zerO_crash

Absolutely not, counting everything from civilian flights, through unidentified aircraft (different affiliation) to finally a defect IFF-module. I´d like to see a source showing where BVR has been used, esp. in a bigger conflict. Even a pilot making a human error and choosing a wrong IFF code. The risk is too high, and it´s there. EDIT: I see you mention "exercise", yeah well... Let´s not compare exercises to real war, shall we?

There are so many wrong assumptions here, that it´s completely crazy. I see people here are hung up on scenarios you find in an average bad scenario in DCS in MP or simply tied up comparing apples to oranges. First and foremost, there would be little to none BVR if a conflict would erupt in Europe. The ROE would be a complete nightmare in such a crowded airspace as well as a scenario of this magnitude. The whole idea of BVR has been often proved wrong, as for example allies will not have the same IFF codes in all of their aircraft, and thus you can forget those imaginary 60nm shots that you so bluntly state here would save the day. There would be too big of a chance of Blue-on-Blue, therefore it would probably come down to visual identification, hence why Russians still believe in the dogfighting skills. That´s for one. Two, you are comparing different aircraft meant for different roles and tactics, thus equipped with different equipment. It is not a an even race where everyone plays by the rules. Russians have always relied on GCI-controlled interception and airspace and thus one cannot talk about differences between an SPO-10/15 and a AN/ALR56, especially when US/Western tactics relies more on the individual performance. One of you can claim that one is better than the other, but frankly you have no idea. The western model is good in some ways, such as having a rather rapid nature of engagement, but on the other side, imagine how weak SA one pilot has in the west with his own aircraft compared to a soviet one, which must rely on the GCI, but the GCI then sitting with the picture of a couple hundred kilometres. Those are different ideologies, and one cannot say that one is better than the other, because if that was the case, then both sides would be using the same tactics. They are not sleeping over in the HQ´s. You cannot compare equipment directly because its not meant to be used to the same degree, or with the same priority. This whole point bears no value whatsoever. Everything is built to fit a specific tactic and that stands. You are all also underestimating the very important point of reliability. I don´t care how good your aircraft is, the more technology, the higher the chance that it breaks. That´s a statistical fact. Furthermore, analogue is maybe less "advanced" than digital, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is necessarily worse. That is not always the case. Spec Ops from US often use AK´s in Afghanistan and other "dusty" climates due to reliability. ACOG and a laser will help you little when your gun jams and you are about to breach a door. Same goes for aircraft. (I have IRL accounts from military personal of varying military grades as to them often disliking western weapons due to reliability issues and malfunctions). Three, you are locking the outcome of a whole conflict based on a couple of aircraft that you are mentioning in an isolated event which would never happen. There would be jamming from both sides, probably no satellites (because war), therefore back to EGI, and other doppler systems. There would be aircraft such as Mig25/31´s with far greater missiles and range. Same goes for the west, F-22/35, etc. There would be SAM´s, MANPADS, there would be electronic and digital warfare. The conflict you are trying to decide based on a couple of aircraft is just stupid as these aircraft would be a negligible fraction of theatre and all the parties involved. And the point still stands, what is the actual objective. Its great if you manage to win the air war, but what does that matter if all your aerodromes are bombed and you have nowhere to land. Or nowhere to come back to. And then, as a final cherry on the cake, in case of a potential defeat of either side, let me remind you of the funny amount of nuclear weapons we got in the world. Enough to decimate the earth a couple times over. Do you really want to talk about who´s RWR is the best? To sum it all up, and prove to you all how your faith in technology alone and better equipment or training is the secret winning ingredient, well, no one has ever managed to seize Afghanistan. Guys running around with turbans, praying, eating and sleeping. No fancy-schwancy equipment, no airforce to speak of, not even a unified chain of command like the most powerful militaries in the world have; Russia, USA and China. Just splinter groups detached from each other, fighting between each other, as well as against foreign forces and still win by kicking US out after 20 years. Same fate as Soviets, same as Napoleon. That´s how much your fancy equipment matters on a battlefield, where guerrilla warfare so far is unstoppable. Reprise from Vietnam, reprise from WWII, where germans invaded USSR with more advanced equipment, but ended up having Soviet flag hung down from the Reichstag in the end. The equipment was so advanced that it broke down under itself, because of too much technology and too little reliability. This all comes down to one thing, tactics and morale of your army, their incentive to fight. If the cause is just, SPO-10 or not, they will go to war and die if necessary. A AIM120C will help you little, if your pilots feel they have no business being in a country fighting a war and giving away their life for something they don´t believe in. @GGTharos Its great that you are always a firm believer of western superiority, and an eternal lover of F-15, but trust me, it doesn´t matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. Neither Apaches, nor F-15C secured US anything in the latest conflicts they have fought. In the end, if even a battle was won, the war was ultimately lost. So much for your fantastic futuristic tech. Mind you, when going to Iraq or Balkans, US brought more fighters with them than the enemy had troops on the ground (exaggeration, but you get the point). It wasn´t about equal 1v1´s to see who´s better, but rather about making the fight as unfair as possible, because that´s what a smart strategist would always do. It´s the tactics and strategy that wins you the war. Arguing like kids over who´s aircraft is better leads nowhere. Worse yet, the misconception of applying western tactics to aircraft from the east, or vice versa. It´s a wrong assumption to make. Also, whoever disrespected their enemy has lost to them, that´s a fact. You better assume that your enemy is competent and can do more than you, cause that way at least you have a chance. If you want to test yourself, go into DCS with a different mindset. Give yourself one life, as a real pilot would have, and see how long you will live. I can guarantee you that you won´t be thinking of Mig`s or Sukhois as carelessly, and vice versa.

Great to see that we won! I couldn´t make it, something popped out last minute. Looking forward to the next one!

Outer scale: Total fuel amount Middle scale: Tanks 1, 2 and 3 Inner scale: Tanks 4 + 5 You have two more tanks on the tank-selector switch, and those are "External 1" and "External 2". Do not confuse those with external fuel tanks mounted on the wing-pylons. The external tank-functions are left-over from Mi-24D where they would show the fuel amount of the two optional canister-tanks inside the passenger-/cargo-cabin. They don´t work on our Mi-24P because the Mi-24D was the last to use those tanks. It is correct. Check this out:

Then post it in the bug-thread with a trk.-file. Let the devs decide.

Good to hear

No issue on my side, fires all 8 Shturms without problems.

I checked it, it is decent flying, but I will need a track of you attacking targets. As it stands, you really need to have practically zero movement (read full stability), in order to make those hits from around 5km (longest I have are 5.5km, speed + altitude). Get me a recording of you attacking targets, and preferable, just get me a trk. within DCS, so I can actually see the cursors and how steady you hold them. I don`t doubt that you are doing it right, but we can at least lock that out then. You are also flying in formation, so that is a bit different, but in general, you flew well, but that is still too much movement for either Petrovich or a human to hold consistently, given the workings of the sight, esp. at longer ranges. Here is a flight of mine, a quick mission on a non-clan, non-organized server, have a look at it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XGp2d3Fia4pElpNt4nOtd4Lbr48q8fum/view?usp=sharing Remember, you can fire the Shturm away with a not fully-stable helicopter, but you need to be pinpoint accurate and stable towards the end of the missile flight (before it hits the target). Also, remember that the more you move, the more energy the missile loses, this really matter for those 5km shots. What I can say is, train, do more training and train some more

Gotcha, then everything is clear In that case, I´d go for Ka50 with "Ground Attack II"-loadout (24x Vikhr and 80xS-8OFP2)

There are many wrong loadouts in the excel file, a Ka50 cannot take 24xVikhr, or 160xS-8. KH25 is not even realistic for the module. Mi8 cannot take 8xFAB250, nor 4xUPK23. Just to name a few, but there are more faults. In any case, I´d like to join in Ka50 with 2x6Vikhr + 1x S-8KOM on inner left + 1x 500L Fuel tank on inner right. -=BFU=- zerO

@BIGNEWY, here is a short track containing both the issue with the ground crew not being able to rearm less GSH-30-2k rounds than 100%, and also them not loading empty Shturm-racks onto the wingtips. Do you mind reporting both? Thanks in advance! server-20210805-104924.trk

When flying in a high-threat environments, where most aviators get shot down at a rate of 10-1, then yes, it is helpful to have the Petrovich handle some of his own tasks. Flying in multicrew is obviously something different. I suggest your try something more than a training sortie once in a while )

It would be nice if Petrovich could report the last or the last two ATGMs. That way, one won´t have to count, or look behind at the hardpoints, to count how many are left.

It´s weird that it works that way for you, I suppose you don´t run any mods? In any case, for the time being use the "mic"-switch and it will work in general, requiring you to use the radios properly. This system gets updated soon anyways. However, ultimately, it works good. You could look for issues in any system, and could find things that don´t make sense. That´s why there is a manual stating what to use when. Even in the modules we fly, you can setup sights and systems in a way so as to benchmark them, and find issues, and that is military tech costing billions. Simply use "mic"-switch along with non-easy communications (both missions and DCS settings), and "Communication menu" for easy coms and FC3. Also, don´t make this personal, as it´s not me vs you. This is a relevant discussion on a system that generally works, as long as aviators adhere to the specification. The system could surely be easier, but some of the complexity remains due to older modules which use SSM-system and a simpler radio system. And those for example, would not go under the "mic"-switch. It´s a good system, that is often misunderstood because there are three options to control, and people just not checking all of them depending on the either easy or hard comms. You also have to check what the server is running in case of MP. That´s why all the threads. It could be more intuitive, sure, but then DCS isn´t something that you just jump into either. Truth be told, I´m more than sure that it´s being held back by FC3 and simply a older settings-UI. In general, you should never need 3 settings, where one of them alters with the mission/server, for such a basic system. Still, it is what it is for now. Hopefully, it will get looked at with the updated ATC and comms.

Pilots don´t strap their feet, the pedals do have straps on them, but they are typically strapped to a position that doesn´t lock the foot on the pedal. It´s one of those designs that makes "it" possible, but is practically never used. Thus, the pilot puts his feet on the rudder pedals thereby activating the microswitches which put the heading-hold AP on standby (the AP heading light remains lit on the crew chief´s central panel). If the pilot wants to engage the heading-hold AP, he takes his feet off the pedals, depressing the microswitches, and the AP holds the heading nice and steady. Keep in mind, this is exactly how the system works with Mi-8 and Mi-24, however not Ka50. On Ka50, there are no microswitches on the rudder pedals. There, it´s the trimmer button the pauses and changes the heading-hold AP. This is a good-to-know.

IRL: The microswitches are pressed in when the pilot rests his feet on the rudder pedals. In DCS (for reasons of microswitches lacking on most pedals): The function of the microswitch is disabled when the pilot moves the pedals. Otherwise the heading-AP will work.

"Do you happen to be running a singleplayer mission, and have the "Easy Communication" enabled in your own DCS-settings (not the mission settings)? Because that overrides the mission settings when you save the mission." No more condescending than statements like this: "Why is it that there is always someone protesting against a change that would not effect them in the slightest? ". I see no reason why you would even write that, if you are frustrated with this, then vent yourself somewhere else. Here you come for help, or for reporting a bug. As far as I know, there are no issues with the system. Still, check the above which I quoted before, as that actually can be what you have set.

*We are flying the same simulator, yes. Does that server/mission have easy communication enabled? Let me help you with the answer, yes. Otherwise, if it was off, you would not be able to open those menus with the "Communication menu"-button. What is it about people not reading manuals and complaining about something that works really well, once you get into it? I do not understand what problems you have with it? There are two things you check: - Is it FC3-aircraft? (Yes - use the "Communications menu") (No - bind the "mic"-switch) - Is the mission/server running "easy communications"? (Yes - doesn´t matter what key binding you use) (No - you have to use "mic"-switch, unless you are on the ground with doors open, but it´s not meant to be used this way, so scratch this last part) Even so, the communications are in the middle of being updated. Let´s wait and see what comes out of it. It´s not supposed to work that way. Do you happen to be running a singleplayer mission, and have the "Easy Communication" enabled in your own DCS-settings (not the mission settings)? Because that overrides the mission settings when you save the mission.

Gotcha, all clear @Rudel

Posts keep popping up because few read the manual or check on beforehand. Just look at how many threads were spawned by Ka50 and the trim in it, all while being perfectly explained in the manual and from the devs here. There is no difference between the modules, the only case being FC3 where that is the only way to communicate. Outside of FC3, everything is consistent. With that said, I can see how someone who´s new to DCS might struggle to see the difference, but again, the manual has it all. You can either use the radio, or open up your door to talk to the ground crew directly. This is not a matter of a vote, it´s just how it is, and you would understand why its a really good system if you consider that both basic and advanced aviators fly here. Instead of working against it, just use what you learned here and start binding "mic switch" to all of your aircraft (except FC3, there you can only use Communications menu due to the simplistic nature of these aircraft), and remember to be on the right frequency. Problem solved.

It will only work on the ground if the cockpit is opened up. If it´s closed, it´s not supposed to work. The reason is because in DCS, when you have your cockpit open, then the communication button/mic switch work as shouting out to ground-crew. This is also the case for the part that you edited. That´s why the tower will not receive anything. So yeah, that´s an exclusion if you will, but otherwise everything stands true to what I mentioned.

It sounds like I´ve reached that level many years ago! As you probably can imagine, pen and paper does not work very well with a VR-headset on! Therefore, thanks but no thanks, your suggestion has been considered and denied. If it was possible to run that setup like I used to before VR, then I would, but I suppose it was hard to deduce that from my request, that´s why I´m outlining it so clearly for you now. "Flight management" - look at that, you even learned a new expression in aviation! I forgive you for not having the capacity to see other points of view, but don´t assume that everyone flies on servers where you can see yourself and the opposing faction. I suggest you join in once in a while on a HC-server where you are not being held by your hand, and that in a non-digital module. Maybe then you´ll understand what an improvement it would be to have those additions in! Otherwise I don´t really see what the point with your comment is. It subtracts from the discussion of a relevant request to improve the F10 map as a much more advanced tool in the space of DCS, and to further the realism of this simulator. The token of a level discussion is that its participants first think, then contribute, not the other way around.

I use the F10 map pretty much like the kneeboard with the ability to look around the map and plan the flight route ahead. On modules like Ka50 or A-10C, one can create virtual flight plans in the ABRIS or other digital maps. However, with modules that don´t have such a system, it would seem like the F10 map is the only way to plan ahead. Right now, the options are very limited, we only have a ruler and waypoints (can be placed but everyone sees them). It would be really nice if the F10 map could be expanded with the following: - Waypoints, but private ones (no one else can see them). That way, other aviators won´t be removing your own waypoints by mistake, and the general map won´t be as clogged with the flight plan of every single participant. It would streamline the use of the F10 map, and give us the abilities to use it like a real map would be used. - Draw actual lines and place figures on our own map (privately), that way we could actually create a flight plan with all the specified info that one would otherwise need for a successful flight. I´m thinking here about placing lines between waypoints and getting the same info that the ruller gives your right now (range + bearing). Having an ability to write text with regard to the flight-leg would be an immense upgrade, letting one specify all the needed info for that part of the flight. Also add a variety of symbols that one could use to further sketch a plan. - Have a place in the F10 map where one could open a blank page and write on it. This would then be filled on a specific blank page in the kneeboard in the cockpit. Again, for any kind of flight info, be it weather-, flight- or combat-related. - A built in calculator, so that one could calculate everything from flight length, to fuel usage. A calculator would stand in for otherwise using penn and paper and performing calculations oneself. - Expand the ability of the ruller so that one could e.g. hold SHIFT-button, and create multiple legs with the ruler. It´s so simple, yet would immensely useful. These are at least the immediate ideas I have, and find lacking for such a great simulation. I´ve been wanting this for many years now, as I´m sure others have too. In order to plan for a good flight, one needs the proper tools, and those are sadly severely lacking. Ultimately, I was thinking of creating literally a digital kneeboard (tablet) which one could use during the flight, which would give immense possibilities of flight planning. That while one sits in the cockpit (no need to change the view to F10 and be pulled out of immersion). The problem I find with that is that it wouldn´t fit in older scenarios, therefore I would presume that improving F10 should be priority as it can be used in pretty much any setting. I hope there are plans for this, as it would be a huge upgrade to todays rather lacking F10 map.

I am aware of that. However track-files aren´t always needed, esp. for the simplest of issues. This is not a case of either misconduct nor an advanced bug to recreate. It´s not a matter of creating a 1h mission, rather, spawn aircraft on an empty caucasus map and set the frequency. It´s faster than me running a mission and then uploading it here, for ED then to download it and test. Since it works for you, I might however have to do that, cause it seems like it´s not a bug affecting everyone.

What about on the top-right section, on top of the dashboard? Pretty much like on one of the pictures above. It would be a cool addition to have, in order to simulate those migs still being flown nowadays in the countries that still have them.