John C Flett

Still an issue. It's frustrating trying to learn an aircraft when bits are broken. I'm never sure if the fault is mine or the modules.

Flaming Cliffs is essentially a legacy product, the early history of DCS (Lock On Modern Air Combat as it used to be). Clickable cockpits didn't come until the next generation.

I think its for the next module; DCS: Lawn Mower.

Maybe I'm missing something but gun and FFAR practice went fine. When it came to Zuni I was told to push button seven (I think) except there was no option on the MFDs. I tried using the backup station selectors. The Zunis highlighted on the SMS, I got red lights on stations 1+3, 5+7 and four diagonal lines on the HUD but no aim cue.

This is purely for gamers who don't have pedals which are standard on all aircraft. The nearest equivalent I can think of IRL would be the throttle twist on the top of a helicopter collective.

Distance. 40 miles, bearing 008 from Rock.

If you can use a mouse with TrackIR you should have no problems using it with VR. I've had no additional difficulty using aircraft controls this way. Obviously the more common controls you can bind to HOTAS the better but thats true out of VR.

The store page says yes, 2.7 required, so you'll need to either switch to the beta or wait for the release version to update.

It's been a while but as I recall release method is set by bomb type. Low drag defaults to CCRP, high drag to CCIP. Therefore, if (like me) you prefer CCIP you need to be sure to carry the high-drag bombs.

What headset do you have? I'm using an Index with a fan fitted on the front of the headset which works great. It's set to take hot air AWAY from the faceplate which causes no issues for me with speech.

It seems unlikely the game is uninstalled, more likely Steams database has been screwed up. Have you checked the drive directory to see if the files are present or if the folder (...steam/steamapps/common/) is actually gone? If it is there you probably need to repair Steam. Try the steps here from Steam support; https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8379-RYIP-2998

You're very welcome. Its still Early Access but lots of fun and there is plenty of great community content.

How true is the flight model? Probably very good...within the tested limits. That is, fly within normal operational limits, where most data is available and it's probably accurate enough. Push it to the edge of the envelope where far less data exists and it probably gets less realistic. Add to that that there will always be some simplifications for the more unusual or slight forces acting on an aircraft and you will always have potential for unrealistic behaviour. It's also not just about flight model. I don't know, but I'm guessing, in a lot of cases telling a real aircraft to pull some of these moves and you're problem isn't going to be aerodynamic. It will be structural stress which is almost non existent in most sims. Even the most advanced title I know in this area (BeamNG) is far short of perfect and it's the main area of focus there. There will always be people testing the flight/driving model to the limits in sims and they'll always be finding areas where it breaks down.

I've just finished the campaign today and it's certainly not the worst campaign ever though it certainly has problems. It is fun. It has a good variety of tasks and situations and a nice attention to detail. I had no problem with the "hurry up and wait" approach, especially as there was plenty of dialogue or distractions. However it really needed to have been proofread by a native English speaker. Some of the dialogues were close to nonsense; arming wappos, looking for sings of the dammed rabbels before returning for a bear! That was all cosmetic though and didn't much impact on gameplay. The big problem was that for a campaign that relied so much on scripts I was often badly unsure what to do. The use of relative directions rather than absolute caused a lot of problems; "land at the pad on the right", well, I'd done an orbit and it was now on my left. The hill at two o'clock was infact at my 10 o'clock and the tree infront of me was actually one of three I could see. Too often I ended up flying in circles until another trigger gave me a clue as to what I should be doing. If there was one request for the followup campaign (which I'd be happy to go for) its better communication of my tasks.

Worked fine second time round. No idea why but I very quickly got the message that the troops had arrived and I was to start the engine. All went fine after that. Thanks for the reply.

Only tried this mission once so far but nothing happened at the start. I was told to wait for the soldiers. 25 minutes later still no joy. Also, more of a Huey issue than a campaign issue but is anybody else unable to set the barometric altimeter? I get a hotspot over the dial but nothing seems to happen.

Well, I'm 51 and I cough and splutter a lot more than I did when I was young and the real life warbirds are even older than me.

51. This should have been a poll. It would have been a bit easier to track.

I don't have any thoughts on the two as training modules. I do think they are great modules and well worth flying in their own right, possibly my two favourite modules in DCS. I don't think you would go far wrong getting both of them, they have enough character to both be worth flying simply for the pleasure of it.

I've been flying the Huey in the Larkin Aviation and Argo campaigns, both single player, and I get the grading messages pop up.

I do use the NATO reporting name, especially in a reporting situation, but when talking about the aircraft more generally I'd tend to use the full description.

Thanks all. I'm glad I asked this. Even if it's mostly as I expected it's good to hear other people's take on it. Myself I obviously used "Mig" as a name and I was fine with "Sue" for Sukhoi but thought the others sounded better as letters. A T-U 95 for example rather than "Too 95" which could then be mistake for "2-95".

Apologies if this seems too obvious to some but on the basis that no question is stupid if you don't know the answer... So how do you say the names of some of these aircraft, specifically the type and manufacturer codes. US aircraft seem pretty obvious. One or more letters in capitals and numbers; a "You Aitch one", an "Eff Fifteen", a "Kay Sea 10". But the Russian aircraft are a bit less obvious. A capital and lower case letter suggest they should be a single sound; a "Me twentyfour", a "Sue twentyfive", a "Too nintyfive"? Or are both conventions used?

I'm having trouble with this stage myself. I've tried it firing as pilot and letting the AI take the flex-mount. Checking in Tacview we seem to be landing plenty of hits but we're not sinking anything. I'll give it another go but I feel that the guns really aren't up to the task since they were updated. Update. I've done a few tests. Not very scientific, just me and a speedboat in a quick mission. I am not the best shot but it takes me about 20% of my ammo to sink a boat. The AI with flex managed a best of two boats for 30% of the ammo, typicaly 20%+ per boat and on one occasion 42% of ammo for a single target. In Tacview hits are recorded as a number and it seems to vary from over 200 to over 600. Not sure if that is meant to represent individual bullets but 600+ mini gun rounds into a boat sounds like a lot.

Only started this mission but had to quit due to surprising results. I started the checks as instructed. Lights etc. went fine. Cyclic no problem. Pedals...pedals? C'mon pedals.... Turns out dust had got into my CH Pedals and was throwing the responses out. Not enough for me to have twigged but this mission brought it out. So thank you. I now have a new respect for equipment checks.