Robert1983NL

This answer is SO simple, I don't even understand why I should explain it to you, but here it is: Affirmative and negative are TWO OPPOSITES. Confusing those could potentially lead to dangerous situations. And you're the one speaking English as your native language? I never said it's not a big deal 99,9% of the time... I said units fly with other 'compatible' units 99,9% of the time, and if they don't, they compare and brief eachother's SOP's. And if the biggest accident in aviation history is caused by the word affirmative, and just about the whole world doesn't use affirmative anymore, and you still stubbornly DO: YES, I can say you're dangerous and have, well, let's say (not to have people calling for me to be banned again), 'different' standards.

It's absolutely not a pissing contest, just sharing my opinion on the US's standards. Obviously some people live in huge bubbles which deserve to be busted. Like Paulrkii's, who calls for my banning and gives me a downrep just because I said something a little bit negative about his country. That's a big shame, but oh well. And then there's this guy who thinks 'affirmative' is an okay call. It's not. ICAO prescribes affirm. That's not even an opinion, it's a fact. Other people have said it too, in this thread, but they get no reaction. Only I get cramped reactions by some people, who'd like to see me banned for it. These people seriously need to take a look in the mirror and be able to cope with some criticism.

Set the bar, LMAO. Well, you're American for sure. Doesn't matter, I LOVE the country and I go there every year, but believe me, there's a world OUTSIDE of the USA, and I know for a fact that the bar in the Netherlands for instance is a WHOLE LOT HIGHER. Not trying to take the piss out on anyone, just my opinion based on my experience. Ask any Northern European aviator, and you'll get the exact same answer. He was probably proficient at speaking and understanding English, it was the mixup between affirmative and negative (which could also easily happen to native English speakers), which you still use, which is against ICAO rules. You sir, are dangerous. By the way... unmatched safety record... Did you know that in Afghanistan about all US helicopters have a minimum flying altitude of around (I think it was) 500'? Because the US Army was losing more helicopters due to CFIT than actual enemy fire. Seriously, that's just awful.

Why? Because it's forbidden to have an opinion? I can't say something is bad? It's not allowed to be critical? What kind of community would this be if criticism and own opinions aren't allowed? A North Korean one?

Yeah... The US aren't really known to uphold a high standard most of the time.... Anyway, I kind of thought you had something to do with/in aviation irl, but that's obviously not true. Every self respecting pilot should know, or should at least be able to reason why affirmative is a very bad call. I can't remember which accident it was exactly, but I do know that since that huge accident, affirmative is banned from being used in aviation. Reason: It can easily be confused with negative. Not only in cases where the transmission is garbled, but also in cases where the first part of the word in the transmission is stepped on for instance, or affirmative/negative can very well often be the first word in a transmission: It could be that a pilot speaks too quickly before the microphone is open so that the first part is missed. Confusing affirmative with negative can obviously have huge consequences. That's why pilots use affirm ("A-firm"). I'm not laughing off the importance of brevity, I'm laughing at you overreacting at it and you talking about affirmative. Units fly together with their own 'compatible' units 99,9% of the time. And yes, it DOES happen that certain units from different countries have small differences in brevity words for all kinds of reasons. Just like you think it's okay to use affirmative... The reason I said you're overreacting that people will die when incorrect brevity is used is first of all because it IS totally overreactive, and second of all brevity words aren't the holy saint, third of all: Most of the time units fly with their own units or if they're not, they would brief minor differences in SOP's/calls beforehand: problem solved. No one will die, don't worry.

Man lol... Don't overreact like that! Now you're just comparing apples with pears. And I believe one of the worst aviation accidents with the highest number of deaths was caused by the word affirmative... Typical that you use affirmative... Do you REALLY use that in real life? I thought it was banned decades ago.

Checked my checklist for the brevity words today. It actually says on top of the first page: CHECK FOR UPDATES REGULARLY. So yeah, brevity words' definitions DO change. And also different units use different intepretations of brevity words.

No, just a coincedence that this village was right near a preplanned navigation leg. The Netherlands is a small country :)

It's actually pretty easy to prove. I could send you a PM with a photo of my license for instance, with this forum on my monitor in the background. Or like last time, I flew by a village where a forum member lives. Unfortunately he wasn't home lol, but I could repeat it. Back ontopic, what I've said is what and how I'm used to use these brevity words and terms/procedures. And yes they often change. Just like calls like 'tango/contact/hostile', the exact usage often changes and isn't always too clear. But anyway, if what I'm used to in reality causes a stir here on the forums, I'll just keep it to myself, I don't care. No need to share.

A lot of these things change, sometimes eveven every year. I'm just sharing what I know, what I use. I'm an active military pilot.

'spotted', means a ground based search radar is searching and has spotted you. If it's tracking, it's 'mud tracking'. The reason why spike and mudspike are terrible calls is because they look so much a like. If mud is missed, or misheard, it could be an airborne radar instead of groundbased.

Those type of displays are still very much used. But mud spike is just an incorrect call. Brevity wise terrible as well. How I'm used to using it: Spike(d): airborne radar searching Mud: Ground based air defence Spotted: search radar sees you Tracking: Threat is tracking you

Yes I am. Just like fence in and out are used the wrong way around... You start at your own base. When you leave you fence out. You go 'over your own fence into the enemy territory'. Fence in/fence out isn't even really used... The correct call is just: fence checks. So yeah, there's a lot of knowledge in these communities, but a lot of it isn't correct.

A 'mud spike' is a contradiction. It's really a bullshit call. Since mud is GROUND based air defence, and spike is an AIRBORNE search radar.

1 screen now, but seriously looking for a 3 screen setup.

So if I understand this correctly, increasing from 512 to 1024 doesn't show a difference on the MFD's? And you must never select 'every frame' to keep it from killing your FPS? All this time I've been flying with 256 selected, and it really messed up my target finding and ID-ing... Damn... Hopefully 512 won't eat up too much of my FPS.

Hey guys. I'm also in need of some better performance. I don't want to mess with config files and all. I have an outdated computer and will be upgrading in the very near future. Right now I have: CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 RAM: 2x2GB GFX: HD5770 Next month I'll buy a HD7970. I was told that my processor wouldn't need an upgrade, is this old CPU still good enough? And how much improvement will RAM make? I'm looking at a GEIL 2x8GB DDR3 1333Mhz set that's only a little over €100, would that be a good upgrade for DCS?

I had my cockpit displays at 256 all the time... Does this make the MFD's more blurry?

Lol. $29 for a DCS Huey flight manual. Great deal!

nrk98, my knowledge of VRS is not limited to that of wikipedia. And I'll tell you once again: VRS can NOT occur when you're in ground effect. It's simply impossible. You might almost call it a contradiction! So yeah, it has nothing to do with VRS, unless you have a hard time estimating distances and a very unsteady control of the aircraft. Let me teach you what wikipedia obviously didn't teach you. There are three prerequisites to get into VRS. -An airspeed below ETL. -A rate of descent exceeding 800fpm. -A high AUM. We all know that VRS is currently way too overmodeled in the Belsimtek Huey, BUT, it does not seem possible to me that you can get into a 800+fpm descent when you're at 10-15 feet, hovering. Unless you slam the collective down. But that means you crash because you lowered the collective, not because you entered VRS :)

Well, you obviously don't understand VRS... But that doesn't matter, it's not the problem. I really think your flying hand is the problem. It's impossible to be in VRS while hovering in ground effect.

Original nickname. DCS is all about realism. There's no way you'd get the F22 or F35 anywhere NEAR realistic.

NOW you're talking about collective. In your OP you were talking about 50-55% throttle. Well... Then you haven't explained your problem very well, or you don't understand VRS, because you won't get VRS when you're hovering at 10-15 feet. You'd crash into the ground before you would be get anywhere near conditions that'd allow VRS... Like I said, keep on practicing. It's the most realistic helicopter sim available on PC, way better than anything that was on the market before. Maybe that's why you're having a little bit of trouble.

The Hind is terribly underpowered... It really isn't all that great. I guess it's just got a tough image because it's 'that big fat scary Russian helicopter from the cold war'.

Yeah, what else is there to say? There's no bug that would cause what he is saying, other than a bug in the seat-to-stick interface. Also, nrk98 isn't really clear on what the problem is. If he means what he says, I'd say 50-55% throttle is ofcourse not nearly enough to stay airborne. This should be 100%.