeboard, At least I've come to understand Razbam's position, ignore their AWLS implementation and move on (glass half full, etc.) Obviously you are entitled to play DCS how you like and have your own opinion but this is a bug thread and IMHO the OP's question was valid.

The approximate Magnetic Declinations of the maps in DCS for the default mission date (2016) are • +6°E Caucasus • +1°E Marianas • +12°E Nevada • +2°E Persian Gulf • +4°E Syria The Normandy/Channel maps • -12°W 1944 • -1°W 2016

F-16C DED > LIST > MISC > MVAR F/A-18C HSI > DATA > A/C

Correct. Common got'ya are • Designator, LST and LGB need to have the same code (default is 1688 but harrier designator resets to 1111 with weight on wheels, IRL a software upgrade fixed that). • IRL codes are physically set on the bomb while on the ground, some modules mimic this restriction (while others allow it to be changed mid air as the AI JTAC can't be asked to change it's laser code). • In DCS the laser spot is at the end of a 8 NM (15km) yard stick, so the designating aircraft must remain within 8 NM of the target until impact (else the spot floats mid air). • The default DCS AI JTAC will lase for 5 minutes max (CTLD lase/smoke lasts as long as needed)

Radar As I'm sure you are aware, radar backscatter from helicopter blades isn't modelled by any radar in DCS* (I'm not sure why you are singling out the Gazelle ?). As blade backscatter isn't modelled, it's relatively easy for a DCS helicopter to break a radar "lock" by notching or getting lost in ground clutter, therefore once it's detected, I'll get closer and switch to A2A IR missiles, however doing so, does mean I'm fighting the helicopter in it's own domain and opening myself up to ground fire and manpads. This is how a 1996 Boeing Patent describes helicopter radar detection To paraphrase the rest of the patent, helicopters are detected in a similar manner to other ground targets and a Fast Fourier Transform used to detect the signature pulses from the rotor blades, thus differentiating helicopter signatures from other ground targets. The rotor blade radar returns don't sound that much different to other ground returns ? IR Emissions DCS's IR emissions have two levels, 'nominal/running' and 'afterburner', as DCS helicopters inc. the Gazelle, don't have an afterburner , they always emits the same IR signature hot or cold (modified by aspect, range and los). The usual reason to lose an IR lock is a change in aspect or break in line of sight, it's been my experience that Gazelles don't go "invisible" without a reason. * I haven't tested Heatblur's F-14

It's a small, single engine helicopter that's often nap of the earth and mixed in with ground clutter, it likely shouldn't be "easy to track". Never had an issue getting shot down in the Gazelle myself and I've certainly shot down AI Gazelles in MP with the Mirage. These days, I mostly fly other modules due to the long ingress times of the Gazelle and more often die to NOE CFIG than to other players/AI. It has an excellent RWR and radio contact with AWACS, making it easy to recognise when you've been illuminated by a radar and dip below a ridge line to break it's line of sight. This is very different from the Huey, where you might not recognise there's a threat (without using the F10 map) If you think you've found an issue, please post a track. Not sure if MP kill tracking is an ED or PC problem though, so it's worth a bump as I know it annoys PvP players shot down by the Mistral.

IIRC the night lighting of the Tarawa was realistic (off) at one time but users asked for it to be more like the WIP preview screen shots. It's a case of not being able to please all the people, all of the time. I tend towards having some (unrealistic) lighting on the deck and island but 'feel' the ambient lighting levels of the non-navigation deck lights should be reduced i.e. of the 3 carriers, only the Tarawa has it's island number lit. Note that the Roosevelt (Supercarrier) increases it's lighting when a player spawns on it (not sure how well it's lighting syncs in MP), while the Tarawa always has max illumination. ... If DCS was wholly realistic, there'd be no street lighting, etc. in the towns or along the coastal roads. Also note that while the Tarawa's deck lights are too bright, it's missing navigation lights from it's masts/rigging, so there's an opportunity to reduce the deck intensity for the "realists", while adding mast lights in compensation, for those who want it lit like a Christmas tree.

Auto start can't know which map you're on or whether the sand filter is fitted, it's on you to do a pre-fight check after start-up (remember this "test" version has accelerated damage).

It also needs to be switched ON.

Yes, AFAIK it reduces performance when fitted and the scavenger system uses bleed air while operating. Gazelle SA-341/2 PUREair System https://shop.pall.co.uk/uk/en/aerospace/commercial-rotary-wing/engine-protection-1/zidgri78llm https://www.pall.com/content/dam/pall/aerospace-defense/literature-library/non-gated/AEGAZESEN.pdf Because using bleed air reduces performance and increases fuel consumption (perhaps ~5%).

I've seen laser failure in the A-10C, Ka-50, Su-25T and F/A-18C. • IIRC laser burnout occurred after +5 min continuous lasing in the Su-25T and Ka-50 • while cumulative damage occurred after +22 min lasing total in the A-10C, Ka-50 and F/A-18C, and is unavoidable regardless of turning off the laser, RTB's etc. • AFAIK, prior to the introduction of LMav and APKWS, only A-10C FAC-A's would regularly experience laser failure (or a Ka-50 on it's 3rd rearm). AFAIK the laser of a Litening Gen 3/4 TGP shouldn't "burnout" after 30 minutes of cumulative operation i.e. the Litening AT has MTBF of +600 hours.

Seems new, there are reports of pitot icing no longer working in the PG, while Caucasus is the same as it's always been with icing at high altitude/low temps regardless of precipitation. The addition of engine damage/loss of power is a new Gazelle feature with the aim of adding a little more realism and a give players a genuine reason to fit the sandfilter. Not sure what this'll mean for other modules* or the future (i.e IIRC the AH-64D has sandfilters as standard), as none of these changes are documented. * I assume it'll only effect modules where fitting/using sandfilters is an option

This is ED's first iteration of differing environments • sand maps (Nevada, PG and Syria) have dust/sand (progressive engine damage below 35m without an active sandfilter). • temperate maps (Caucasus, Mariana, Normandy and Channel) have moisture (icing, etc.) • weather i.e. clouds, fog, winds, etc. are not taken into account • third party dev's can detect what type of map they're on and code for damage, power loss, icing, etc. i.e. dependant on altitude, over water, etc. It's WIP.

There's a bug with the sandfilter ATM. I'll find the details. TL;DR; • Fit the sandfilter on desert maps and turn it on while below 35m AGL • Without the sandfilter fitted and active, the engine will fail in 6min 30sec (the beta is using a test version with accelerated damage) Detail

There's been no change, VRS onset is still too abrupt/soon i.e. IRL if you fly a 40° descent path, you'll avoid VRS, In DCS VRS is more like ... airspeed less than "x" m/s descent rate more than "-x" m/s = Enter VRS In the above diagram, the 30° descent path feels fine in DCS but as the Mi-8 slows down to land, it hits the VRS region, losing all lift (and crashes). The only way to avoid the VRS is to fly a faster/shallower approach. AFAIK there are no plans to change the current behaviour.

Handoff occurs at 20km (10.7 NM) in COO/DIR modes or 2 km (1.1 NM) prior to the last route point in MAN mode. You likely didn't read far enough into Chuck's guide or misremembered. Grim Reaper's CM-802AKG Video, YMMV

In a turn or under acceleration, all bets are off as AFAIK the Master compass is still susceptible to Magnetic Dip but better "damped" i.e. When making a turn the compass may lead or lag the turn • For middle Latitudes (not near the equator or poles), the rule of thumb for the under/over shoot is 15° + 1/2 Latitude i.e. for Batumi (~40°N), the understeer might be approx 35°, so you might turn to a heading of 155° before stopping your turn and waiting for the compass heading to "catch up" and read 120°M for the RWY13 approach. Not sure how much (if any) of this is modelled in DCS.

IIRC the IR deflector adds weight and slightly reduces the IR signature. For info: This post includes some Avenger test results carried out vs the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (with/without IR suppressors) https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/277465-the-ir-suppressor-has-zero-effect-on-the-gazelle/?do=findComment&comment=4727362

Please add a track, otherwise it's just wild guesses.

Not AFAIK. Instead you use the HUD and steering cue/tadpole.

10 days* is not a particularly long time given the nature of the report and size of Polychop • Posted as question, not a report • MP only, random (occurs 50% of the time ?) • No track, acmi or video to show target aspect, speed, etc. or how to reproduce Polychop is a small team (of three) and AFAIK the Gazelle is being "maintained" on a volunteer basis by a programmer using it familiarise himself with both the DCS code base and the Gazelle code. If you'd like to speed up the process, you can help by adding a track, acmi or video to this thread. * It was reported in the Gazelle bug section 3 days ago

1. Foogle already answered your question 2. Jet engines are more complex than a mechanical lever connected to fuel pump, when you move the throttle, you are actually moving a lever on the engine governor i.e. for 100% rpm/thrust. What this means for fuel delivery, etc. from the governor depends on • air temperature • air pressure • current rpm • etc. (i.e. I'm likely forgetting a few factors) The engine has various sensors fitted to measure these and "govern" it's speed i.e. when the pilot moves the "throttle" lever to 100%, RPM increases to 100% and holds steady, (i.e. the engine doesn't overspeed and destroy itself like most cars would if give full throttle while out of gear). I'm not sure on the conditions required for the JF-17's weapon system to reduce engine RPM to idle but IIRC in the L-39 they would be • Weapon System ARMED • Cannon selected • Speed Above 310 km/h (req'ed to fire the cannon) ... and when all 3 conditions are meet, the RPM will drop to idle when the Trigger is DEPRESSED. Comment I'm a little surprised the JF-17 reduces engine RPM when firing wing tip SD-10's but perhaps it's a disadvantage of mixing an older engine system with a modern weapons computer (i.e. it can't can't be hard wired for a particular weapon type/station) or is just another of the JF-17's "peculiarities".

No, however the question is outside my expertise, AFAIK it's usually a matter of FM tuning rather than something missing, and I have to be guided by the feedback given by RL Yak-52 owners/pilots who say there are things that could/should be improved (but none of that matters if ED feel their time/resources are better used elsewhere). For those who can, I suggest enjoying the DCS Yak-52 for what it is, rather than what it might have been.

Parasitic drag increases, AFAIK best glide is calculated at max. weight, so with less fuel, etc. the best glide speed would be slower, I did a zero fuel test as well but actually glided a slightly shorter distance than I had previously.

Testing in Open Beta 2.7.6.13436, I'm seeing a glide distance of approx. 17 NM (32 km) which is 20% further than expected from the POH but not nearly as bad. Perhaps the previously quoted 40km estimate was overly optimistic or something has changed since the video was made ?