Scrim

If we're talking about movies that represent helicopters and such seriously, the only ones you'd see hovering would really be dedicated attack helicopters like the Apace, that are built for it, with systems that enable them to hover without much pilot input, has high quality optics, and longer range weapons. The Huey on the other hand should really not be hovering. If you do so, you must place it in a very unstable position (VRS, little ability to recover in case incoming fire damages your helicopter, etc.) and you're only left with the flex guns to engage things. Strafing runs from a distance, and breaking off well before you overfly your target, is what you should do with the Huey. And yes, the flex guns can only be aimed in stowed mode (pointing straight forward) or with the flexible sight.

How to find SAMs, tutorial 1: Look for the smoke trail when it's fired against you. End of lesson. :D

Bought the A-10A, found it a bit funny, but quickly grew bored of the extremely limited controls and possibilities compared to the A-10C. Sat down during my free time around Christmas, payed attention to what the tutorials said, and within half a week I was flying around semi-proficiently in the DCS module I'd previously bitched about saying you'd need to treat it like a full time job to learn. From that point onward, and still, I mostly watch YT tutorials for things that weren't covered or explained well enough for me to understand in the tutorial missions.

Not necessary at all. As long as you feel that you're able to keep the vertical descent consistent and under control, and know where to slow it down sufficiently that you don't squash the Huey on landing, it's good. I have no problem with a descent rate of 2-3 feet per second, and I'm anything but a pro.

Separate co-pilot controls, like for the gunners. Right now it doesn't matter, but I suspect it might be a tad irritating to have interlocking control between the pilot and co-pilot seats when the MP cockpit is finished. I.e. things like the pilot accidentally turning on flex sight for another human pilot, co-pilot using buttons on the pilot's stick, etc. Also, a sight on/off toggle for the door gunners, like the flex sight on/off toggle for the co-pilot, to allow the door gunners to observe freely of their weapons aim.

When switching from pilot to co-pilot seat, the FOV will initially remain the same, but when e.g. the zoom is altered a small bit down or up, the co-pilot FOV will be snapped back quite a bit. Another issue with the co-pilot seat is that, at least with TIR, your 6 DOF is much more limited than in the pilot seat. There you can move your head around quite a bit to take a closer lock on things like the consoles, whereas in the co-pilot seat, it feels like you're wearing a tight, non adjustable seat belt. This makes this seat very restricted, which will have an adverse effect on the MP aspect when the multiple player cockpits are introduced.

Yes, which it does by recycling "old" thinner air into the rotor, i.e. ending up in its own rotor draft.

Not really. The issue isn't the airflow generated by the rotors disappearing, but rather that airflow being thinned out due to being continuously recycled and made warmer, as opposed to when moving forward, when you keep using "new" air as you move forward so to speak.

Didn't even know you could try to jettison the AIM-9s. I've always just switched to AA mode and fired them.

Yeah, Arma undeniably has the worst IR and NVG depictions of any recent game or sim out there. As badly made as IR is made in DCS, it still beats Arma's IR to a pulp with only one hand. Of course that doesn't mean I don't want improved IR in DCS.

What's "unreal tournament"? What I meant is what I wrote, there's nothing sweeter about DCS than low level strafing runs with the A-10Cs cannon and rockets.

Nah, they're pretty great for strafing runs against light skins as well. Sweeping down on a convoy with the GAU-8 and rockets blazing, that's about as good as it gets in DCS I reckon.

Yes, true. Hard question, since no one's done, or is doing it ;) But from what I've gathered, that was one of the primary concerns that resulted in the end of the project. I wasn't even aware of it (might've been before I picked up DCS) but I certainly agree that it does seem very speculative when practically all the required data is top secret, and the software behind it are of such staggering proportions.

Yeah, no. Disregarding certain huge obstacles like that it's just something that isn't technically possible, think about it a little bit critically: How many Arma players would appreciate being blown to smithereens from an A-10C circling at 25,000 feet? Just how funny would it be to be on the ground when such incredibly powerful platforms are about? Think of how many planes and how many infantrymen you'd see in any major combat operation today. The Infantry : Plane ratio is so staggeringly high that Arma alone can't handle that many people, let alone combining it with DCS. It also completely disregards the fact that air combat and ground combat are very widely separated. You don't have large areal engagements going on above the battlefield. The large air operations take place much further away, and often, before the ground war has even commenced these days. For that reason alone, mixing a flight sim with an infantry sim is a very bad idea; You'd end up stuffing a huge amount of software and files and whatnot into the game in the form of the air sim, despite the fact that it will at best only play an extremely marginal role, and at worst, ruin the game. It's not even a nice dream unless you make the subconscious decision to leave out all considerations for why it would not be nice.

VBS definitely isn't CAS or SAM sim.

Is now. The higher the epic-ness, the less grammar has a influence.

Simples, turn off the cannon.

Wouldn't mind that, it's a much epic-er airframe.

A well kept secret of the US Air Force is that drones are actually flown via two hand held pieces of string, one in each wing tip, and the camera is a handicam velcro'd to the belly of it.

Nope, I want the III :P That rimes.

Why have 20 different flight plans for one flight? The important thing about the CDU is to remember how you eat an elephant; Bit by bit. There's no point in taking a day off work and sitting down with a dozen cups of coffee, expecting to learn every single thing about it. Start with the useful things, like how to add mark points so you can benefit from the grids the FAC gives you by understanding where the target is, and being able to slave your TGP onto it. That I'd say is the most basic, useful thing about it. Then again, that might be because that's all I can do with it :P But the opening point still stands, learn small things you feel might help you, one by one, and it's less of a daunting task, and the CDU goes from being "that weird gizmo I'm afraid to touch, lest it royally **** up my flight plan" to an amazingly helpful tool.

Well, let's put it like this: During the Vietnam war, the US Air Force and Navy spent several years attempting to put an important bridge in North Vietnam out of action. Several planes were downed with their pilots taken captive or killed, and hundreds if not thousands of bombs were dropped against the bridge, with accuracy down to nill on account of AAA engaging the low flying planes. Not until an early laser guided bomb was dropped was the bridge taken out, in the first attempt. Do guided bombs still sound expensive? It's one thing to cram explosives into a metal shell, make it fly stable, put a fuze on it and various other small things. It's a completely different thing to make it hit something pretty much just because you're shining what is essentially an invisible light at it.

Someone go ahead and post a Barney legen-way for it-dary picture already, I think this going to space thing rates it.

They all fly, they all shoot, they're all built for military purposes. That's plenty, and enough in common for a flight sim that from day one has been very clear about not being so inflexible that it can't go outside a single, narrow era.

What DarkWolf said: It's sort of in a twilight zone as far as being completed. BST has done pretty much all they can do, the rest of the promised features can't be implemented just yet due to engine limitations that ED have said they will deal with.