Scrim

You can't set a skill level for player or client aircraft. And as has been mentioned, against infantry and soft skin targets without any AA assets, pretty much anything that can A, fly, and B, bring weapons will be pretty effective. Against BTRs and such though, Miniguns shouldn't work. Crying out loud, it's 7.62 against actual armour, that just won't penetrate.

Hmm, in that case it sounds like I might've stumbled onto a bug. I'll try it outside of the instant action missions later today to see how it works.

What's it supposed to do? When I used it, as described, all ordnance on my right side was fired in a jiffy, followed by being broken (flex mount not working, rocket pod not ejecting).

Completely incorrect. The bungee cord approach was a field fix, because the standard issue MG mounts didn't allow as wide a field of fire. Factory made MG mounts were available for the Huey from the day they first started using door gunners.

So to sum it up, there is no way of having door guns on a Huey without having the hardpoints attached. Deselecting the hardpoints option in the mission editor doesn't let you use anything else than the Empty option.

Yep, it happened to me when playing the Ground attack easy mission, 1.2.7. I'm talking about the actual ripple fire so to speak. The one where you dial in the number of rockets to be fired in a salvo, that's activated by pressing the fire button. The thing I'm talking about is the ripple fire button with a red cover on it, located on the countermeasure panel.

That's what I'd missed, cheers!

As the title indicates, I'm completely unable to get a response from the ground crew for anything. They won't repair, turn on ground power, or rearm and refuel my aircraft. Both engines are turned off. I'm playing in the open beta. Anyone able to shed some light on the situation?

DCS Hawk.

How does it work? Basically, the only thing I've had happen when using it is that it fires all ordnance in the right side of the Huey within about 1 second, rockets and M134 ammo. After firing it all, the right side weapons become unresponsive as well, the flexible mount doesn't work, the rocket pod can't be jettisoned.

At best you could hope to sink it indirectly, by damaging volatile cargo on the deck. But practically speaking, no. Not even the rockets should be enough (won't penetrate far enough, to low caliber, not enough of them on one Huey, etc.).

Considering our country's past when it comes to international arms deals, anyone want to take bets on how long it takes before heads are rolling within the Brazilian air force and government for accepting bribes from SAAB?

Agree. But I strongly suspect they didn't already know that when they came along and said there'd be a big new update of the Huey no later than the end of November. Taking their time to get it right is OK, being intentionally dishonest about release date, not OK.

Don't really care if the Beta is closed or not; I'm ticked off about the "the next Huey update will be here in late November", turning into a preliminary changelog for a beta without an announcement date in early December. Weak man, weak.

I don't care about replica rudders pedals. Let's face it, +95% of all consumers just put them under the desk where they can't be seen. High quality, yes, but replica, can't see much of a point in it. Btw, Galactic Pancakes (they've got a thread in this subforum) are taking pre-orders for a full length Huey collective. I've already got mine ordered.

Please don't tell me Wraith actually said videos of FSX should be the base for the flight models and such of an F-35 in DCS...

Yep, just as Blaze said: DCS has never been the game for you. The strong point that DCS can market itself with are all the things you think are completely unnecessary if it stands between you and getting a "high speed" plane. "Realistic flight model? Noooo thank you, I'd rather have the plane than realism." "Realistic aircraft systems? Screw that, give me my stealth bomber of doom!" "Clickable cockpit? Nah, I really think you nailed it there with the free, low quality SU-25T." "An accurate cockpit at least then? NO!!! Give me my next gen planes. I don't care that the only realistic thing about them will be the exterior model, and that the rest will be based on nothing but speculations!!" Seriously, you're way better of either using one of those exterior model mods where the plane for all intents and purposes except the exterior model is an A-10, or playing something else, like BF or Arma for your flight "simulation". The only thing you've said that you don't care about at this point is the exterior model. You've said that you've got no problems with fiction based flight models, systems, or even an accurate or clickable cockpit. The only thing you demand from an F-35, F-117, F-22, etc. is that from the outside, it looks like one. I fully agree, 120% simulation isn't required. But what you're asking for isn't even 20%. Also, the F-35 "production" (did it even start?) wasn't halted because it was considered OP, it stopped because there simply wasn't enough interest in it to get even halfway through with the Kickstarter pledging (only about 42%). For the first bolded part, GET OUT! For both parts together, you're just confirming that you don't care about anything else than that it looks the deal from the outside, since you're asking for planes that have more classified aspects than unclassified. There's already a huge market for those, so I very much doubt there'd be any point for ED or any 3rd party dev to go there.

Seriously man, enough with your "weeaah, weeaah, i told u i dont want old piece of garbage planes, i want the new ones. Give me nau!11!!!" Not one of the complaints you've made this week have been on topic. First you nagged here about ED backing out of making the F-35, though it's common knowledge that it would be made by a 3rd party developer. Then you started derailing the Belsimtek F86/AH1G announcement thread, crying your eyes out about them not making a modern fighter, even though they have since long declared that their planned upcoming modules will be older, classic planes and helicopters.

Yeah, no mid flight updating in the world will help if the target is obscured for the plane. Kaktus: No, "new satellites" don't make A-10s obsolete. Seriously, we have hardly come that much further from 2003, and IIRC, the invasion of Iraq was fought just like any other conventional war would've been expected. I'm blaming the Desert Shield/Storm PR media Air Force technology campaign/hype for this. Ever since '91, everyone and their cat have just gone around saying that "the new things change everything, war as we know it only exists in the history books, don't live in the past" without actually having anything to base it on.

Still in progress I suppose. I try the first mission every now and again, but tend to rage quit on it because the MLRS strikes that I just can't get rid of even if I delete the vehicles, takes my FPS from "Grrrreat" down to less than 1 FPS.

Not to any larger degree. The general public for starters is unlikely to even know the name of the helicopter (most people aren't like us), and even most of us have never actually even been in the pilot's seat of an actual Huey, not to mention fly one. Reading manuals and asking pilots questions wouldn't go a long way towards getting a realistic flight model. And more to the point, ENO made the terrible argument that since most consumers of an F-35 module wouldn't know the difference between the virtual plane and the real one, guesstimates and assumptions would suffice for the flight model. By that logic, the same would apply to the Huey or any other aircraft in DCS, since only a very small percent of us would actually know the difference. And personally, I like DCS because of things such as realistic flight models. Therefore I would not appreciate modules where the changelogs would practically say "we reckon that it handles like this based on YT films, so we've tweaked the flight model accordingly."

By that logic it'd be fully acceptable for e.g. Belsimtek to make a Huey using nothing other than flight models and such that they pull out their ass, because let's face it, 99.99995% of everyone who's bought the Huey module hasn't actually flown one IRL, so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Saying that voting no is to torpedo something is simply nonsense. If there's an interest gauge poll up, then that means people vote according to what they are interested in. If people don't want an F-35 module, voting no in an interest poll doesn't torpedo anything. And the same thing goes for the Kickstarter; Demanding that people give money for a project that they're not interested in is just a 100% facepalm. What Sobek describes is torpedoing. What you're describing is your own butthurt.

How did anyone torpedo the Kickstarter? Not pledging money to something you don't want hardly constitutes torpedoing it.

When there's a poll about whether or not the community would like a specific thing, it makes sense to include a "no" option. And for people to select said option if they don't want it. Because only having a "Yes" and a "Even more yes" option would be rather circlejerkish.