slug88

I think this means your INU is not enabled, or is not warmed up. Make sure the INU power is on on the rear right panel. Also, I believe the ADI is powered by the WCS, so make sure you've turned on the weapons control system (near left panel). Right-click it and hold down the right mouse button. This will pull the knob out. While it's pulled out (you're holding down RMB), you can rotate it. By default, when you start at an airport or at a properly equipped FARP, you start with the ground power already enabled by the ground crew. You simply need to enable it in cockpit. If you mean that you get a response before you've flicked the two cockpit switches, this means that you're talking to the groundcrew through the open cockpit hatch. Try it again with the door closed, and it shouldn't work.

I've also been wondering about that mod, it seems all the posts about it have disappeared off the face of the earth. Or am I simply bad with the search function?

AFAIK, there is no command for nav mode. Nav mode is the mode you're always in unless you activate a weapons hardpoint. To return to nav mode after using weapons, press the Reset key on the weapons control panel (blue button on the near left side of the cockpit).

Shouldn't affect them at all, since the only change concerns non-FFB sticks.

That's what I meant :)

This is how it currently works in game.

decreasing rotor speed is the last thing you want to do here. Increasing the rpm will increase the centripetal force on the blades, which pulls them out to the sides, thus reducing flapping. This is why you need to lower collective as you build speed; lowering collective increases rotor rpm. If the method you're describing actually works, then there is something seriously wrong with the game. Note also that the blinking yellow RPM warning is actually a *low rpm* warning. It's telling you that you need to increase rotor RPM.

I think it's a good idea, I would thoroughly enjoy such a hardcore "space sim". However, ED aren't the ones that will be making it. Their business model depends a lot on their contracts with various militaries, which precludes fantasy endeavors such as this.

From the FAQ: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=589600&postcount=46 EDIT: You beat me to it :P

IIRC the Abrams has over 1m RHA equivalent against chemical energy penetrators, at least along the turret front. So if the 900mm figure is true, then the Vikhr would certainly not guarantee a kill.

Then perhaps I'm missing your point. So you're saying that, as long as the unit can not be controlled by a human, then it should be omitted? Does this apply to ground vehicles as well? No that is not what I was saying. What does the A-10C have to do with carrier aircraft? Well, there is a very long list of things that would further please the DCS community. ED has already released a tentative list of the aircraft they plan to model in the future, I believe you'll find it in one of the stickies above. The point is, each aircraft is an immense undertaking and takes almost a year to produce, and we will never, ever be at the point where everything you can think of has been simulated to the DCS standard. So you can either accept that, or go play LOMAC, or any one of the other survey sims out there.

Pinky-braking is the way God intended it.

I'm sure that depends greatly on the tank, and where the missile happens to impact. At the moment, I don't think the game treats reactive armor any different than any other sort of armor; more likely there's just a single numerical value representing armor strength for each face on each tank. So since we have this fairly simple damage model for ground units (for now), simulating the tandem warhead isn't an issue.

There are plenty of "carrier landable" planes included, but they are AI only. Are you implying that they should only include units that can be controlled by the player? Either way, I think you're missing the point in a big way.

Another quick note, I really like the use of phase lines and strictly defined airspace protocols in the mission (and in the other missions where I've encountered them). Not only does it make everything seem more professional, but to me at least, it adds to the immersion by suggesting that I have to stay in a narrow corridor because there's stuff going on outside this airspace and I might cause conflicts and confusion and may even get shot down by being somewhere where I'm not expected to be. AFAIK, in reality air assets, and especially helicopter assets, and especially in the Russian army, are very strictly controlled, with very specific and well defined mission goals. Missions like this that stick to that principle feel more authentic, and place the attention to where the designer intends. This was one of my criticisms with the missions in the GOW campaign, in that it feels as though you are in command of the sky, free to fly wherever you'd like and to accomplish the mission in whichever way you please. This leads to gamy and unrealistic situations, like the player penetrating the enemy line and single handedly annihilating the entire Georgian artillery and command force in every mission.

Well I finished the mission, though I didn't have time to post my thoughts last night. Overall, I'd say it lived up to the expectations set initially. *SPOILER* The mission's greatest strength is the feeling of combat going on all around you. From the MLR's in the beginning, to the infantry deployment at the very conclusion, there's enough going on at all times to give the illusion of a living world. The radio messages add a great deal to this, and I give credit to the designer for pulling off a fairly convincing performance (the sound effects in the background were a very nice touch). Some variety in the voices would go a long way, however. I'm sure that you could find a few volunteers on these boards to help fill a few roles for your next production. Anyway, I ended up failing the mission; I let a few too many BTR's get taken out by the TOW's. My first minor criticism involves the message I recieved after the infantry had completed their assault; it felt a bit gamey that within moments of the infantry occupying the objective, I had the battalion commander telling me that the casualties were too high and that I had failed my mission. I think it would feel more effective, and more dramatic, if instead it went as follows: after the infantry occupy the tree line, the battalion command informs you that the objective has been occupied and that you are released from his command. It should be very short and to the point, in accordance with military radio discipline. Then, when the player is on his way back to base, perhaps when he's within a kilometer or so of the field, the player could receive a follow up transmission from battalion, with something like "thanks for the help, we took heavy casualties, however the objective is occupied" in the case of a "mission failure" like I encountered. I'm guessing that in real life, the judgment of mission success or failure would wait until debriefing on the ground with the unit commander, and so at most it should only be implied in the communiques in mission. A further critique is that there didn't seem to be nearly enough infantry to fill out a company. Though two or three BTR's were taken out before disembarkation, this should have made a difference of a couple squads only. It's quite possible, however, that from my vantage point 50m high, I simply didn't make out all the soldiers. So this critique may very well be completely unfounded. Am I correct in thinking that there should have been on the order of ~90 soldiers on the field once the company disembarked (3 rifle platoons * 25 men, 1 weapons platoon * 15 men)? Overall, these are very minor issues, and they're more than offset by the things I've already praised. I was also pleased to note some randomization in the beginning; I had to refly the mission just after taking off the first time due to joystick issues, and I noted that the airport activity was different the second time around. It's those kinds of details that can really bring the world to life, and I would strongly encourage all mission makers to utilize the random triggers as you have done so here. So, once again, congratulations on a job well done, and thank you very much for the effort. I plan on trying this one again this evening, and making an effort to use my wingman as something more than stationary overwatch this time.

Wow. I'm about 15 minutes into the mission right now, and I had to minimize the game and let you know how impressed I am. The scripted events, the radio messages, the little details, they all combine to create a truly excellent effect. If the rest of the mission is anywhere near as impressive and immersive as it has been so far, this will easily be one of the best single player missions available. I will report back with my thoughts when I've completed it. A tentative congratulations to you, MBot, on a job very well done. Kudos also for the unique concept, I'm curious to see how well you implemented the "suppression" concept.

Agreed. I noticed a ~10fps difference going from XP to W7 with the multicore trick. I was skeptical at first too, but this isn't hype.

Another thing I would recommend is getting your video drivers from Windows Update, rather than using Vista drivers. This is recommended both by Microsoft and by nVidia.

I've been happily running BlackShark on W7 for the past couple of months, with very few problems to speak of, and better framerates than I was getting in either XP or Vista. One thing that I would recommend is to install the game to a directory outside of Program Files, rather something like "C:\games\ka50"; Vista and W7 handle the Program Files directory in a different way from the rest of the disk. Also, I believe you're only supposed to be able to have one instance of BS registered at a time; running a copy on an Vista partition as well as a W7 partition implies that you have two instances activated simultaneously, which could cause problems with starforce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settling_with_power You can find lots of info if you do a forum search for "Vortex Ring State". Generally, you can avoid this by descending at no greater than 5 m/s when at low speed.

Another major consideration is that the games of today, as complex as they are, cost far more to develop than those of the 90's. It's standard today for major titles to have development budgets in the tens of millions, something that was almost unfathomable just a decade ago. Despite this, game prices have remained relatively fixed. In fact, for this reason we're probably getting more value for our money today than we did back then, despite the lack of beefy manuals.

Or Windows 7 :)

Juicy.

In the drop down 'Category' list, there is an entry labeled 'Axis Assignments'. It's the first entry, and it's in red. There you will be able to assign your X-52 throttle to the in-game collective.