Echo179

That makes a lot more sense then. I'd never seen them practice for that scenario before. Seems like a sketchy evolution, but if it's the only option to keep the helicopter from running out of gas, it's a necessary risk. I wonder if they have quick disconnects or weak links so a sudden jerky movement from a rogue wave or something doesn't pull the helo down. We (Coast Guard) had a helicopter crash a few years back from the winch cable getting fouled on the deck of a 47 foot motor life boat, that is why I'm curious, and why the evolution seems so crazy to me. As a general rule, you never attach anything between a helicopter and a boat, because bad things can happen real quick.

That seems so inefficient... Why in the world didn't they just trap the MH-60 on deck and hot pump it? Unless this was purely for practice. This seems unnecessarily dangerous as well. They'd use quite a bit less gas sitting on deck than holding in that hover, and it would give the air crew a chance to take a dump or grab a bite to eat from the galley.

I personally prefer Athlonic's profile for DCS A10c, with a few modifications that sit me better. It's pretty close to how the controls are actually set up, and make a lot of sense. One thing to remember is to clear the preconfigured controls for the stock and throttle in DCS itself, and to make sure the axis are set up correctly. This prevents button presses trying to do two different things, and prevents issues like when you throttle up, you also roll.

Oh trust me, I have ArmA and I love it. I've been with them since Operation Flashpoint. You can't beat the community and the mods. While I agree that ArmA is currently your best bet for infantry and pseudo combined arms "simulation", with ArmA III at least, they have kind of gone into the near future, which takes some of the simulation aspect out of things. Many things are also dumbed down, especially when it comes to what the OP here specifically wants to do. As a JTAC in ArmA, you have two options. Either you are calling in an AI controlled flight for the airstrike, and you can't really do a talk on or anything, you simply lase a target and wait for impact; or you call in a player controlled aircraft. While the JTAC might get the satisfaction out of calling in a full 9-line and providing signals and talk on, the pilot is then left flying an ArmA III jet, which is no where near the fidelity of flying an A-10c in DCS. Now, if you were able to combine the two concepts, and have a player controlled JTAC that is calling in strikes to be carried out by a player in DCS A-10C, which is then being supported by a flight of F-15C's, you have a fun time for everyone. If that same player on the ground is a special forces member in a team assigned to destroying AAA or eliminating MANPADs to provide clear skies for the ground attack aircraft, then it gets even more integrated and coordinated. This is where I see DCS eventually getting to. Last time I checked, this part of the forum was the 'Wishlist', so is it really that bad to have such grand wishes?

I think timone is thinking big picture, which is where i also see DCS heading eventually. It isn't Digital Combat Aircraft Simulator, but Digital Combat Simulator. Just because aircraft have received the lion's share of attention so far doesn't mean they will only ever do air stuff. I think CA is their first step towards making a more broad spectrum simulator. If they implemented a proper FPS system (along the lines of ARMA), but gave it the attention to detail they have given the aircraft, it would be crazy. Imagine the scenarios. You could be a Spec Ops JTAC behind enemy lines, or start off in a jet, get shot down, and have to E&E, and get to the CSAR crew, or you could be the CSAR team to extract shot down pilots. ARMA is great and fun, but it isn't as much of a simulator as DCS is trying to be.

The ideas being brought up now make a lot more sense. Not sure how many of you have served in the military, but for every font line soldier, there are dozens of support personnel. Now, I'm not suggesting DCS implement payroll simulation ;) but having those crucial support roles like AWACS, refueling, electronic warfare aircraft, etc. would be great. I'd also love to see a CSAR implementation eventually, where if you eject from your jet, you can get picked up by some guy in a huey, taken back to base and jump into another aircraft. Adding in the FPS elements to make it so the pilot can escape and evade, and CSAR crews can insert and assist would be great as well, but obviously we are talking decades down the road with ED's dev pace. Hell, imagine having a player flying a Navy MH60S out to you when you eject over water and deploying a swimmer to come pick you up? What about ASW application of helicopters and planes? The possibilities are practically endless for jobs that a pilot can fill without having to be a direct combat participant if that's not their thing.

I meant to type this up earlier, but I was on my phone. The main reason that I don't desire to see a big civilian focus in DCS is because while it is currently focused on being a high fidelity flight sim, the vision is much bigger. Look at the name for crying out loud! It is Digital COMBAT Simulator. The vision is to portray and simulate combat, which isn't just confined to aircraft. Now, if TFC and ED want to take everything they have for an engine that gives the game a great flight model and such, and open up development to third parties or modders to create civilian modules for a separate program, I could see that. Have a civil side and a combat side. As lessons are learned on either side that cross over, they can be shared and integrated. Eventually, it seems like DCS is meant to be a full fledged battle simulator, where armor and ground forces are engaged, helicopters are in support, navies are duking it out, and jets are flying all over to dominate the air space. And within that, players would be able to command units, or take direct control of different assets. This is what I think Combined Arms is a test bed for. Think Arma, but on a much bigger scale. This is why I think ED needs to keep focus on DCS being a combat sim first. While there is currently a vacuum in the flight sim arena with FSX left decaying, ED and DCS didn't get to where they are by chasing the quick buck and jumping on the band wagon. They saw the niche fanbase from IP's past, such as the Jane's series. I see DCS as what Jane's always wanted to grow up to be. It has the potential, and I think once EDGE is released, and the system plays better with people's hardware, the possibilities will be amazing!

While learning to use all the systems is a really amazing part of the experience, and speaks to the fidelity of the higher quality modules like the A-10c, a large part of those systems are the combat systems. Understanding how to acquire targets and properly engage them with the different types of ordnance is just as much of learning the systems as learning the avionics. Understanding how to control the aircraft in normal and abnormal conditions is important to utilizing them in a combat scenario, but the goal of trading in a combat aircraft is to use it in combat, or at least in combat training scenarios.

What i5 do you have? i5 is pretty vague as to what your system is actually running. What socket are you on? What chipset is your MB? I ask these questions because dropping $1,200 USD on a new computer when you might already have most of the hardware needed, and might as well just overhaul your current system and get better results. Let's say you really want that new 4790k, and need a motherboard to go with it. According to pcpartpicker, you can have that for about 300gbp. Then, you can take it up a notch to the GTX 980 for another 370gbp. So now you are at 670gbp total, and you have a computer with an i7 4790k, 8gb of RAM, and a GTX 980. So long as your computer has a case, decent power supply, and optical drive, you are at the same performance level as that computer. Then, you could use some of that money saved to pick up your SSD (seriously one of the best upgrades ever) and pick up another 8gb of RAM.

2x AMD Radeon HD 7870. Really can't wait to see EDGE roll out so we can take advantage of multiple cards!

Having a TFLIGHT HOTAS-X, and having tried it with DCS, I'll tell you what I did... It's not what you want to hear though. I bought an X-55 Rhino. Now, there are many reasons for this. First, as you have realized, there's just so many damn commands that are normally controlled by the HOTAS, that with the HOTAS-X, you just can't control. You only get one hat switch on that stick, and if you look at the stick and throttle in the game, you'll notice that there's 7 hats, as well as other switches and such that need to be available to control everything. Even the X-55 has to have some things modded to get most of the functionality of what is actually used. Now, I was looking at playing A-10C from the get-go, so I don't have as much knowledge of the F-15 module. When I just looked through the controls though, things seem a bit simpler. Looks like the only real thing you need to be able to slew around is your target designator, so you could map that to your hat on the stick. Then have another button to lock the target. Have a button for weapons fire and weapons release, as well as to switch to cannons on the stick. I'd say put counter measures buttons on the throttle. Things like landing gear and flaps can be on the keyboard, but I'd also put speed brakes on the throttle. What I've been doing to get things feeling right, is loading up the instant action mission for the F-15 and assigning different commands and testing them.

Yes, I'd like to know this as well

Ok, so I'm not sure if this has been found out yet, sorry if it has. I've been using Athlonic's X-55 Rhino profile, but have been modifying it to my needs. One thing that seemed to be eluding people was the ability to have the speed brake slider on the throttle actually function in both directions. While the slider doesn't work as an analogue slider to allow different increments, it DOES function as a press and hold button, where forward is pressed and held, and back is released. In the profiler then, it is possible to put in two different actions, one for 'pressed', and one for 'released'. After fiddling around with it for a little bit, I determined that if I set the speed brake forward (in the sim) to the 'released', and the speed brake aft (again, in the sim), to the 'pressed', with each being held for three seconds, then I can achieve full extension of my speed brakes when I push the speed brake forward on the HOTAS, and full retraction when I pull the slider back. Below is a picture of how I have it set up in the profiler.