Volator

Great server for helicopter ops. A mod is needed, but it's worth trying it.

This server concept looks interesting, but looking at the available planes in DCS MP, is it correct that both sides basically fly the same planes (with a few exceptions)? Doesn't that create massive confusion?

Human Red GCI can and do make good use of both though. Add to this the fact that those MiG-15 EWRs are made to respawn by Alpenwolf in case they are destroyed by Blue...

I experienced the same thing for the first time today; first thought was "oh sh***, my GPU (fairly new RTX2070) is going south", but now I'm kinda happy to see this thread and know it's not the GPU...

Naw, it's not the same... it'd spoil the atmosphere.

Bought the map yesterday. It's very beautiful! The little details everywhere make it the best rendition of a 1940s scenery I've seen so far (compared to other sims). I'd really love to have a DCS Tiger Moth to explore the map low and slow now.

Is the Harrier available in Prince of Persia? If not, could you add it? Would be good for team Blue to have the (very limited) SEAD capability of the Harrier.

I see. Normally it wouldn't be a big issue if there was only AI GCI. The thing is that the MiG-15 EWR works for a human Tac Commander / GCI the same way any other EWR does. Would you consider taking out the Su-25T then? Or take away their KH-25-MP/MPU and KH-58U. It adds a SEAD capability for one side that the other doesn't have. The last two missions I saw Su-25Ts killing two blue EWRs and later two HAWK sites in one approach. If team red has respawning EWRs, at least they shouldn't have such an easy time taking down blue EWRs that do not respawn.

Blue killed the EWRs to the northwest. Another EWR spawned east in the mountains of the northern airbase instantly.

Could you please remove the respawning red EWR at "Prince of Persia"?

I'm feeling with you, seriously. The imagination of being bored by DCS scares me. Are you member of a virtual squadron, playing multiplayer pvp mainly? If not, try it. I know that fighting the AI gets very boring at some point, but on pvp multiplayer it's a whole different world. Also, as already mentioned, you could try helicopters. I like flying planes a lot, but flying the Huey precisely or sneaking up on tanks in the Gazelle below the tree line is very, very rewarding and satisfying. But if you are really done with DCS and want to divert into space sims, have a look at this: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ There's nothing better available that I would know of. I only have spare time for one sim, and that's DCS. If I had more time, Orbiter would definitely be a favourite.

I think it's cool.

I'm mainly interested in ground bases search radars, because as a chopper pilot in multi-player I want to avoid the AI GCI or a human GCI to vector fighters at me. I'm assuming that as soon as I see the search radar symbol on my Gazelle RWR I'm visible on the F10 map for a human GCI or for the AI GCI, correct? And the thing is that once I pop up behind a ridge but still behind tree cover, the S is there on the RWR if an EWR is placed accordingly. My question is whether in RL radar can see through trees? I think it can't, but I'm no expert on radar.

Well, I have the silent majority behind me Thank you, take care buddy.

Maybe, maybe not. At prime time hordes of fighters dominate this server and can make every chopper pilot's life miserable. We may see, if Alpenwolf really adds the AH-64D in a test phase. His last statement could be interpreted like he's refraining from that initial idea. Look, I'm actually not arguing for the AH-64D on this server. As I've written above I could very well live without the AH-64D on the server - if the Ka-50 goes. Let's get to the point of my argument: When the Hind is available and team Red finally has a Cold War era attack helicopter (somewhat comparable to the Gazelle in terms of capabilities -> SACLOS ATGM), it is still intended to keep the Ka-50 in, as Alpenwolf announced! Limited numbers he said, but it's planned to be there. So if you bring the Ka-50 into the mix, what do you add to Blue or take away from Red to even the capabilities? Because 1 Ka-50 is easily going to do the work of 2 Gazelles. You probably haven't read the hundreds of pages of this thread (no offense!), this is an older discussion, but let me just repeat what I said here before: I'm ok with the Ka-50 being in the game now, as team Red doesn't have any attack helicopter as of today. When the Hind is there though, what reason is there to keep the Ka-50?

Question for the radar experts on this forum: Can a helicopter hide from ground borne search radar detection by hiding behind trees? In DCS only terrain will block search radar detection. Hovering behind trees and even behind buildings it seems you are detected by search radars, at least that's why RWR in the Gazelle makes me believe.

Something like this?

+1 I actually asked BN for this when he announced the new kneeboard functions, no reaction back then unfortunately. A scrollable, zoomable "Alt" F10 map version on the kneeboard would actually be much more helpful than the original, outdated TPC charts that sometimes differ from the DCS world quite significantly.

Of course I am exaggerating a little, but I couldn't resist to see the outcry it would cause amongst some people here who hate to see their way of thinking and discussing turned against them. Their point in regards to helicopters is this: It's totally ok to have the (non-historical) Ka-50 battle against Gazelles and Hueys, in that case team Blue simply needs to coordinate better via SRS and everything should be fine - if their tanks are obliterated by Ka-50s, it's all their fault, they didn't coordinate properly, and besides, why are they not up to a little challenge? Now look what happens if you write this: It's totally ok to have the (non-historical) AH-64D battle against Mi-8, Mi-24 and Ka-50s, in that case team Red simply needs to coordinate better via SRS and everything should be fine - if their tanks are obliterated by AH-64Ds, it's all their fault, they didn't coordinate properly, and besides, why are they not up to a little challenge? Hate speech coming in. BTW, this little conversation started because you wrote the F-5E was a better ground pounder than the MiG-21. I begged to differ and gave reasons for my different view. Nothing more did I write, no "this is unfair" or anything. Look at the reactions I got for that. It seems to be a very personal issue for some people here - if you write anything that has a slightest notion against team Red and their equipment, prepare for some drastic examples of people acting on the internet.

Yepp,... or be connected to "Game Mode".

The differences between AH-64D and Ka-50 are also "not that significant" and better teamwork could marginalize the Apache, yet there you seem to feel different.

Some good points except for F-5E and MiG-21 are basically equal here (maybe a few minutes less flight time for the MiG) and the MiG-21 can always carry A2G ordinance and up to four AAMs at the same time (with the drag penalty). You did not take into account that the DCS MiG-21 has (unrealistic) CCIP. You'll hit where you point the pipper. In the F-5E it's checking the tables, pre-planning release altitude, considering target elevation, release speed, release angle, wind factor, depression. And then you really have to nail these things in the attack run under fire. If you hit something, you are really good. Not so much with the MiG-21. I think this is the most significant factor that makes the Mig the better A2G platform in DCS, and this is why almost no F-5 pilot on this server ever carries A2G ordinance, and if they do, they usually don't hit anything.

What is this assumption based on?

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. That's where the oddities are apparent. Yes, I said so. That still doesn't mean the plane should be nervous on the controls, as RL videos suggest. Yeah, right... Here we go again. The cycle of derogatory comments is on again. Sure, but by writing this you probably don't mean that the majority of players that doesn't create their own set of controls should consequently be ignored, do you?

Yes, you are right. The issue is more complicated in this case though. The devs did a pretty good job in recreating some of the real MiG-29s intricacies in their FM (decrease of elevator effectiveness during flare and at Mach 1) - maybe somewhat exaggerated, but still... one has to give them that. I think they sticked to written sources mainly/only and physical calculations, that in itself are all good and true, but they failed to listen to RL (MiG-29) pilots input and - as far as I was able to understand the discussions in the russian forum - still are. Maybe because they rightfully can say their calculations are mathematically correct and they can rightfully claim that the intricacies are there, so it's gotta be right... I don't know. With XPlane sim it's the same: Great physical simulation with real-time calculation alright, but this is still no guarantee that the simulated plane will perform exactly like the RL one. So when pilots say "It can't really be that twitchy and instable, I've never seen that before in any other plane I've flown so far" and they say "But that's what our wind tunnel tests and calculations for XY have shown, so you must prove mathematically that we are wrong", then that's no real basis for a discussion. My bottom line is the plane in the sim shouldn't be harder to control than the real thing, and devs must take into account that people want to fly it even with crappy joysticks (which the TMW isn't - not saying it's perfect, but it's not a low-end joystick either), and that it's questionable to claim "If you fly it with this joystick or that, you can never do it properly, you need to get this or that joystick", or "Because of the lack of lenght of the stick you cannot simulate it correctly" or "Feel in RL is different, we only have visual cues and that's why..." This is and will always be a PC-based simulation with the respective hardware, not a full-blown millions of dollar hardware military full-flight sim, and the devs need to cater to this.