PapaSmoke

I don't know if its just taken as read that people already know this (in which case please tell me to poke it), but IFF is only ever really used as part of a wider decision making process to identify tracks and generate the Recognised Air Picture anyway. By no means all IFF-equipped aircraft are equipped to interrogate IFF, for most it is a passive system that is switched on and 'forgotten' for the sortie, save a Parrot/India check at check-in. The requirement to simulate the IFF systems seems to be a separate discussion from the need to identify friend from target in a multiplayer mixed-type team vs team furball because of the restrictions arising from LoD. I've never played a big 'air-quake' (sorry if that's not the right term) so I can't input on that, but I can input on some of the reasons that implementing a wholly realistic IFF system is absolutely not small beer for the developers. IFF (really ought to be called I, because it'll only ever positively ID friends with the serviceable kit and the right codes) is only ever used as part of ID criteria that dovetail into the RoE. This is a complex process and there's a lot riding on it, hence why BVR engagements are rare - taking that shot is a HUGE call. ID criteria tend to be complex and based on the ever-changing Int situation. Programming AI that can flexibly and reliably behave within that (and have the weaknesses of that system exploited against it) would be a huge deal. Furthermore, it will rarely be the dude in the jet that gets to say, "yep, he's hostile - Fox 3". The responsibility for that usually (almost always) sits further up the chain and IFF, NCTR and a lot of other sensors and Int provide clues for the person who holds that risk. Also, where do you draw the line with realism? Because folks will soon get fed up with spending 40 minutes trying to get the Mode 4 to load. To cut a long story short, my thoughts are these: Anything approaching accurate IFF implementation would require huge alterations to the AI IFF is only a small part of the way that bogeys become hostiles Accurately implemented IFF systems and a "shoot/don't shoot" system for air-quake are separate entities

@bbrz just re-read what you wrote earlier and I get what you're saying now. I definitely agree with regard to the actual physical feelings (G etc) in the real thing. What types have you flown? My only experience of FBW is Typhoon.

Which doesn't refute any point made by anybody so far on this topic. Well done. And a module that I don't own is my favourite? Sure.

I understand your position entirely, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that the flight model is 100% accurate, I'm claiming that it is accurate enough for most people to enjoy, within the flight envelope. With your Gazelle experience, it sounds like you can't enjoy it - and I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't mean that the developers haven't done a good job of getting as close to what it feels like to fly the real thing as is possible with current PC tech.

In most FBW planes you can yank on the stick all you like and not worry about G or AoA too though, to be fair. And I have to admit I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between an aircraft with conventional powered controls and a FBW machine (e.g. Typhoon) in terms of control feel. Are the FBW aircraft you have flown mostly western or eastern design? Love to hear more if they're Eastern Bloc - I have no experience at all of them!

The problem with this whole argument is that nobody knows what happens to a Gazelle when you're in an OGE hover at 4000'amsl and you fully deflect the cyclic forward. I have a little flight test experience and I know what my response would be to seeing that on the test schedule! The limits for aircraft operation are generally arrived at through a combination of engineering hypothesis and practical test, stopping either when the design targets are met (or exceeded by a sensible margin) or the Test Pilot has a brown-trouser moment. It follows therefore, that even the most experienced RW TP in the world wouldn't be able to advise on the "outside loop in OGE hover" performance of the Gazelle because it is not something that the aircraft was ever designed, tested, trialled or constructed to achieve. Simulators are only as good as the data that is available. Case in point - I can very easily roll, loop and pirouette the 10tonne+ helo that I fly, in the most advanced simulator for its type in the world. I wouldn't dream of asking it to fly these manoeuvres with me and other crew on board! On the other hand, it doesn't perform some manoeuvres well that I know to be well within the real aircraft's capabilities. But it doesn't matter - you're not flying a Gazelle - you're simulating flying one. And here there is an interesting paradox in the argument of those that demand complete realism outside the known flight envelope. If they are so committed to achieving the highest levels of accuracy and realism, it really shouldn't matter whether the aircraft does a forward roll in that situation or turns into a pumpkin. Somebody so committed to faithfully recreating the Gazelle wouldn't dream of an excursion that far out of the flight envelope. To do so would be... unrealistic.

Are you thinking about Campaign/Mission ideas Bedouin?

Here are some of the best references I could find that in my experience most accurately reflect the broad-brush picture in this theatre. https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/26127/uploads [ame]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus87.pdf[/ame] And for additional context http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/what-really-happened-in-the-persian-gulf-on-april-28-2015/ Blue skies

Any kind of tactical support-helicopter mission would be great, particularly if the planning cycle was catered for in a multiplayer environment. Having a tasking sheet delivered to your group and then having to plan, for example, a four-ship troop insert would be quite interesting. Not to mention the various decisions to be made when the you actually start flying and: a. The weather is crap b. The troops aren't there c. When you find them, they want to go somewhere other than where you planned d. That place is in REALLY crap weather e. The enemy aren't where you expected them either f. You get retasked on the bounce from dropping off but... g. Because of the whole weather/enemy thing you're really tight on fuel so... h. You have to decide whether to get more fuel or just go, oh and by the way... i. The retask is a troops-in-contact... You get the idea. It could be a lot of fun!

Hi Ligety, all, I'm very new to the forums and recently coming back to DCS after a few years away. Much has changed! (For the good). Great to see that there is such a great community - I'm looking forward to hopefully fitting in. I happen to fly helicopters, so I thought I'd lend my two-penneth... 1: I enjoy learning about different types of aircraft, especially from a technical standpoint. Also, DCS gives me an opportunity to exercise my brain and actually have fun while I'm "flying" rather than it being purely work. That's certainly not to say I don't enjoy my job though! 2: I found the actual flying of helicopters, particularly hovering, much harder in DCS. I suspect that this is to do with depth perception and the fact that your scan is all screwed up because you're looking at the world through a very small window (a 22" monitor in my case). I've found that night flying on NVD is more closely approximate to real life, but of course in the actual aircraft, as others have pointed out already, there are loads of other cues like vibration and the seat of your pants, to feed into your SA. 3: The sims I've flown have had collimated display and are full-motion, fully enclosed things. Having that peripheral vision really makes a difference. 4: My main piece of advice would be don't put too much pressure on yourself to be good. There's loads more stuff to being a decent pilot than being able to nail hovering inside a few hours! The more relaxed you are and the better you get on with your instructor, the better you'll perform. I think having DCS experience will cut down on the really early-hour stuff - mostly ground school type things - like what the instruments are etc. 5: I think you'd definitely have issues. Its amazing the difference between the really complex full-motion sims and the actual aircraft, never mind DCS. The amount of mental capacity you lose just sitting in a helicopter with the rotors turning is terrifying! If you get a chance for a lesson though, take it - just be careful because it might be the most expensive thing you ever do! As well as flying for a living and sitting in front of DCS from time to time, I also end up doing a fair bit of private flying. It's addictive! 6: I'm really excited to see where VR goes in the next couple of years. I think with the way things are now with graphics and computer tech, it could be just what flight sims need to become mainstream again. There sure can't be anything better for a VR experience than flying. I would like to see more game mechanics around the less-sexy side of combat flying, particularly support helicopter operations, and really deep scenarios that force you to make decisions. A lot of the time you can have a really tricky, rewarding mission without ever seeing the enemy. Hope these answers are something like what you're looking for. Blue skies.

I'll have another crack at it tomorrow and post the code and error message then, with some screenshots. Thanks for your reply Ian.

Hi all, It's my first post here, I'm coming back to DCS after about a six year hiatus and much has changed. I have the A-10C, MiG-21 and Hawk modules and will be adding more soon. I'm not a programmer, but I'm working on changing that slowly by trying to get stuck into scripts for DCS. My only programming knowledge comes from previously teaching myself to write some basic scripts for Arma, back in the day. So, to the problem... I'm trying to write a very basic script that will check that certain parameters (in this case the UHF frequency) are set correctly before carrying out an action. As a way of building towards this I've tried to create a basic script that will pull a cockpit parameter out of the sim and display it as part of a message. In learning how to do that I've used the excellent tutorial at http://deadfrogstudios.com/warthogpit/index.php?title=Exporting_DCS_Data to set up my Export.lua file to send some parameters to an Export.log - I'm sure none of this is stretching anybody here, but it worked me over. Anyway, I got it achieved, but when I tried to run the exact same code (in a different file - ExValues.lua) by using the Do Script File command in the ME, I get an error relating to the GetDevice(0). Anybody fancy helping a complete coding novice figure this out? I'd really appreciate it. I've done my Due Diligence but I can't find anything on these forums or even Google that comes close. Here's hoping. Blue skies, PapaSmoke