xvii-Dietrich

Agreed. Certainly not in DCS. There are some for other simulators though. Semi-public meta-servers such as VATSIM, IVAO and PilotEdge spring to mind. One of the differences is the lack of ATC-incentive in DCS. There are no points/scores for ATC in DCS... only air/ground/ship kills. You cannot log hours as an ATC. There is no rank system or gaining qualifications. Nor is there any authority (e.g. the ability to do something about non-complying aircraft). Or, as in PilotEdge, you don't get paid. As a result, in DCS ATC tends to be done either as a novelty or because it is part of squad operations. (By the way, the same incentive issue goes for logistics.) For knowing that there is ATC available, one option is to have JTAC or Tac.Cmdr or GameMaster roles reserved for the ATC. So, if you see that is filled, you know that there is someone in the tower. I have also seen an ATC once on the ColdWar server repeatedly put into the in-game chat something like "ATC on 253 MHz" (although this does assume that pilots haven't hidden the in-game chat). It may also be possible to script it so that messages repeated pop-up in the top right telling pilots that ATC is available.

I didn't say you were. I was merely suggesting a few things that you might have overlooked. I also made a track for you to demonstrate it working, along with an explanation of what I did. I was only trying to help. Ditto for your other thread.

Attached is a track demonstrating the ground effect in the Gazelle. I use the hover-servo to stop lateral drift and focus on the air cushion. There are then three lifts and descent tests. In the first, I come down at 0.75 hm/min and in the second at 1.2 hm/min. In these cases, I stop on the air cushion, but bob up a bit thereafter due to the establishment of equilibrium between the air volume and the initial downward momentum. In the last drop, I descend at 2hm/min. This is enough to "punch through" the air cushion and just touch the ground, although it then rises again a bit to sit on the air cushion. So, yes, ground effect is there. I do not know if the exact distances, accelerations and times are correct, but there is a ground effect. Also, I do not know how the SA342 would compare to and A109 (due to the different mass, rotor pitch, rotor foil, number of blades, engine shaft-hp, etc.) in that regard. However, it is certainly not correct for to claim that the DCS Gazelle shows a "Complete lack of ground effect". That said, if you have found some alternatively circumstances that suggest otherwise, please post a track so we can take a look. Maybe there was something in the helicopter setup, or you were descending far too fast, or there was some other effect (such as 50 deg C at high altitude on the Persian Gulf map)? groundeffect.trk

I've just done some testing for you and you can certainly land on grass and take off again. Attached is a track where I do exactly that. I start at an airbase in a fully-loaded Gazelle, fly out to the nearby field, land (rather heavily *blush*), take off again, and fly back to the base. So it definitely works. As other have suggested, please post a track so we can take a look and help you out. Sometimes there will be something not set in the cockpit, or you are landing too hard, or maybe you are new to helicopters and need some tips. Alternatively, maybe you have found some specific terrain or conditions or circumstances where it really does get stuck. In which case, if we can replicate the problem it will help get it fixed much sooner. Thanks! :) grasslanding.trk

In that case, I'd strongly recommend you first try the free TF-51D that comes with DCS. It is basically the P-51-without-weapons and let's you try out a "tail-dragger" before committing to buying one.

When I saw Torpin Tykit, I thought it might have been a Finnish Mi-8. But no... :-( Nevertheless, it is always cool to see one. Thanks for posting those photos! That said, why don't we have the Mi-8 on the Finnish roster in DCS? It was certainly used by Finland.

Good news, thanks. However it will not fix all of these sorts of incidents. For example, this evening, there was someone in JTAC who took command of ground vehicles to systematically shoot-up every helicopter as it was trying to start up on the FARP. But it never registered as a negative score, as the helicopters were merely disabled before they could start their engines, and the auto-kick never took effect.

Excellent post from SnowTiger. Very true. Even for an identical controller, things like the position of the chair, the frame rate of the simulator, the field of view of the monitor, and personal preference will result in differences to the needed curve settings. On the other hand, knowing what settings others are using (especially if they are using something similar to you), will help give and idea of what to change and a starting point from whence to experiment. (For reference, my settings are here: link)

Fantastic server. Really appreciate it... especially the fact it has decent missions for helicopters. PS: one very minor thing I noticed... all the Gazelle groups are labelled "FARP Dallas SA342M .. Ground Attack" even though only one of them is actually an SA342M. Perhaps you could either remove the "M" from the label, or label them "L", "M", "Mistral", "Minigun".

I totally agree. My first DCS helicopter was the Huey and I hated it. Very frustrating to learn, difficult to control and wobbles about leaving one a bit sea sick. Although I like helicopters, I abandoned the idea of flying them in DCS. However, I came across a post about the Gazelle, explaining how to master it (Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914772&postcount=23 ). On a whim, I got it, and found it easy to learn, fun to fly and it is now my favourite DCS module. It also taught me how to fly helicopters, and I've since managed to get the hang of the Huey (I enjoy that too now). So, yes, +1 for the Gazelle. If, however, someone does start with the Huey, I'd offer this advice while learning: Fly light The Huey struggles when overloaded. So, while learning, reduce your weapon load and cut back on fuel (30% is enough to start). Be cool All helicopters struggle in hot weather, as the air is thinner and the rotors are thus less effective. When first learning, use cold weather. Stay low Likewise, helicopters struggle at high altitude. Learn on the coast, not in the mountains. Fast FPS Reaction time is critical... especially in a helicopter. Get your frames-per-second (FPS) as good as you can. Once you've got the hang of it, have built up some muscle-memory and are not struggling to remember controls and technique, then venture further. But I wish I knew the above when I was first starting out in rotorcraft. I hope it helps.

Definitely!! A flyable SH-60 would be superb! This would benefit everyone, not just the helicopter pilots. It's a new aircraft type with new activity, sound and action. The new carrier ecosystem is going to be very immersive, but it is the randomness of human activity which keeps it fresh and active. An appropriate flyable helicopter in this heady mix will add so much to that experience.

As @spiddx mentions, one of the developers (Coyote) was enquiring about an F-8 variant at one stage... for a specific example: Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3759886&postcount=292 However, since then, work has continued on the A-8 and the F-8 has not been mentioned again. Additionally, at about the same time, one of the newsletters mentioned an F-8. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3774154&postcount=180 Since then, there has been no word whatsoever regarding the development of the FW 190 F-8, let alone a time scale or weapon loaadout. Also, there has been no official statement from ED that I can find that says that the FW 190 F-8 would be included in the FW 190 A-8 module. If (and that is a big "if") it is released, it might be a completely separate purchased module. But we do not know.

Fair enough. However, the original poster was specifically asking about whether to get the Anton or Dora for ground attack. Although it might be fixed at some point, not having functioning bomb drops may be an issue for him. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245590

This is an SRS thing. It depends on what radios you have on. If you start up and switch on all the radios, then SRS will default to the first one. On some of the trainers (and, by the looks of it, also the SA342), this is the VHF aviation band 119-139 MHz (or maybe the HF/FM 30MHz ... not sure / can't remember). If you toggle the SRS radio overlay (it is on the General page of the SRS client), a small grey window should pop up. This will have the two or three radio options. Check to make sure you have the upper VHF (250-270 MHz or whatever it is) selected (there will be a green light next to it... which goes bright if you hit the push-to-talk key). So, basically, you can receive with SRS to any radio you have on, but can only transmit on the one you have selected. Map an SRS hot key for it *. EDIT : * By "map an SRS hot key for it", I have set keys for "Radio 1", "Radio 2" and "Radio 3" on the Controls tab of SRS. This lets me switch between transmitting on the different radios. I also have a key mapped to "Overlay Toggle", as I find that's useful for quickly checking mid-flight.

Unfortunately, there has been no announcement of additional armament being added to the DCS A-8. The product page states: "The Anton could also be loaded with unguided rockets and bombs." But that is just the description of the historical aircraft, and not what is included (or planned) for the module. There has been no statement of a "promised F-variant"... the only thing on that has been some discussion of the type by one of the developers, Coyote, (REF: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3759886&postcount=292), and a vague hint in some historical text in one of the newsletters (REF: 25-Jan-2019). And, even if the F-variant is produced, there has been no indication from ED if it will be included for free with the A-8, or will be a module purchased completely separately. It would be great if we got either an increased-capacity A-8 or an F-8 but, at the moment, both options are a bit uncertain. We looked into the issue of ships a while back (REF = http://stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6957#p53815), and tried to find instances from history of ships being sunk by the FW 190. The most prominent case seems to be the attacks on Bône Harbour, North Afrika, on 1- and 2-Jan-1943. In the cases of these larger ships, multiple bomb hits were required. This is consistent with the behaviour in DCS. The thing is that an attack on a harbour was carried out by a squadron (or in the case of Bône, two squadrons 2./SG3 & 3./SG10), rather than a lone aircraft.

Not sure about the user mods, but the machine-gun pillbox fortification I mentioned is part of the WW2 assets pack. You can find it in the mission editor with: Ground-unit --> Fortification --> Fire control bunker

Depends what you mean by "air-to-ground" fighting. The DCS A-8 (Anton) has better armour and cannons for strafing runs, but carries only a single SC250 bomb. The DCS D-9 (Dora) is more fragile, but it is faster. Its bomb loadouts are much better, having the option of an SC250, 4 x SC50 or SC500 bomb. It can also carry R4M rocket racks. Alternatively, it can mount 2 x BR21 rocket launchers. So, if you are just trying to take out trucks and other soft targets, or perhaps even just strafing infantry (i.e. actual ground pounders!), then the Anton is probably your best bet. If you are trying to deal with hard targets (tanks, bunkers, ships, etc.) then the Dora might be better because of the better bombs/rockets. Personally, in DCS I fly the D-9 with 4xSC50 + 2xBR21 for ground attack missions.

I have all four DCS helicopters and the Gazelle is by far my favourite. It took a while to figure out the controls and get the responses set-up, but once I did, it was superb. Further to that, I've since helped a number of other Gazelle-module-owners get their controls sorted out too, and they have gone from haters to enthusiasts. A quick look at the post-history of the developer will indicate that they write multiple times per week and have answered the requests multiple times. That all said, I acknowledge that the community is divided on the matter, and if improvements are coming, that's great! But, I'll add my voice to those who think the SA342 is already pretty awesome. :)

Very nice! That top screenshot actually reminds me of a place where I once worked in Chile. Is it taken actually somewhere on the Nevada map? Or Persian Gulf?

@oboe Wow. That's neat. Thank you for taking the effort to stream/record/transcribe that. It makes a BIG difference being able to read the text and listen to the radio. Indeed, it helps one understand the patterns and learn the protocol... very useful! (And, yes, that radio traffic make things very immersive.)

On the SA342L variant of the Gazelle, there is a LAU-SNEB68G rocket pod on the port side. In the mission editor, you can remove the rockets. However, the pod itself still remains. Is there a way to remove the entire pod/pylon at all?

I've been experimenting with the Gazelle, trying to get the fastest speeds out of it. From the DCS SA342 manual (p9) it states: I checked this out, and a fully-equipped SA342M (3xHOT3, IR suppressor, sand filter, full fuel), flying level (using altitude hold) at sea-level, with the collective just before the point where the red-warning light on the anti-torque starts blinking, I can get 214 km/h (or 212 km/h if I switch the sand filter on). That's pretty good! I also tried the SA342L (which I think should be the fastest, right?). For it (still full fuel, for comparison), I removed the rockets, the IR filter and the sand filter and then flew it level (altitude hold) at sea-level, again with the collective just before the point where the red-warning light on the anti-torque starts blinking. I could get 222km/h. If I fired off all the gun ammunition, the speed went up to 227 km/h. Then, I tried again with the same SA342L configuration, but with 20% fuel. I got 249km/h (which went up to 253 km/h after firing off all the ammunition in the gun). Hunting around on the web, I find figures of 270 km/h cruise speed (REF), but I'm not sure a) if these data are relevant to the Gazelle model we have in DCS or b) if these data are actually reliable in the first place. More likely is that my technique is not very good, in which case does anyone have any suggestions on how I could fly the SA342L faster?

PolyChop have acknowledged this bug: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3980461&postcount=517 However, it seems it is a problem with the core DCS engine, not the SA342 per se. I wonder if it should be reported here instead: https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=450 (DCS Sound Bugs board)

What that means is that an aircraft bought on the Stand-alone store page cannot be used in the Steam version. In other words, if you want to use Steam, download the Steam version of DCS, and only buy your modules through Steam. If you want to use the Stand-alone version of DCS, download it from the DCS website and only buy modules from the DCS web store. You can't mix your sources of purchase... that's all. However, if you have the Steam version of DCS, you can still join the same MP servers as a person who is using the Stand-alone version (and vice versa). Hopefully that is a little clearer (but I totally agree with you... it is utterly bewildering).

"Updates" are not delayed. Steam is in sync with the Stand-alone version in that regard. As a result, Steam and Stand-alone versions can always join the same multiplayer servers, for instance. However, the other points are correct though (module releases are a bit delayed and some of the money goes to Steam, not ED). The Steam version itself is fine though. I use it and have never had problems with it. Steam itself has some other advantages (such as free, integrated screenshot hosting, automatic download tools, chat, integration with your other sims/games, etc).