Flagrum

Just because an idea is new does not automatially mean that it is a good one ... ;-)

GRL ... Groom Lake?

"Recoverable VRS" is no VRS - it is just a (unreasonable) quick descend. But iirc, this specific point was already discussed elsewhere exhaustively.

Uhm ...? The conclusion at the end of that video says "No VRS" after the helo landed perfectly fine. Maybe you've linked the wrong alternative facts video? ;.)

Interesting. To me it looked like the steering cues - those horizontal bars that idicate if your heading is not precise - were much more pronounced in the way they were banking. In our M2K it seems to be implemented more in a linear fashion. If you are far off the required heading, the cues bank a lot, if you are just a little bit off, they bank only a tiny bit. This makes it difficult to correct for small errors as it is almost impossible to gauge the amount of correction that is needed. In that video, even small heading errors produce a pronounced banking of the cue lines and probably only if you are aligned 100% perfect, they would be parallel to the horizon. I my interpretation correct? If so, PLZ Razbam, could your correct it then? :-D

They never did (except in a buggy way for a week or two right after relase - until they got disabled). Iirc it was said that due to DCS sim engine limitations the AI has no logic to operate them. I guess, DCS has no concept of an aircraft aiming and firing sideways (opposed to the usually front mounted, forward firing aircraft guns). This was reported (by me) right after the release, a few years back. But maaaaybe the engine evolved a bit over time in this regard?

I don't get it. Dimitrov (and Coxy), afaik nobody in this thread is bashing the devs. If I am mistaken, please provide a link ... Instead, in this thread are basically two factions discussing a few issues - one faction is claiming "I wonder if this or that is correct ... because I have no idea how this behaviour could be explained" and the other one is basically like "Nah, all is good". Yes, this back and forth is somewhat tireing, but your posting earlier isn't really helping either ... as you are just siding with the "Na, all is good (within the expectable 5%)"-faction. But anyhow, yes, the whole experience of flying and fighting in a certain environment is not fully simulated with a DCS module. But this is also not the point of this thread. Instead the focus is on some very specific issues of how the helo reacts in a specific environment. This thread is not about the preculiars of flying in moutainous environment, nor is it about the realism of a typical combat mission as whole. In short, to some extend I follow our criticism, but it is completely misplaced ... in this thread, imo. Btw, the DCS MI-8 is the basis of at least one professional simulator... edit: ... and additionally @Dimitrov, you know how the DCS code works - but do you know how the code of these professional simulators work, i.e. have you seen it as well? edit2: and as I saw it only just now: Well, and this is where you ARE arrogant ... because this statement is definately not true (for all participants in these threads).

Wow, Dimitrov, I can sense a huge shitstorm coming in ... Before I start, I understand that you are part of the PolyChop team? You developed the campaign, but you are not actually one of the developers, correct? I have to ask this because often you make the impression (at least to me) that you are speaking on behalf of the devs. But I just go and assume that this is just your personal opinion, ok? Now on topic ... you are right. And you are so totally wrong. If you read the entire thread, you'll notice that it is primarily about a few specific issues that the community thinks that need either correction or at least explanation. But you are dismissing them all as "well within the 5% of expectable realism". Really? If you really believe that they can't do better, then you are actually doing a huge disservice to PolyChop (or any 3rd party dev) here. Well, you are right, a sim, a PC sim - or any simulator - can never replicate every aspect of an aircraft. But, guess what, we do understand that. But saying, a DCS module must be of lesser fidelity than a professional trainer sim, is not helping. At. All. In my opinion you are rather dismissing the work of the devs here ... IF a DCS mod would offer only 5% fidelity, then any professional sim would also only give you something in the range of 4 - 6 %. Professional sims are not better because they are more expensive. They are more expensive mostly because they sell much less. If a DCS module is sold 1000, 2000 or dunno, 5000 times, a professional simulator might be sold perhaps 10-20 times. And they are more expensive because of all the hardware (real cockpit, motion platform, etc.) And these professional simulators also often lack certain aspects of a real aircraft. For example, many (most?) are less capable graphics wise (of the outside world). Sometimes even the flight model might be not really be better than what we get - if for example the systems and avionics handling is the focus of such a sim. In this community there are quite a few people who know a lot about aircraft. Many mostly self-taught, having "only" theoretical knowledge, but also some real pilots. And dismissing all of them as being people similar to BF and War Thunder players is ... well, insulting imo. I am not talking about the phrasing you used (I know, that was not meant to be insulting), but instead talking about the mind set you seem the community to have.

Two accounts makes probably a lot of sense. But imo the server account should not need module licenses - or even flyable modules installed at all. On the server only AI is operating the aircraft ...

Maybe I am missing a point here, but if you run DCS on two PCs - one as server and the other one as client - you need only module licenses for the client PC. The server PC running the mission just have to assign "Client" to the aircraft instead of "Player". edit: the exception probably being map modules, obviously.

Iirc, 8 mils means 8 meters at 1000 meters ...

Hm, well, yeah. But on the other hand ... " use to create your own textures" - what did you think you were going to do with that?

My estimation for this scenario: 4-5 teams with 4-5 devs each and 5-10 years of development time. Man, 2027 gotta be awesome! ;P

Call me oldfashioned, but I prefer forums like this over chatrooms. At least for this special case we have here: this is a support forum where we share mainly questions and answers - or simply knowledge - regarding our hobby. Due to the asynchrone and persistent nature of a forum, it allows for much more people to participate. Often days, weeks or even years later someone comes and adds valuable input to some topic. Due to it structure (topic s specific sub-forums and threads), it allows for easier access to those questions and answers. The search function is (while not optimal, though ...) also is a usefull feature.

The kneeboard page with the airbases is quite crowded. Suggestion: remove the listing of irrelevant frequencies. Currently every frequency is listed that an airbase answers to. But in DCS, those frequencies are meant to be used by different aircraft with their repective radios - which support only a certain freq. range each. I.e. the < 5 MHz range is really only meant for the WWII aircraft. So, why not just filter out all frequencies that can not be used with the Viggen anyways? (I suggest to actually _filter_ the available airbase frequencies instead of choosing one specific one - maybe in future we will get more (Vigge-)usable freqencies per airbase?)

Can anyone explain how the radio is supposed to be used? I mean, the "philosophy" behind it? Who is listening/transmitting on which frequency or channel?

Uhm, no need to cross post this little mod now for the 7th time ...

More likely the other way around: the SAM missile shot down your MAV ...

Probably someone who wanted to make this otherwise completely pointless poll somewhat ... legitimate?

I think, it is a non-issue really. It works for ED - and that is all that matters. Aesthetics like folder name capitalization ... I mean, really? Besides that, while it may not be obvious in every case and while there are in fact some odd legacy structures, most parts are actually quite well organized and make a lot of sense. You just need to get a better understanding what is in there and why. For example the CoreMods vs. Mods issue: CoreMods contains the parts of a (3rd party) module that has to be available for everyone. Namely the AI variants of the respective aircraft. And Mods contains the playable aircraft. This way you can fly on MP servers and see everyone in their own aircraft, but you don't have to have bought that module for yourself. The only thing where you might have a point is the packed vs. unpacked issue. But it is 2017, we all got TB hard drives or SSDs and those files are only touched (loaded) once when you start a mission. So ... maybe we are talking about a performance difference of fractions of seconds while the mission loads (usually 10 ...20 ...30 seconds).

Not sure about that. Iirc, I've seen in one of the pre-release videos that for example the famous inop "X" landing strips "training range" near the coast showed up at the radar. But this might be a different case, though. But I think, I've also seen radar shadows, many of them, when someone was flying low over a town. I could not spot the actual buildings, but it seemed as if there were a lot of small black streaks as if the radar would not get any returns as it was blocked by some small...ish obstacles.

Well, to get a basis for comparisation, what is the actual dispersion in DCS?

I mean, are you? Then what are these hundreds of postings in this thread are about? Maybe we need 1-2 hundreds more ....

You guys always find something to bitch about, eh? :doh: (... & in4b "WHY NO STEAM !?!?"-faction joins ...)