Sandman1330

Fair points, and well articulated. I would agree if campaigns did not require one to complete the entire mission before moving on to the next. Things go wrong in real life too, people don’t complete their missions for a variety of reasons. Life, and the war, still go on. No one achieves the perfect record that is necessary to complete some of these difficult campaigns. The dynamic campaign should be great for this, if you aren’t successful then the war goes on and you go back out tomorrow (perhaps pretending you be a different pilot, depending on what happened. But it is still a game, after all!) With the current scripted and story driven missions (which are still excellent, BtW), the suspense or stress you refer to is, however, gone the second or third time you fly the mission, doing the same things and knowing the exact location of all the triggers and enemy actions. You go through the motions again, listening to the same voice-overs and knowing exactly what is going to happen, just to get back to the point where you left off, just to kill that one infantry soldier you missed when you went winchester and couldn’t kill to trigger the next event because your wingman crashed into a hill. So you go through the entire mission again, hit all the triggers and play the script just to get that one guy. Or maybe a manpad got you. Well now the suspense up to that point in the mission is gone again, you fly the exact same script again to get back to that point, knowing exactly what’s going to happen and going through the motions. If you could save, you’d say darn, screwed the pooch on that one, learn from your mistake (if you made one, lots of times it’s just down to luck), and jump right back into the suspense where you left off. Different play styles I guess? :pilotfly:

Then it would be your choice not to use it. Those of us who don’t find repeating hours of missions to get back to the point where our mission went wrong will use it, and we will all be happy :)

+infinity. I would purchase a lot more single player campaigns if this were a thing!

The Huey being probably one of the hardest modules to learn from a hands and feet perspective, I think being able to have 2 pilots up front, with one providing demo/do instruction, would be great for new players trying to learn the module. Later, doing more complex missions with one guy flying, the other managing the radios, navigation, and flex sights will provide a lot of realism. The gunner positions would be a lot of fun, but I don’t see a lot of depth there. I think the big improvement will come with having 2 pilots up front.

I’ll be darned, thanks for that! Is it (relatively) new? I’ve been away for 6 months and I’m just getting back into the game. I don’t remember that option being there before!

Phoenix does the same thing, it will go from 1600kts down to 600kts after a turn like that, and not have enough energy to intercept afterwards.

That’s interesting, if that is how the crew interaction was in real life then it’s all good. However, I find it strange that the pilot would be expected to take his hands off the throttle to activate VSL during a turn fight, if the RIO also has that capability. I’d be interested to know how the real guys did it, and as long as it’s realistically modelled in DCS I’m happy :) As for having him lock a datalink target, how is this accomplished? Does he simply respond to “lock enemy target” even for datalink? This hasn’t been my experience... is there a special command?

I find excellent AI very difficult in this circumstance. He always manages to dodge phoenixes launched from well within Rne (inside 30 miles at high altitude). He always seems to manage to dodge my BVR missiles, then snapshots one at me. I skate and go defensive like you. It’s funny, lower level AI is very easy to defeat, but those excellent ones are super human. I don’t know how they do it, but they dodge everything thrown at them. At that point, your options are extremely limited. Basically your only tactic available is to run for help, go towards friendly unengaged fighters or friendly SAM coverage. Once you’re defensive within minimum abort range, you can’t re-engage without help. If he goes defensive against friendly fighters or SAMs, then you can use the opportunity to reengage, or disengage for home.

Haha yeah. I think if they could make him aware of datalink and AWACS BRAA calls, then he could use that information to point the radar in azimuth and elevation towards the called out target. For example, if we receive a BRAA call, within 5 to 10 secs of that call you should have an option to have him point the radar in that direction, or have him attempt to find and STT that target. If he’s in TWS and not already guiding or tracking another enemy or otherwise executing a command he was given prior, he should point the TWS towards the BRAA call or datalink targets. Little things like that would make him much more effective I think. It’s just about making him a bit more proactive rather than reactive, understanding of course this will be hard to accomplish without having him do these things when we don’t want him to. For the record, the tomcat is by far my favourite module, and I think what HB has accomplished already with Jester is awesome. I’m just hoping he can get even better!

The problem with that is he will lock friendlies too, so if you have a mixed bag of friendly and enemy targets, he will lock the closest regardless of ID. Another nice to have feature would be to have him automatically work the VSL modes during a dogfight. I’d think a real RIO would utilize the best modes based on the bandit’s location, rather than have the pilot constantly have to switch the modes. Not a huge deal as I’ve bound them to my throttle, but it would be a nice touch! As he evolves I hope little things like this can creep in to make him “smarter” and more proactive!

Haha yeah, I’ve noticed a few times AWACS will report an enemy off the nose and it will even be visible on datalink, but he will be in TWS staring at some friendly off to the right or left. The way I’ve gotten around it is to command his azimuth to center, then back to auto when he starts tracking the enemy. Or command him into RWS then back to TWS. It would be nice if could be made aware of the AWACS BRAA calls and datalink info, and prioritize his scans accordingly. I imagine and hope he will only get better as things develop.

It will be the maps. I’ve had the same problem in the past. In your DCS directory, under mods/terrains, there is a folder for each map. You can check the size of that folder to know what each map takes up. Mods/aircraft is the same. If you have a second drive, maybe another SSD or a spinning drive with more space, you can move one or two maps onto the other drive using symbolic links. https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/ This tutorial explains how to make them, simply move the whole terrain folder then create a symlink back to the mods/terrains folder. Just make sure to keep the same directory name, and understand that if you take the terrain off the SSD and put it on a spinning drive, loading missions in that particular terrain will be much slower. Therefore I’d recommend doing it with only one or two terrains that you don’t use often.

Cool, I’ll try that, thx!

I'm still struggling with this. Using the touch controllers to try and put the wings into oversweep is ridiculously complicated. I "right click" (controller upside down for blue line) to move the handle up, then try to use the thumb wheel to scroll it back. It moves a bit, then stops, then won't move, then moves a bit more, then finally moves, then hits the back and rolls all the way back to the front. Then I have to try the whole infuriating exercise over again. Has anyone found a consistently easy way to do this using touch controllers?

If it's possible, it would be a heck of a ride!! Our checklist is the same for loss of drive as well as components (we just call it loss of tail rotor thrust). The only real difference is the change of C of G causes a nose tuck if you lose components since the moment arm is so long. Edit: Just found a UH-1H flight manual online, you're correct - it states the following: Our checklist does call for power reduction to minimum, then autorotation if yaw is uncontrollable - it just always manifests ends up being uncontrollable! There is also one for loss of components - it calls for immediate auto:

There's another advantage to doing it the way you say. When one more experienced player (instructor) is using multicrew to help a new player (student) get the hang of things, then with the instructor flying a particular manoeuvre (approach to hover, for example), the student can have his hands on the controls and follow along, keeping his controls aligned with the instructor. This would allow him to start building the muscle memory and learning the inputs the instructor uses to properly control the aircraft. It's how helicopter instruction is done in real life, the student puts his hands lightly on the controls and follows the instructor through to get a feel for how to manipulate the controls in a given regime of flight. It would also allow the reverse, when a student is performing the manoeuvre, the instructor can follow along and give prompts as to what inputs the student should be making.

Haha, what constitutes "a safe overspeed" is very clearly written down in the flight manuals. In my aircraft (Modified twin huey), thou shall not exceed 100% above 30% torque, and you can go as high as 104.5% if below 30 torque (autorotations, tac decels, etc.). Anything above these and the bird is broken and must be written up. Above 110% rotor, the entire powertrain gets a rebuild, and you get to join the "million dollar club." Governor manual is not there to allow you to exceed 100%, it is there in case of a failure of the automatic fuel control unit. One of the emergencies we practice regularly in our simulator is a governor failure, where the AFCU fails to properly maintain RRPM (either too high or too low), and you must switch to manual governor. This means you maintain rotor RPM within the limits above by manually increasing or decreasing the throttle as you make collective changes. The gov manual procedure in the campaign would destroy the aircraft, hands down. The engine would overtemp and the rotor would far exceed maximum RPM. There's also no real value to it, as the engine will give you all it's power in automatic mode anyway. I guess it would give you a very short lived boost on the initial pickup until the rotor decayed, but you'd have to use that to transition forward through TL or something otherwise you'd just end up going back down - and spinning the RRPM up that high would break the aircraft, as mentioned above. The use of the Incr/Decr switch is something different, it is done in auto mode and just adjusts the rotor RPM that you want the governor to maintain. We always keep it at 100%, except for certain situations where we'll beep down to as low as it goes (97%) to keep rotor in check during dynamic manoeuvres or to save fuel on cross countries. We don't go above 100% because of the 30% torque rule, though it will go as high as 101.5% if you let it. I suppose if you were in a sticky spot, you could beep it up to get out, the damage would be minimal (and much less than a bullet I'm sure!), but it would provide very little benefit.

In the Huey, that tiny tail fin isn't sufficient to keep the aircraft flying with a loss of tail rotor, even in cruise flight. Thankfully I've never experienced one, but when we run the scenario in our sim, the aircraft immediately veers right and tucks the nose (simulating the change in C of G from the weight of the tail rotor departing the aircraft). It is extremely hard to recover unless you immediately drop the collective and roll off the throttles into autorotation. Perhaps there would be scenarios of low power settings (ie descent) at high speeds where it would be marginally controllable, but maintaining cruise flight or a climb isn't going to happen! Our current fleet has only had a few cases of this, all resulted in very hard landings / crashes.

Loved BMS, but the lack of VR support killed it for me. I can't go back to a flat screen now! Back on topic - I find both remarkably similar in capabilities. I think I still prefer the Hornet, but both modules are great. The Viper is "sportier," but the Hornet is more versatile with its ability to operate off the boat. You can't go wrong with either.

I've just purchased the Warbrd base and VFX grip, and plan to also get the Hornet and Viper (A10) grips too. Yes I know, but hobbies are expensive... Question: Can I hot-swap the grips in game? In long multiplayer sessions, I'll often switch between Hornet / A10C / Tomcat, depending on what's needed at the given time. Will I have to exit DCS every time I switch grips, or can I swap them and jump in the new plane? I don't plan on using any of the Virpil or TM proprietary software.

Perhaps a bit of a pipe dream, but +1000!

The shimmering effect you are seeing is an artefact created by ASW, which interpolates every second frame if your frame rate drops below 90 (and every third frame if you drop below 45). Disable ASW by using Ctrl+numpad 1 (you may have to hit it several times for it to work), and this should remove the shimmering (but also cause some choppiness due to the loss of ASW).

That’s a helluva warmup! And sorry to make you feel old, but I was indeed referring to the Texan II (actually the Harvard II for us Canadians) :smilewink: We would do the standard acro check as well (choose whichever acronym works best for you), before starting our manoeuvres. I don’t think we were that in depth though!

Reaching back in memory to my time on the T-6, I think we did a 4G turn for a few secs, rolled out level/1G, then into a 5G turn for a few secs in the other direction. But the most we could pull in the T6 was 7G, so I'm not sure if you'd be more aggressive in a fighter. In DCS, before the merge I do a pull-up to 7-8G for a few secs, then invert and pull down for 8-9G to 45* nose down, roll upright and level out. It seems to work in game.

According to Wikipedia, for what that’s worth: The Wikipedia citation refers to Jane’s all the world aircraft as source.