Ramsay

AFAIK "LTE" is not modelled in DCS's Mi-8. It will however weathercock when the tail is struck by a crosswind, etc. This doesn't mean you can't runout of pedal authority in DCS, just that pedal authority is likely greater than the real. AFAIK Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness due to • vortices coming off the main rotor and striking the tail rotor • tail rotor VRS • tail rotor AoA reduction ... is not modelled in any current DCS helicopter.

Not sure what currency you're using. Steam DB shows FC3 released Nov/Dec 2014 @ $40 ($24 (40% discount) for the first week) with a price increased in May 2018 to $50 that effected most modules/currencies* * IIRC ED "standardised" their pricing/exchange rate, rather than price in local currencies i.e. A-10C increased to $60 at the same time. Currently FC3 has a 50% discount in ED's store, so is $25 ($24.99) at the moment. Like other modules, FC3 is updated/maintained to be compatible with changes in DCS's core and improved as time/resources allow.

Yes, but now that INS overfly and offset updates work, there's a good reason to do a position update prior to an attack or landing. It "feels" a good day to be a Mirage owner

I believe so, but I haven't used fast alignment in 2.7, so don't know the details.

Can you post a track, AFAIK nothing much has changed with alignment other than than the need to use WP 1-20 for the initial alignment i.e. • enter initial co-ordinates and altitude into PREP 20 • validate to start the alignment • switch to Nav mode once complete

I'm not seeing any difference between the Mirage and A-10C with regards to ATC's ILS. 2.7 has made the ATC active runway and active ILS desync issue worse than 2.5 as 2.7 seems to be more strict on the direction and magnitude of the wind, you now need to have a 3 m/s (5.5 knot) headwind to be sure the ILS and markers are turned on for ATC's active runway. Here I've had to increase a 60° crosswind from 8 knots to 11 knots, to get a 5.5 knot (3m/s) headwind on RWY 07 to trigger DCS's ATC to turn on the ILS. So far I've used the ILS at Senaki and Kobuleti while flying in 2.7

It's not a bug, the functionality of the "NEAR" range switches was changed/corrected sometime ago, unfortunately the manual has never been updated to reflect the change. 1. 150 - 310 kHz 2. 310 - 640 kHz 3. 640 - 1300 kHz. It is no longer possible to set pre-set frequencies in the ME i.e. it's not a feature of the real. See this thread for more detail

Don't let the lack of rudder pedals stop you, if you've flown the Mi-8 using joystick twist, you'll have a good idea of the main issues of having to hold the twist, while making cyclic changes. It takes time/practice to build up a steady wrist and you'll likely always be at a disadvantage compared to someone with rudder pedals when holding a hover but the lack of space for a set of rudder pedals has never held me back from buying/flying a helicopter.

I can confirm the HUD ILS guidance now looks correct in Open Beta 2.7

I don't recall a Mi-8/Mi-17 SME saying DCS's VRS wasn't over-modelled who wasn't part of the development team. However the lead dev. (joined ED 2012/13) Aleksandr ‘PilotMi8’ Podvoisky flew the Mi-8TV, Mi-8MT and Mi-8MTV has +1200 hours on the type. With that number of flight hours, all I can do is leave the real life pilots to talk it out.

I haven't found the DCS Mi-8 to be as prone to VRS as you suggest (300 ft/min = 1.5 m/s). The barometric VSI does model instrument lag and it's scale is rather course - making the doppler instrument the preferred reference. Last time I checked (using tacview), the VRS risk zone in DCS was closer to ~3 m/s (600 ft/min) but that was several years ago. IIRC real life pilots have said DCS's Mi-8 is overly susceptible to VRS when compared to the real, so you are right in that regard.

I don't know the details i.e. if it's a DCS API limitation, but the L-39ZA carries both R-3S (rear) and R-60M (limited all aspect) missiles and BOTH give an "all aspect" lock tone, IIRC the dev's said they could only implement one type of seeker logic for the player and had chosen the "all aspect" version, which meant the incorrect logic carried over to the R-3S. The limitation also likely carries over to the AI as I've often been shot from the front in merges, despite give them the older rear aspect R-3S.

• DCS World\Mods\aircraft\NS430\entry.lua The 2D NS430 is enabled by default unless explicitly "disabled" i.e. removing or commenting out with "--" the line ["F-16C_50"] = disabled, ... in entry.lua will allow "LShift+LAlt+B" to call up the 2D NS430 window in the F-16C. Tested DCS 2.5.6.61527 Example edit with line commented out:

IIRC Chuck is having trouble keeping up with the Harrier's recent updates as they've been poorly documented, are spread across several posts/videos and are WIP/subject to change. At a guess Chuck has pulled his older guide until Baltic Dragon* adds the latest changes to Razbam's own manual. The last version I have is dated 5th Nov 2020. *IIRC BD is focused on revising the missions and training ATM, so it could take a while before he updates the official manual to include the latest changes i.e. GBU-54, APKWS, Gen 4 TPOD, HUD "hot spot" detector, etc.

MagVar for the Nevada map is approx. 12° E, so the center line for Nellis RWY 21L is on approx. 208° Magnetic. You can use the A-10C's CDU Position Page to read the MV for any particular date/location.

There was a German twitch stream last night (Monday), the KW is looking as good as ever but missing it's damage model which AFAIK will be one of the last items done. Here are a couple of screen shots to keep you going until after 2.7 and *perhaps* an English stream later in the month. [expired link removed] Highlight of the stream was probably at 03:55:40 - locking a Hornet slow pass with the MMS and lasing/hitting it with a APKWS.

AFAIK the "missing" reports were moved to the "Resolved" sub-sections by a moderator and weren't deleted. Unfortunately Razbam's "resolved" sections now contain and mix of genuine bugs DCS core issues as intended/future feature fixed/updated user errors ... if you think an issue has been forgot, it *may* be worth giving it a "bump" or asking for a status update, otherwise it's likely best to be patient while RB work on the Harrier and Mirage. The problems with the links in the first post are likely due to forum migration, rather than moderation (assuming they didn't break forum rules, etc.).

Yes, work is on going but AFAIK a major change in capability is due to be added in 2.7 Also coming is RD (Route Desirée / desired course), which is a bit like OBS in a Garmin and guides the plane to approach a waypoint on a particular course/azimuth. In this WIP preview, a Batumi waypoint on runway 13 is given the final approach RD (125.6°T) on the PCN. With RD enabled on the PCA the HUD cues guide to line up on final for RWY 13

The A-10C's ILS also works at Al Minhad, RWY 27 (with zero wind). Before saying an ILS doesn't work for a particular RWY/airport with certainty, you'll need to test with a headwind of at least 6 knots to ensure ATC makes both RWY and ILS active for that direction. I agree that not all ILS appear to work on the PG map as intended, however it is a map/DCS 2.5.x issue rather than purely effecting the A-10C II. Tested DCS Open Beta 2.5.6.61527

I had hoped you would be open to discuses measurements made of a "real" Gazelle in flight and the observations of a fellow ALAT Gazelle SA-342M1 pilot who gave feedback to PC dev's for a while. After asking me ... I gave you an answer and sources of why I thought that was the case, you derided the National Technical Report Library of the US Department of Commerce as a wiki reference. While I could attempt to ... either briefly or as a 2 page technical paper, it would not be a discussion paper about "real" helicopter flight. My assessment of your request is (perhaps wrongly) that it is similar to your mention of the "starflex" coupling i.e. a technical detail to obfuscate discussion (I expected follow up details, instead you switched to a short biography). Writing a technical paper really doesn't seem worth my time as PC have already acknowledged the issue with the Gazelle's cyclic position and gone into some detail (a series of twitch streams) on how it and several other problems have been fixed in the new Kiowa flight model. If it is any consolation to you, PC described the Gazelle's current cyclic sensitivity as correct, however to expect it to be necessary to displace the cyclic from it's center position during flight once the new FM is ported over. As you are only looking for "real" helicopter pilots ... I'll leave you to discuss your "feelings" on the Gazelle's flight model with others who are more qualified.

Understood. It's over, thank you for your input.

ADA016921.pdf, the US measured the SA-342's control positions and sensitivity to compare them in a qualitative and meaningful way with other US helicopters i.e. the 1975 OH-58. The cyclic's neutral position in the real is not a fixed position, being adjustable with magnetic brake (force trim) and fine trim hat. The SAS will maintain the position set by the pilot. I have to disagree. When discussing why a flight model "feels" wrong, it is useful to be able to see how the simulated control positions compare to real life. We focus on the control positions because they do not correspond to RL measurements and behaviours i.e. from ADA016921.pdf The measurements in ADA016921.pdf are supported by Damcopter's own observations ... and the problem been acknowledged by PC. I'm aware of RL cockpit references and how helicopters and aircraft are flown IRL. Thank you for the offer, I bought two copies of the DCS Gazelle on release and have being flying it for several years, so don't need any help in that regard.

I would like you to describe how moving the cyclic controlled the main rotor in the version(s) of Gazelle you have *personally* flown i.e. whether it was necessary to center the cyclic during a banked turn, and/or how the Gazelle's cyclic input differed from those of a helicopter with a teetering or fully-articulated rotor head (assuming you have experience of flying the type). You DO NOT need to describe/explain control linkages, the swashplate, etc., rather this is about pilot control input i.e. as measured in ADA016921.pdf Yes, I am aware of the Gazelle's construction, AFAIK the composite "hinge" would be modelled in a FM as a fully-articulated semi-rigid joint to allow the modelled blades to flap/feather like the real aircraft.

None but I'm willing to learn/be corrected, my sources include • Flight Test of the Aerospatiale SA-342 Helicopter, Aug 1975, ADA016921.pdf (contains flight control measurements/charts) https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA016921.xhtml • ALAT pilot feedback https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3929939#post3929939 http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=465&t=200331&p=1678174#p1678174 It should be noted that PC claimed in the past that even experience in a UK SA-341 wasn't relevant to the SA-342 as it had different/special blades, AFAIK their position on pilot feedback has changed since.

Yes. To many to list, both fill similar roles. Briefly: The L-39 is a Czech manufactured "Soviet" trainer (with a English DCS cockpit option i.e. translated labels and knots/feet) Instrumentation is metric km, metres, HSI/RMI uses true, etc. Slightly more powerful engine. Russian RSBN and PRMG navigation systems (rather than TACAN and ILS) Most IFR landings will be NDB non-precision approaches. Quirks of the real aircraft are modelled i.e. match RL pilot notes. The L-39ZA has a more limited (realistic ?) range of Russian A2A IR missiles, rockets, bombs and gun pods. FFB is well supported with stick force changing with speed and buffet/vibration prior to wing stall. The L-39 was developed by ED and it's development is now complete. The C-101 is developed by a small team and though very usable it is still WIP with a slow trickle of "no fuss" updates and improvements.