xvii-Dietrich

The new "supercarrier" module looks great, and I am really looking forward to it. However, I want to raise the issue of helicopters. If you look at pictures of Nimitz class (incl. the Theodore Roosevelt subclass) carriers, you will often see them with helicopters... typically a variant of the SH-60 Seahawk. Tantalisingly, some of the screenshots of the DCS supercarrier module have the odd SH-60 parked somewhere. Now, to really make the carrier ecosystem come to life, having helicopters operating off deck, tagging along on station, and ferrying to-and-from shore and other ships would add so much. So, a few(!) questions if I may... What are our chances of ever getting a flyable SH-60 or HH-60? Or, are there other flyable helicopters we could get which would suit the new carrier module? If not, would the AI SH-60B models we already have in DCS at least get a bit of a re-work to make them look better? Alternatively, could the (much better) AI UH-60A model get a Navy-grey paintscheme, so it could be used? Will there be a spawn point (or several) on the crowded deck where a SH-60 could take off? Will AI helicopters be able to take off, then "keep station" flying alongside the ship? Will the carrier ATC / LSO recognise helicopter traffic? Will landing AI helicopters get in the way of aircraft? Would they be smart enough not to crash into things? And when they land on deck, will then get secured, so as not to slide around? Will there be some sort of "rescue ditched pilot" mechanism - the perfect helicopter mini-mission? Are there any other helicopter interactions planned? And, if there are no flyable SH-60s, would be able to spawn a Huey or an Mi-8 as an alternative for us helicopter pilots who would like to try the carrier? And, could the Mi-8 module get a DCS official (fictional) US-Navy Grey paintscheme so it "fits in" as an SH-60 stand in? It would be really great if there was some way for us virtual helicopter pilots to be able to use the supercarrier module. It looks really exciting, and I feel that the presence of helicopters would add to the experience of the fixed-wing pilots too. Any tidbits from ED? Any ideas from others? Thanks!!

I see the F5 as the next step up from an L-39ZA or C101CC. It has simple radar, counter measures and is faster and more agile than those other two. It would be a natural progression in training. However, many people approach DCS the opposite way, starting with the most sophisticated fighters and working backwards down the training, so to speak. One other point, is that, if you like campaigns, there are two available for sale for the F5, which are the Air Combat Manoeuvres and Basic Flight Manoeuvres. (Note that both of those need the NTTR map too).

Already some good advice posted by the others.I now use helicopter controls, but when I was using a joystick/pedals, here are the curves that I was using. Another thing that helped me get to grips with the SA342 (and helicopters more generally) was to switch on the control indicator (it shows where your cyclic/collective/ATP position is). Create a "take-off from parking hot" mission and look at the position of the control indicator. Take off by gently raising the collective and look at the point where the helicopter starts to lift off. Then repeat and at that point really slow down and look at which way it yaws. Correct that, then work on tilt, then work on pitch. Incrementally do this until you get an idea as to where the sweet spot is. Stick with this until you build up some intuition as to where the take-off position is. It took me at least a couple of weeks to get the hang of it. Also consider using the autohover to help you get a feel for what to expect. Engage it the instant you take off and then let the helicopter hold itself in position. From there you can look at the control indicator and see where the helicopter would like you to be.

Yes please. In addition to the points already mentioned, it would also allow the use of "other airfields", such the three civilian runways on the Caucusus map (1 at Kobuleti and 2 at Kutaisi) or the Mina-Airport on the NTTR map.

Yes. Today's Steam patch has fixed the problem. Thanks Devs for sorting it out quickly. Much appreciated.

I have most modules. For me the hardest to land are: · · · Helicopters: Mi-8 is massive and very prone to VRS · · · · ·Warbirds: Bf-109 being fragile, with narrow gear and the usual taildragger issues. · · · · · · · ·Jets: MiG-21 due to poor visibility and poor low-speed handling PS: for me the easiest are the Yak-52 (good vis, good slow speed handling, tricycle-gear, etc.) and SA342 (superb power-to-weight ratio and autohover).

I sent a dcs.log as part of my support-ticket. But I'll include one again here. dcs.log.txt

Yes, I have the UH1 module. Thanks. What I would suggest through, is that a message is added to the Steam store page for the campaign, just so that no one else thinks that they get the UH1 as part of the campaign. At the moment, the only thing it says is that the base DCS World software is required. As a counter example, on the Argo Campaign, it states in the description: Not a problem in my case, but there is always someone new who may not understand how the DCS ecosystem works. Thanks. (And thanks also for the comment on the Steam forums.) I tried the logout/login on Steam. And re-tried all the other things (verifying game files, rebooting, etc.). I've submitted a support ticket.

I've just bought the newly-released Worlds Apart Campaign on Steam. Although it is in my Steam library, and it says the DLC is installed, it is not showing up in DCS campaigns. It is also not in the C:\Steam\steamapps\common\DCSWorld\Mods\campaigns folder (although my other campaigns are, namely: Oilfield and Charnwood). I have tried verifying local files. I have also tried uninstalling/reinstalling the campaign DLCs ( Oilfield and Charnwood do so fine, but not Worlds Apart). I've restarted Steam and have tried a reboot of the PC. Any other suggestions? Does anyone else have the Steam version of the Worlds Apart campaign running? PS: I am running "DCS openbeta" (2.5.5.39384). I also have the "UH-1H" and all DCS maps (mind you, the Store page for the campaign does not say what map - or modules - are required).

Definitely yes to any new helicopters, but if we're getting an xH-60 type, I'd recommend an MH-60, as we could use it on the so-called "Super Carrier Module" that we're getting (ref). Otherwise, we are getting just a "somewhat-better UH-1H". That doesn't strike me as a major difference in capability, especially for the huge wait and development effort required before it materialises. But, I'd still get a UH-60 if there was one. :) And definitely still "YES PLEASE!!" to any European types: Puma, Super Puma, Couger, Lynx, Panther, Tiger, NH-90, etc.

+1e99 This would be my #1 choice for a new map. :) Totally agree with all the above reasons. Would like to add: The map contains plenty of water for carrier operations Road runways (e.g. Vuojärvi H/S (ref) ) Add to the F/A18, F16 and Viggen the Finnish MiG-21 and Mi8s. Also, the Swedish Bo105CBS (ref) Plus all those Soviet/Russian aircraft, of course! This is the region where NATO's Arctic Challenge Exercise takes place each year... the world's largest winter exercises. Lots of historical actions too... Winter War (Fenno-Soviet: somewhere at last to use those I-16s!) Continuation War (Fenno-Soviet) Norwegian campaign... incl. Narvik, perfect for the Mosquito!) German - Soviet front, incl. Op.Silverfox, etc. Kirkenes... one of the most air-raided towns ever U-Boat operations out of Harstad, Narvik, etc. Lapland War (Fenno-German conflict) Midnight sun I'd love to fly in kaamos conditions too! And, for the win... northern lights (no sim has ever successfully done that before... so there's a challenge!). Mind you, the suggestion has come up before. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3887246&postcount=13

Nice video and nice concept. But do put up a map which shows where it is. Perhaps you could use the in-game map with way points or something? Or show a screenshot of the map and draw on it? I know there are a few external views in the video and you can just read the coordinates in the bottom of the screen, but that is really tedious to do that for each occurrence to work out where you went.

Wow. Really nice resource there. I didn't realise that Germany were operating the Mi-24P. I though it was only Russia. So I'm now really curious... although the Mi-24 (generally) was operated by many countries, which nations operated the specific version we are going to get as player-flyable in DCS? USSR, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, others? (And hopefully there will be paintschemes for them too.)

Yes. That was it. I had been using client. As soon as I switched it to player, and then unselected and re-selected the failures tab, it worked perfectly. :) Thank you for your very prompt and helpful reply.

I've been trying to replication the original post in this thread. But I cannot get this to work. In the mission editor, if I place a C-101, and then select the failures tab, the columns are blank. This applies to both the EB and CC versions. I have random system failures selected in the mission options. I am using DCS 2.5.5.39003. Is there some other thing that I need to do to enable this in the mission editor?

At the moment, the community is a bit scattered, not just between modules, spoken languages, servers and timezones, but also comms-types. There is SRS, Discord, Skype, TeamSpeak and various combinations thereof. Maybe with the new DCS integrated VOIP, this disparity may change. Multiplayer helicopter missions are cool though. Once flew as one of five hueys. Awesome stuff.

These tutorials were great. Are you planning on doing any more? Please?!

*drool* Yes... definitely need one of these.

Good point. A good incentive for any developer to keep up the support!

Either Panther or Puma would be awesome! Definitely yes please!! Rather unlikely though. :-(

Very nice. I use Bayesian statistics a bit a work. Nice to see such a meticulously produced resource. (I've only been through Ch.3 so far, but the whole book looks to have similar attention to detail.)

Good idea. When learning, it really helps to be able to practice over and over while trying to get the altitude, speed, position on the sight, etc. figured out. I haven't flown the D9 for a little while, but I recall that in unlimited mode, that the rockets replenish, but the 4xSC50 pack does not. On the other hand, I always flew with rockets. You may have already tried it but, if not, see what happens with only 4xSC50 or combinations of 4xSC50s and the different rockets. There were a few quirks like this with the D9. I was hoping they'd get fixed when they did the A8 ( or the F8 ), but it seems the FW work has paused again. Oh, and if you cannot get it to work, an alternative is to create a mission with two air-spawned, pre-loaded D9s. You fly one and, after dropping bombs, select the other one and repeat, then go back to the first. It is not ideal, but it is faster than crashing/respawning or exiting the mission and re-starting.

Totally agree that the FARPs could use some work. Better terrain integration and configuration are really needed (as well as some desert-, winter- and just plain dirt-textures to go with it). I like @Weta43's ideas too... good suggestions there. While it might not be totally trivial to implement, it would certainly be simpler than the super-carrier project. Perhaps they could do some FARP improvements to go with the Mi-24?

Thanks for the info, everyone. Much appreciated!

For example... L-39 has two Yak-52 has one I apologise. It was a request, not a demand. I am sorry if it came across otherwise. I was also only suggesting a single skin, to keep the workload down. I have no interest in the Mirage F-1, but I appreciate that others might prefer resources being devoted in that direction. So, as an alternative suggestion, would the developers consider adding one, if the community (i.e. me) provided it?