xvii-Dietrich

On the other hand, when there was the interview with Nick Grey, this was the response. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207133

Currently, the C-101 (both EB and CC) is available for all nations in DCS... this is great, and very much appreciated. However, only some nations have dedicated paintschemes. All the other nations use a default paintscheme which is either: C-101EB --> Spanish C-101CC --> Fictional bare metal with ED/TFC logos Ref: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3304457/ What I would like to request is that there is a new generic combat paintscheme added to the module which is truly generic, namely: neutral pattern (plain matt for the entire aircraft, no need for patterns/trim) combat colour (mid-grey is most generic and would work in all seasons/maps) unmarked (no roundels or logos or any other national-marking) available for both the EB and CC variants available for all nations The motivation for this is to have a paintscheme which can be used for other nations in a multiplayer setting. For example, if you want to use them for Japan or Canada or Ukraine or Germany you have to put up with either the Spanish (EB) or ED/TFC logo (CC), which sort of kills the immersion. It is easier to look past and unmarked aircraft than and incorrectly marked one. Yes, it would be nice to have fictional skins for all nations, but I'm trying to be practical here and limit it to a single skin. It would also not add too much to the size of the module on the harddisk. Also, I realise we can make our own skins, but this doesn't work in a multiplayer setting. Either the server has to allow all skins (which can lead to madness), or lock the skins, which limits it to the defaults which are not so suitable (see above). Hence the request for a completely plain, generic, unmarked skin for all nations. Thanks!

While reading online about the Gazelle, I found this photograph linked on the Wikipedia page: ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gazelle_-_RIAT_2018_(cropped).jpg Does anyone know what that pod-thing is that is mounted on the starboard pylon?

Development of multi-crew pilot/copilot for the UH-1H is superb news. Really looking forward to it!!

Top priority for me... User-placable airfields and spawn points. (Especially for WW2, being able to put a dirt-strip and spawn points onto the map is invaluable.) Some others... Desert / snow skins for FARPS and FARP equipment (E.g. having bright gree FARPs on the NTTR/PG map looks ridiculous) Able to rename (or at least suppress) placenames on the map (This way, we can re-use maps for other scenarios) Able to put our own place names on the map (This way, we can label important features on the map with decent labels, not those little "map mark boxes") MP scores/points can be allocated other tasks. (currently, we can only get points in MP for ships, air and ground... not buildings, bridges, hauling cargo, deploying troops, etc.)

Re: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4069801&postcount=70 Thank you so much AvioDev for your continued dedication and hard work to the C-101 project. It is so greatly appreciated!! The recent list of updates is extremely impressive and addresses so many things. I was delighted to see all the recent key-bindings being added... especially key bindings for the SCAR system. That makes such a big difference, as I can now use my controllers for these systems. I'm very happy with this. :)

Indeed, the OP is a cool story, as is the one about the pro-level simulator. I probably will never get a RL helicopter experience, but maybe a pro-level simulator... in which case it would be cool if the modicum of realism afforded by DCS helps get a bit more out of the experience. Incidentally, after a lot of agonising, research, and saving(!), I also got a PFT-Puma. I cannot describe how much of a game changer this was. Curiously, I find flying a fixed-wing with the PFT-Puma rather tricky. Which doubles the realisation of how hard it is to learn a helicopter on a regular joystick-and-rudder-pedals... no matter how good they are. :joystick: Like any DCS module, it will never be "perfect" (whatever that means). But the fact it is starting to resemble reality is such a big step and I find it quite inspiring.

I am a big fan of the Gazelle (it got me into helicopter simming!), so I'm delighted to see that Polychop have not been deterred and are working on bringing the OH-58 to fruition too. I am definitely looking forward to this.

Great video. Looks really good. I liked the way it tilted back during take off (front part of the skids coming up first). And those smoke grenades on the dashboard were neat. I wondered if they would be usable and, sure enough... :-)

Correct. And it is only one target per aircraft group (so, if you have aircraft groups of one aircraft each, it is one aircraft per target). The Sea Eagle was only ever used on the C-101 in RL for trials and these were pre-planned against known targets. So, yes, the current implementation is realistic. Fire-and-forget mode is going off in the "what if" direction. Nice, sure, but hardly a priority.

Mostly curiosity, really. But also it would then be easy to then see at a glance the progression of the introduction of the DCS modules, see which ones were older/newer, etc..

Just noticed a nice little detail on the Patrulla Aguilla paintscheme. If you change the tail number in the mission editor to 1, 2, 3, etc., it changes both the main tail number and the small registration number on the nose. That's pretty obvious, and no doubt lots of people have seen that. But... What I didn't see at first though, is that if you look carefully on the yellow band under the canopy, you'll see the pilot's name and, yes... these are different for each different tail number. What a nice touch. Well done AvioDev! :thumbup:

DCS has been out for long enough now, that the spreadsheet could have a dot in the year column that the DCS implementation was released: ... 2017 2018 2019 2020 F-16 | | | o | | Viggen | o | | | | etc.

Well, the F-16 Hornet... er, Fighting Falcon is out of the hanger. Hopefully that means the Mi-24 next. :D In the meantime, a few fragments of information were referenced here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4059338&postcount=1560

Maybe just start a new thread in the C-101 forum for each question or bug report? https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=339

This is the very reason why a flyable Hawkeye would be very popular. It would peek the interest from those that mostly like flying civilian aircraft on other simulators. Why would it pique their interest? I mean, what would flying an E2 on DCS (which would require time/money/effort to get started in) offer to them, that they do not already get in their civil aviation simulators ... given their motivations (not ours)? There was a flight combat game which implemented a transport plane recently, but there was limited take-up of it by the community, and I am not aware of a single person who was a civil.sim pilot and not already flying that combat game, who was attracted to the game and started with that transport plane. There are a lot more reasons for flying a civil.sim than simply "not fighting". DCS would need to address those as well, in order to attract the attention of civil.sim pilots. That means full world maps, detailed scenery, navigation, full ATC (tower, approach, regional radar, ground handling), cargoes, passengers, economy, air-miles, transport statistics, massive-MP-networks, ... and to do so MUCH better than the existing civil.sims. I would LOVE to see an E2 or C2 in DCS. But I think that it is false to assume that it will suddenly attract civil.aviation simmers (who are not already flying in DCS), just by providing a non-fighting aircraft.

REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24 I am not sure how true the above is but, if so, that would be a fantastic option for the upcoming Mi-24 Hind. :)

These sorts of polls tend to be a bit vague. Nearly everyone will want new content, sure. But not everyone will want new content at the expense of something else. So, if a new 3rd-party dev comes along and develops a heavy bomber... great! But if ED has to do it at the expense of, say, their new map or current work on the Mi-24... no thanks! Don't get me wrong, I like bombers. My unit used to run bombers in a different sim before we switched to DCS. But we also need to look at the bigger picture here. Yes, there definitely is a role for non-fighters. Especially those which add to the current "ecosystem". That's why any flyable C2, E2 or SH60 would be better. They are interesting in their own right and would appeal to the non-fighter-pilots, but they add to the environment of the F/A-18 pilots and the upcoming super-carrier module. Thus, their mere presence promotes both the F/A-18 and the Super-Carrier modules. They also don't need multi-crew to be functional. Given the current state of multicrew in other modules, it is clearly a very non-trivial thing to develop. A flyable heavy on the other hand, would be flying in isolation and without the challenge of carrier landings, integration with the existing fleet, and so on. And it is not just the aircraft itself, but also the assets and game mechanics to support it. I recall when one of the flight combat games added a transport aircraft. The problem was that there was no integration of its abilities into the game mechanics (mission objectives, scores, etc.). As was pointed out, you could get the same score sitting in a fighter with your engine off than you could navigating that transport through a combat zone, surviving AAA and enemy fighters and limping back with a dead engine. Needless to say, there was little incentive to keep flying it, once the initial novelty wore off. It is rarely seen on those servers these days. So, if there is a call for developing some light/medium aircraft with different roles... yes please. But I think developing a multicrewable heavy aircraft would be a mistake.

Thanks for the update.

I also used it last weekend. It works just fine. But one thing I would add to swatstar98's comment is to check that the AP switch is on. If not, then auto-hover will not engage. As the AP switch will not stay on unless the engines are fully spooled up, it sometimes gets missed or deactivated during the start-up sequence - which is what is was probably alluding to. It's caught me out a few times, so the "auto-hover-on-takeoff" check is now part of my standard procedure. EDIT : Just speculating, but perhaps the AP is being de-activated in flight, which would explain it sometimes working/sometimes not and seemingly random crashes.

I meant refreshing in the sense of the not the usual USA plus its adversaries. And the OP specifically said not the desert terrains. ;)

Nice idea. Would definitely be a refreshing change from the usual scenarios we get.

Definitely need a desert tan-brown and winter dirt-grey FARP as standard. Mods are fine, but they don't work well in the multiplayer environment.

Really?! Where did you see that? Are there any details??

The Lynx would be superb. Would definitely love that! Or perhaps a helicopter that sits well on the new "super carrier" (REF).