lmp

There is an "Electrical Power Supply System Scheme" on page 142 of the manual which doesn't tell the whole story but gives some good hints. I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of electric circuits is rather basic, but here's what I've pieced together. The voltage I'm seeing in the battery bus in the game is 25V with just the batteries connected, about 26.5V with the APU generator connected and 27.5V with either DC ground power or generators + rectifiers providing power. The lights seem to actually reflect this somewhat (they get a tiny bit brighter when I connect the APU generator and a whole lot brighter when I connect DC ground power or engine generators + rectifiers. Are they bright enough on just batteries? Probably no, but I'm guessing that's more a problem with the cockpit lighting in the Mi-8 than the electrical simulation. The lighting was never the strong part of this module. The explanation here is that there are in fact two DC buses. There's the battery bus and the rectifier bus. You can think of them as the essentials and non-essentials buses respectively. The two buses are tied by a reverse current relay (which disconnects them when the battery bus voltage is greater than the rectifier bus voltage - you also get a "СЕТЬ ПИТ.ОТ АКК" or "BATTARY IN USE" light on the main instrument panel when that happens). The batteries and APU generator are connected to the battery bus via their respective switches. The APU generator can also be connected to the rectifier bus with the "Equipment test" switch. The rectifiers and DC ground power are connected to the rectifier bus - and of course since they all provide a higher voltage than the batteries do, connecting them ties the buses and charges the batteries. The R-828 is connected to the rectifier bus - so in order to use it you'll need power there. If you want to use it before the engines are running, you can either connect DC ground power or use the APU generator in conjunction with the Equipment test switch. Just be aware that the generator has a rather limited power and in order to not overload it, you shouldn't connect too many systems at once.

The UH-1H is a fairly simple single engine machine from the late 60s. I believe ours has a few systems that were added later, such as the radar altimeter and countermeasures system - which are incidentally perhaps the "messiest" parts of the cockpit layout. The Mi-8MTV2 is a fairly complex twin engine model from the early 90s - compared to the base variants it has been reengined and a lot of the avionics and systems were added or replaced. They aren't really that close in functionality and era. Due to the avionics complexity the Hip was certainly more of a challenge in terms of cockpit layout. The Hip and the Hind are some of the last pure steam gauges machines - with a lot of the complexity of modern aircraft but without the glass cockpits that greatly simplified management of all those systems. So yes, learning the layout and how to use all the cockpit controls effectively will be a challenge, but on the bright side, if you're familiar with the Hip, it should flatten the learning curve significantly.

This is your take on realism and the problem is, if we take the "one module represents only one very specific aircraft configuration" approach too far, it'll be the only take on realism that the sim will support. I like to create realistic, or at least plausible scenarios and having existing DCS aircraft stand in for other (often very similar) aircraft is the unfortunate reality of what I have to work with. The addition of UB-32 pods to the Mi-8's arsenal would give me the option to create more realistic scenarios which involve Mi-8/17s operated by countries other than Russia. For example, if we ever get an Afghanistan map, I would love for our Mi-8 to stand in for Polish Mi-17-1Vs. They are VERY similar airframes in terms of capabilities and equipment, the key difference being, the Polish birds never used the B-20 pods. At this point you could say, create scenarios where the existing modules fit perfectly, but that is pretty much not possible or at least severely limiting. Our selection of modules, maps and assets simply doesn't support that approach well. You could try with WW2 scenarios but pretty much anywhere else you'll be squinting hard. Considering all this, I think being able to use some weapons which are pushing the realism a bit is a good compromise. It would help players focused more on the historical realism/plausibility without really taking away anything from those who focus on the aircraft simulation aspect. Would I rather have a vast roster of perfectly realistic versions of each aircraft which would let me make the most out of the existing and future maps? You bet. But that's not going to happen. So I'd like to have a bit more wiggle room with the weapon loadouts because otherwise I have to figure out how to make a 1990s Russian Mi-8 and Mi-24 and a 2002 US Army Apache Longbow work on a 2009+ Persian Gulf Map or a Syrian Civil War Map without a time machine. I believe the concern that this will lead to further liberties with realism is unfounded as long as the rule that no departure from realism should be forced on players is kept. I don't want a single unrealistic panel, piece of avionics or weapon that cannot be disabled in the Settings/ME. This should be the line in the sand. As for public multiplayer... I think public multiplayer is a bit like watching Star Wars... You have to ignore that there's no sound in space or you won't have any fun. Suspension of disbelief. But I would be fine with a rule that any not perfectly realistic weapon doesn't give an unfair advantage. So, Walleye is good, 4 HARMs on a Viper is not. That should keep the public server randos away from them.

It's distasteful and against the forum rules whether I'm part of the "masses" or not. Again, I see ridicule, I see insults, but what I don't see is arguments that hold any merit against my statement - allowing, but not forcing players to use weapons that were not carried by the particular bort number that is being modeled does not hurt players wanting full realism in any meaningful way. "I don't want other players playing the game wrong" is not a valid argument, it's an obsession with other people's choices. "S-5s on the Mi-8 will lead to TIE fighters" is not a valid argument, it's a continuum fallacy.

This is a continuum fallacy. If you really believe that, you should be protesting the existence of external views, the reload and repair system and any and all helpers that the game has and always had - that are far more TIE fighter like. And don't even get me started on why are Hornets able to fly on the Normany map... wouldn't a Hornet be like a TIE fighter to a 1945 pilot? Come to think of it, was our particular Hornet bort number ever in the Persian Gulf or Syria? Because I don't know if I should be allowed to fly it there... I stand by what I said. I don't see how being able to (but not being forced to - key distinction) mount "unrealistic" weapons on a DCS aircraft hurts the ultimate realism crowd. Unless the knowledge itself that someone, somewhere is playing the game "wrong" bothers you so much. It really shouldn't, get over it. Unless you're playing on public servers, but then the S-5s on the Mi-8 or RS-2US on the MiG-21bis pale in comparison with all the other unrealistic shenanigans going on when people are just trying to rack up kills rather than recreate history. Whether you like it or not, we ALL push realism one way or another. I don't know that you could create a single mission (at least using the modern assets) without something being unrealistic. The particular aircraft bort number we have never flew on that day from that airbase and dropped that particular JDAM variant on that particular T-55 variant. And yes, we are on this level of nitpicking if we're asking ourselves if it's ok to put S-5 pods on a Mi-8MTV2 which is based on a Russian machine that could but never did carry them, if a near identical Polish Mi-17-1V flew with them all the time in Afghanistan. Please don't insult people you're discussing with, this is distasteful and breaks the forum rules.

I find the P-47 to be the easiest by far of all the DCS warbrids to take off and land in. It doesn't want to ground loop or nose over like the others, in fact after my first try I went back into the settings to make sure I didn't have any helpers enabled. Nope. That's how she flies. The only quirk I noticed, if you can even call it that, is that you need a bit more power to arrest the descent if you've gone too low than in the other warbirds. I don't have a special landing technique for each of the warbirds. I come in at maybe 120mph or 200 - 220 km/h, making sure I'm coordinated, flare to a 3 point attitude a few feet above the runway, and once the aircraft settles down on the ground I pull the stick aft and keep it going straight with generous kicks of the rudder. Works for every one of them except maybe the I-16 which I don't own.

I fail to see how giving the Mi-8 S-5s, the Viper extra HARMs or even the MiG-21 all those fantasy loadouts hurts players who want realism. You don't have to use it. I'm against giving aircraft unrealistic features that you can't turn off - if the particular Hind we're getting didn't have an SPO-15, then it shouldn't have it in the game - but in case of weapons, you can just ignore them. Like external views, instant reload and repair and all the other highly unrealistic features that I'm sure all the purists are ignoring already. I never loaded an RS-2US on my MiG, or even the highly popular Grom. However if someone wants to use the MiG-21bis as a stand in for the MF in their historical (or fantasy) scenario, who am I to say he's doing something wrong.

Pilots can't just take "a bunch of munitions" without anybody noticing or caring. It doesn't work like that, not in the US, not in Russia/Soviet Union. Maybe in a banana republic. If you think a little bit beyond "it would be cool to do this", you'll realize how impractical and dangerous this idea is. I struggle to come up with a scenario where this would be the best approach available. Firstly, how likely is it that you will expend all ammunition (that's up to 16 ATGMs) from TWO helicopters (because you're not flying alone if you expect that much fighting) and still have enough fuel to get to a safe location, reload, expend your newly reloaded ammunition and get back home in the first place? Keep in mind that in real life your targets will be much better hidden than in DCS and their reaction to being under fire will be a lot more intelligent. Ok, let's say that's theoretically possible... At this point the problem is solved not on the crew level, but higher. Why not get the supplies to the safe landing location on trucks (together with personnel that's provide security, do the reloading)? If the location is safe, you should be able to get troops there in advance. Otherwise how do you know it's safe? Or just send two "fresh" helicopters to replace you? There's pretty much always a safer, quicker, better way to accomplish what you want with none of the disadvantages.

What in particular would make the Hurricane easier to operate than, say, the Mustang? The Spit and Bf-109 can be tricky with their narrow undercarriage and twitchy controls, but the 190s and especially the two American planes with their trimmers are about as easy as a WW2 fighter can get.

You should be able to fly the thing with just a half decent joystick. Good rudder pedals will help but so will a good throttle/collective. In fact, I'd say if you have just a stick, the lack of a good throttle with a long throw and smooth, precise action will hold you back at least as much as having no pedals. I'd say, if you're worried whether you'll be able to have fun with the kit you have, you'll be fine. If you're thinking what to buy to improve your experience, pedals are great, but so is a separate throttle - and it's more useful if you fly fixed wings. However the most important thing is your stick. Make sure it's precise and needs no deadzones. I've always seen the biggest difference when I upgraded my stick.

Wrong thread, please delete.

You need to be very precise with the dial. Open the in-game kneeboard and verify the frequency is exactly what it should be and not a few kHz off. If you're off by even a little bit, you may get no response or a "silent" one like you experienced.

AFAIK all ATC frequencies are AM, so writing it on the map would be rather redundant

If ED wants to continue rising the realism bar, they will have to do an overhaul of IFF sooner or later. The limited change that you're proposing would help a few Viper and Hornet pilots split neutrals from bandits but ultimately would only be a small first step. A friendly MiG would still respond to your MODE 4 interrogation despite not having a compatible transponder. You could still leave your transponder off and not worry about getting blue on blued. And AI planes and SAMs would still be all knowing, ROEs aside. A lot of work needs to go into properly implementing the various IFF networks, integrating all the modules from all the developers and - which could prove to be the biggest challenge - giving AI the ability to work with all that (to some degree at least). I suppose it would have to be optional and per-mission enforceable, at least at first. This would change so much though and make fighting so much more interesting and tactical.

IMHO the Dora has one of the nicer looking cockpits in the game. The Anton on the other hand does look washed out. I'm pretty surprised no one mentioned it earlier.

Western theatre is actually very well fleshed out by DCS standards. No other era in DCS is even close to having three full fidelity aircraft on each side with at least two more in the works. I'd say a new theatre would be a breath of fresh air right now. And since we're already getting a new map that makes no sense with the current plane set...

It's time for anything from the Pacific theatre because right now the Marianas map (both the WW2 and modern variant) makes absolutely 0 sense from a history enthusiast's point of view.

Yes. ED historically often released similar aircraft in relatively quick succession. The Hornet and Viper, Anton and Jug, the Korean jets, the Huey and Hip were all released pretty much one after another. This year we're supposed to get two helicopter gunships. Getting another WW2 twin/multicrew aircraft soon would not surprise me at all.

On the flip side, if ED started with the less capable variants, they would be accused of forcing people to spend money to stay competitive. It's a no win scenario.

Not really, I think one would be enough for me.

Voted no. I have enough teen fighters already.

I've noticed some people mix up metric and imperial vertical velocity units. If you aim for the "little 5" in the Huey, that gives you a safe 500ft/min or 2.5m/s descent rate. On the other hand if you aim at 5 in the Hip, you're going down twice as fast and not nearly as safely. I don't expect this is a particularly common mistake, but you never know.

Heading hold works better if you have rudder trimming enabled. Trim the aircraft for cruise, feet off the pedals and you can have heading hold prevent drift over longer distances. That is pretty much the only time I use it though. I find it unreliable if turned on for the entire duration of the flight, mostly because of some of the control compromises the developers had to make. I don't really use alt hold.

MiG-17F would be the best dogfighter and perhaps the most historically relevant? If we could get two variants, the F and PF would cover most historical scenarios (and the PF's radar would differentiate it from the MiG-15bis a bit more). If we could have three... the Lim-6bis would add some air to ground options.

Oh, absolutely, it is very much underrated as a fighter. Thing is, the P/PD variant could do pretty much only A-A. The recon/bomber variants on the other hand weren't good at it at all, and quite limited in their selection and weight of A-G ordnance.