WHOGX5

I'd love to have a MH-60M WAYYYY more than I'd like to have the HH-60G. The thing is that the MH-60M is a lot more modern and, hence, harder to get a hold of documentation and more complex to model. The pro of the HH-60G is that it has a lot of fairly simple systems which are still way beyond those of any other utility helicopter in DCS at the moment. Also it's pretty much just a beefed up UH-60A so you'd get two models in one sweep, much like HeatBlur's F-14A/B stint. But yeah, MH-60M would be a dream come true! :D

Guilty as charged... :lol:

In light of the recent poll on facebook, I'd like to make the case for THE medium utility helicopter, the H-60. This is a bit lengthy so please bear with me. :D *drool* :joystick: The HH-60G 'Pave Hawk' has been in service for a long time, and saw combat during, among others, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, mainly flying combat search and rescue and medevac, but also insertion and extraction for ground troops. When not in combat, it has been very active flying humanitarian relief missions all over the world. Because of its age, it doesn't have too many classified systems, and it would be a blast to fly! Another HH-60G: If I had to choose one H-60 variant it would have to be the HH-60G. If you're going to do a UH-60M (which is arguably more complex), you might as well model a HH-60G instead. She is able to perform a whole slew of tasks that no other helicopter in DCS can do at the moment, and probably for a long time ahead. The HH-60G is sort of an older, less capable MH-60M. It is a very flexible multi-mission platform, performing everything from troop transport to recon, CSAR, long range missions with refueling, night missions, etc. It also has this beautiful blend of an old school cockpit and a glass cockpit. ATM, there are both attack, recon and transport choppers from all kinds of different era's in DCS. The one category that's vacant is the modern utility helicopters. That's why I believe the HH-60G would fit like a glove. Here is a list I stole right off of Wikipedia of the HH-60G's equipment: INS/GPS/Doppler navigation SATCOM satellite communications Secure/anti-jam communications LARS (Lightweight Airborne Recovery System) range/steering radio to compatible survivor radios Automatic flight control NVG night vision goggle lighting FLIR forward looking infra-red radar Color weather radar Engine/rotor blade anti-ice system Retractable In-flight refueling probe Integral rescue hoist RWR combat enhancement IR infra-red jamming unit Flare/chaff countermeasure dispensing system It even has skids and a refueling boom for Yule-Ops! Now, I'm not an H-60 expert, nor am I a simulator module developer, but I don't think it would be too daring of a task to develop multiple H-60 variants. I know for a fact that the UH-60A and the SH-60B share 83% part commonality, and the HH-60G's are upgraded UH-60A's. This leads me to believe that developing the UH-60A, SH-60B, and HH-60G wouldn't be too much work, compared to just developing one of them. They all have the same airframe, and all three of them share the same General Electric T700 engines (or T701's if later upgraded variants). So developing stuff like engine performance or flight models would only have to be done once. It's not like developing a F/A-18C and F/A-18E which have completely different engines and airframes, not to mention avionics. Once you have developed the UH-60A, all that's left (and I don't mean to imply this isn't a lot of work) is the specialized equipment for the remaining variants: FLIR, MAD/SAD, etc. for the SH-60B, and refueling probe, weather radar, etc. for the HH-60G. Both the SH-60B and the HH-60G have folding rotors, so both are able to perform shipboard operations. With all of these different abilities in the same airframe, this would allow us to fly all sorts of missions in all sorts of environments. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be perfectly happy if all these modules were released separately at full price, even though it's less work per module, and then we, the users, buy the ones we want. Win-win in my book. It will be less time and money spent for greater revenue. Here are the cockpits side by side. As you can see the cyclics, consoles, panels, etc. are pretty similar apart from a few of the avionics, especially between the SH-60B and HH-60G. UH-60A: SH-60B: HH-60G: I'm done rambling now. Thanks for your patience! :thumbup:

JESUS CHRIST!!! Will definitely buy! :D

This! Imagine doing traps with E-2/C-2's. Gawd! Plus, as I've mentioned before, we would get both our first AWACS aircraft, but also our first dedicated transport. So much to do!!!! It's less work than an 707, plus someone needs to guide those AIM-54's after the turkey pilots get a little shaky and start extending at 80nm! :joystick:

I've flown a lot of A-10C on the BlueFlag server and from time to time I get some kills against Su-27's and Mig-29's, and pretty much every single time it's because the enemy pilot didn't know how to properly use his airframe. Almost without exceptions the enemy fighter approaches me doing 600-700 knots while I'm flying at 200-250. All I have to do is pop 20-30 flares and do a hard turn inside his circle and send a sidewinder up his ass while he's to fast to turn. All the enemy would have to do in order to kill me is to either go high after zooming me or approach me at a lower speed so I can't get inside their circle without bleeding all my airspeed. A-10C's are easy prey, long as you know what you're doing. :thumbup:

All this talk about B-17's... Am I the only Ju-88 fanboy on this forum? :D

The only real information we've gotten about the theatre Heatblur is developing is a very vague description by Cobra where he wrote something along the lines of "Very oceany. Very cold". That's all we have to go by at this point. My guess is the Barents Sea. :D

That's what I heard too.

It'd be really nice to get a M90K camoflauge to go with all the desert maps! :D

This is an issue with DCS World itself, not the individual aircraft modules. Don't know when we'll get a fix for it though.

I CAN BARELY CONTAIN MYSELF!!!!! Also, all the rattling in the cockpit during buffeting sounds super nice! :thumbup:

Am I the only one who find the bright yellowish tone of the MFD symbology a bit odd? Shouldn't it have the same colour as all other US aircraft? That deep green one? I also find it odd that the default colour of the FLIR/TGP in the youtube videos default to a very intense green colour instead of black as you see in the following images. Also the symbology in the FLIR/TGP is that wierd yellowish kind on top of bright green. I know it's WIP, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't overlooked, that's all. The cockpit looks great! Here is the latest in-game photo, followed by some IRL ones: PS: Note the transparency of the glass covering all the dials in the real images, in contrast to the in-game one. I know it's WIP, I just hope it isn't overlooked.

Mirage F1 and the AS 37 Martel During my regular aircraft info scavenge on the internet I found a book by René Carpentier called Missiles Tactiques. Here are some interesting excerpts from the book regarding the Mirage F1 and the AS 37 Anti-radar missile. The link to this document is at the bottom of this post if you want to look for yourselves. This was translated through google so it's not perfect, but you get the point. Preface: Émile Blanc, very wisely, entrusted René Carpentier with the drafting of Tactical missiles, for which he has worked career. Born in 1931, he did not live the hopes and the joys of those who, from Of 1945, promoted special gear. A few years later, he became an engineer Assigned to the section of the STAé (Aeronautical Technical Service) which Of these materials, he has rubbed shoulders with all the pioneers, whether they be in the Establishments or industry. The second part of his career took place in industry. The text he has written shows how much he dominates his subject, Knows all aspects. For each period, it indicates the point of view of the Services and the industry, the progress made by OEMs and To suppliers, an overview of what is happening in France or abroad. AS 37 Martel The Aircraft Section of STAé was responsible for the integration of Mirage III, the F1 and the Jaguar. [...] Finally, in 1977, the United Kingdom was hostile to an export of Martel Antiradar to Iraq. It was the condition imposed by that country for the purchase of Mirage F1. [...] In the 1970s, Martel (AR) was banned from export, except for OTAN(NATO) countries. A purely French version, Armat, was developed for (Towards the Middle East) from 1978 to 1982. 160 missiles were produced To equip the Mirage F1 and the Mirage 2000; Many Iranian radars were Destroyed during the Iraq-Iran war. This should mean that the Spanish F1EE technically could carry the AS 37 missile, right? Even if Spain never actually bought the AS 37, is there still a possibility it still be implemented? SEAD capability is a huge deal breaker for me, and is the reason I never bought the M2000C. If the F1 will get the AS 37, it will be a first day buy for me. Link: http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurosae.com%2Fpages%2Fcomaero%2FR_Carpentier_Missiles_tactiques.pdf

New video guys!

Isn't that because he is aligning the ASL with the velocity vector instead of the TD?

I'm not at all familiar with the harrier, but I am however familiar with the A-10C and F-16C. Just hear me out on this. I think it looks like the harrier's CCRP (AUTO) is correctly implemented, only that it is used incorrectly in the video. Instead of lining up the velocity vector with the CCRP line like you do in the A-10C and F-16C, it seems like you are supposed to line the CCRP line up with the target point instead of the velocity vector, which seems unintuitive to A-10C and F-16C pilots. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It'd be interesting if Razbam could upload a video trying to drop some dumb bombs in this manner while in a bank. If it works as I suspect it does, the velocity vector should cross the CCRP line right at the release point. With this in mind, take a second look at amalahama's second picture. One discrepancy I found in the video though, is that when the 'target-more-than-90-degrees-off-the-nose' arrow appears, the ASL is supposed to dissapear EDIT: I got a hold of the AV-8B Tactical Manuals! Here are some pictures I found.

+1 A HUD scale slider in the individual aircraft settings would really be the best way to go IMO. Then everyone could adapt it to their own setup.

It's hard to see when not in motion, but there are some outlines which follows the motion of the radar scope sprite when scanning. Found in 2.1.1.

Great read! It's always interesting to get more insight into the development process. :thumbup:

The time I spend offline is mostly just flying around without any hostiles, and/or practicing combat tactics and maneuvers. The few times I actually fly SP missions I only fly A-G mission, as I find the enemy AI to predictable and easy to beat in air combat. I remember back in F4: Allied Force when a Su-27 sent shivers down my spine as I knew I would have to fight tooth and nail to even have a shot at getting out of it alive. In DCS you only have to get close to the ground and the AI will do some stupid pull up and I can just shoot him right out of the sky. Just yesterday I was pondering whether to buy the M2000 or the F-5 so I pitted them against each other in a dogfight, both being the highest difficulty AI. They just flew vertical circles indefinitely. The Mirage didn't even use afterburners during the first half of the fight and after five minutes I just shut it off as nether party was either gaining or losing anything. This might sound a bit like I'm just nagging about DCS but it was not intended that way, just trying to point out the flaws so our experience can be improved. The ground AI is a lot better which is why something like BlueFlag is perfect for me. PvE versus ground units, and PvP against aerial targets. The best of both worlds! :D

I know, I just find it a bit odd to create a full-fidelity carrier for a FC3 module, that's all. Yeah sure, it just seems a bit deceptive to me if they were in fact only modeling the F/A-18C. Also, the F-18 is confirmed, the F-16 has been WIP for a couple of years now behind the scenes, and not making an F-16 would be the most questionable business decision ED's ever made. And why would they include a MiG-29 next to them? Just seems a bit fishy to me. Fishy in a good way. :D Hahaha, can someone ask Sith to add it to the top of the page? :lol:

Hold on a second..... I just did some next level brain exercises and realized that we're getting fully modeled Nimitz- and Kustnetzov-class carriers for DCS. The Nimitz to go with the F/A-18C, but the Kusnetzov for the.....? Now, I've always said that the MiG-29K/KR would be the perfect counterpart to the F/A-18C. It just hit me that they might actually be modelling it. The 29K/KR is an all-weather, carrier capable aircraft with an armament consisting of anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, as well as TV/laser guided bombs and missiles. It has A-A, A-G, and terrain following radar. It's basically the F/A-18C's Russian step-brother. It'd also make sense to model it so the RedFor fanboys finally get their first modern full-fidelity fighter. Now, I know how happy the Russian authorities are about handing out blueprints and flight manuals to sim-devs, not to mention licensing. But I don't see why you would include an F-16 and a MiG-29 in a teaser unless your modeling them. And come on, even though the F-16 hasn't been confirmed, we all know it's coming. Having a modern combat flight sim without the F-16 is like making a game depicting D-Day without M1 Garands. It almost makes too much sense not to be true! Well well, I guess only time will tell... :D

If your far fetched prediction holds true, then I'd just like to point out that the last aircraft in the intro is a MiG-29..... So without jumping to any conclusions, full fidelity F-16 and MiG-29 confirmed. :D

In my opinion, it's really simple. Remove the collision models for all carriers and ships you don't own. Everyone can join the server. Everyone can see the carriers, as well as shoot at them. They just can't land on them. Win-win? The asset packs however are a completely different issue. I'm 100% in favor of them being a part of the map and bumping the price up 10 bucks. The asset packs really have the potential to split the community if they keep being sold separately. Just imagine having a mission with SA-2's, SA-4's and SA-5's, all from different asset packs. That'd be a nightmare.