frostycab

I seem to remember a thread about the Intruder somewhere

He doesn't work in MP at the moment? I haven't tried yet. Having said that, his ability to spot targets at long range so quickly could make him rather OP for MP.

+1 for this. The top of the IHADSS is much too high in my Index. It makes my eyes start to ache if I look at the heading tape for too long.

Oooh! I like doughnuts too!

Give it a little while after release and I'm sure the will be a Chuck's Guide out to help you. His guides are exactly what you're asking for I think.

Somebody’s nicking my ideas! I suggested this on the landing video on Youtube! I demand recognition! And royalties! And ice cream!!! LOL

ED have already said that the Apache will have some missions included in the EA release, so there's going to be Apache-focussed content from Day 1. You can bet your ass that online servers will be adding slots for the Apache the moment it becomes available. The mission editor is there to let you create your own missions, but if you're not adept at at that then I suspect the user files area of the ED site will fill up with missions pretty fast. If we get a dozen or so SP missions at launch then that's pretty much equivalent to a whole campaign, just without the underlying story linking them together. Everything takes time. Right now you'd think that people's worlds are going to end if the Apache isn't released within the next 5 minutes. If you think you can convince them to calm down and wait an extra month so that there's a full campaign ready to play on Day 1 of the EA launch then nobody is going to stop you. We also won't be climbing out of our bunkers to come and save you when they try to feed you to the dogs. LOL If it helps, another way to think of it is to consider EA as an aircraft validation period and crew qualification time. The end of EA can represent the aircraft and crew becoming certified and ready for deployment.

Nice idea, but I'd like to offer a small amendment. A clickbox suggests that if you then uncheck it everything will revert back. Also, it would perhaps complicate things if using something like a TGP on a cheek station. I'd suggest having 2 buttons, "Load from Left" and "Load from Right," giving you a single click persistent option. This way you could load up your symmetrical loadout and then add in any asymmetrical item afterwards.

I believe I've heard this referred to as "translational tendency." In a stable hover my understanding is that the main rotor disc needs to be angled slightly left or right to counter the pull from the tail rotor.

Have you seen this: I haven't tried it myself as the last thing I want to do is fumble for my VR controllers mid-game, and I don't think it's tied into the default kneeboard, but might be useful to you.

Unless you're heavily loaded with bombs then I wouldn't expect you to have problems keeping up with the A-10. The 'hog won't get much above 300kt in level flight at the best of times, and isn't suited to rapid climbs or aerobatic flight. Indeed, it has it's own struggles when it comes to making very tight turns before running into angle of attack limits. I suspect that if the A-10 is outclimbing you then it's probably down to each aircraft's airspeed when starting the climb. Easing off the stick in a turn to save 30 or 40kt before entering a climb can give you much more altitude gain before you reach the stall. Dogfighting is very much dependant on knowing the limits of your own aircraft as well as your opponents. With time you'll be able to recognise when your target is going to outturn you or loop right over you. The trick in these situations is to see the bigger picture, anticipating what he might do next and then positioning yourself to be in the best position when he gets there, while also understanding that he's going to be changing things up along the way to try and do the same thing to you. I'm utterly out of touch with the air-to-air missile capabilities of the SU-25, so can't comment on why your missiles aren't finding their mark, but rather than jumping right in and becoming frustrated with dogfighting it might benefit you to fly a few training sorties with drone targets, allowing you to get used to the systems and become more familiar with optimum missile launch parameters. Whatever happens, don't get disheartened! DCS has a steep leaning curve. I came to it after nearly 30 years of flying other sims, including study-level aircraft in FSX and P3d, and after a few weeks of trying to learn the A-10C I walked away for a couple of years. When I tried again and worked my way through the problems I was having I was hooked. What I've found over the last decade or so is that most of thee planes are very easy to fly, but very challenging to use as they are intended: weapon platforms. Don't give up, because there will always be someone around here ready to help.

I'm very sorry, but I have to ask why you think any of this would help Swaps with learning to fly the SU-25. Reading through his post it seems that all of his issues are down to elementary control of the aircraft, not internet connectivity. I do agree with you insofar as preferring a wired connection between my PC and router, but DCS doesn't seem to be much of a bandwidth hog. I'm able to fly on busy servers using the supplied crappy router from my UK ISP on a 12Mb/s connection with no connectivity issues at all. Where DCS is concerned my CPU and GPU give up long before any connection problems rear their ugly heads. I do not believe that spending between $500 and $800 on a high-end router is going to help alleviate any of his problems, especially if he's only trying to fly a simple SP mission. @swaps I have to admit I haven't been near the SU-25 in a few years, but I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark at something that could be the issue. You mentioned that you've been trying a dogfight mission with it. How hard are you manoeuvring? The SU-25 wasn't designed with dogfighting in mind. You can down helos easily enough, and the A-10 isn't a substantial problem, but you won't want to get into a furball with planes like the F-16. The aircraft is underpowered for jinking around in a dogfight, but like all aircraft it will bleed airspeed very quickly if you start yanking on the stick. Rolling isn't going to be an issue, but trying to pitch too violently is probably responsible for your stalls. As you know, pulling hard on the stick will cause the nose to rise up, but the aircraft is already carrying significant momentum heading forward, so when the nose lifts it increases the angle of attack of the airflow over the wings. That in turn increases drag. Violent pitch inputs such as those you might be tempted to make during a dogfight significantly increase this effect. Even an agile aircraft like the Viper will start giving you stall warnings very quickly if you're pulling too hard. It's not something I consciously think about when I'm flying, but I probably rarely go past 75% pitch deflection on my stick in normal situations in any aircraft, as any more will just throw away too much speed. Speed is life, and if you throw it all away trying to get your nose onto a target then they'll be sending the medals to your next of kin. If you need to bank and yank then keep one eye on your airspeed at all times. If it starts to drop then you probably need to do one of 3 things: 1. Add power, but I'm guessing you're probably at full throttle at this point anyway. 2. Lower the nose. 3. Decrease backpressure on the stick to ease off the turn. It might help you to load up a free flight mission and just practice your tight turns. Fly some tight level turns over an airfield or other landmark so you have a frame of reference, entering the turns at different speeds and just see how much stick input you can put in before you lose speed and when you start to stall. If you've flown gliders IRL then you've probably heard the phrase most pilots know: "Aviate. Navigate. Communicate." Aviate being the highest priority. Flying the plane comes before everything else, because if you ignore that then you're not going to get the kill.

Don't you mean sharks with frikkin' laserbeams on their heads?

Are you deliberately trying to give my CPU and GPU a heart attack? I'm already pushing them to their limits! That being said, I'm not overly interested in the chimneys or even the smoke markers, BUT I've often thought it would be nice top see larger, thicker and more persistent clouds of smoke/dust kicked up from bombs and missile hits. Look at any of the footage from recent years of fighting and you'll see huge clouds thrown up by weapon strikes that can linger over the impact point for several minutes, making it easier to pick out where the bomb hit by eye and also somewhat obscuring other nearby targets. However, if ED decide to do this could they please hold off until we all have 4000 series GPUs and next-next-generation CPU's, as I reckon it would make my PC melt trying display a large battle in VR.

Total layman here, but in my mind the idea is to let the gun fire a burst at least as long as the shortest selectable burst length, rather than trying to pop off just a couple of rounds at a time. I would *guess* that the belt feed system exerts a significant yank on the belt when it starts moving, and if a short section of the belt is subjected to too many of these yanks then there would be the possibility of a break. By letting the belt cycle through a certain length before undergoing these forces again it would mean that the next yank is applied to a previously unstressed length of the belt. Am I remotely close, anyone?

This confuses me. If somebody doesn't want a map then nobody is forcing them to pay for them. If, however, they want to be able to fly on MP servers using a particular map then why shouldn't they pay for the map? Apologies if I've misunderstood.

<Checks calendar...> "Hmmm, not April 1st yet. Was starting to think I'd hibernated."

To what end? I'm not going to pretend I know anything useful about the different fuels, but I would assume that *if* they are readily interchangeable for use in a given engine then presumably there would no appreciable difference to the flight characteristics. The the best of my very limited knowledge different fuel grades would be used specifically for their individual properties such as operating temperatures. While DCS is utterly amazing in it's attention to detail, I don't currently know of any aircraft in the sim that model such small details as "sticky ice" forming in the fuel tanks and clogging the filters. As far as I know fuel is just fuel is just fuel. If, however, the different fuel grades are *not* interchangeable then that could possibly be an interesting aspect to a dynamic campaign if it includes detailed simulation of resupply logistics where a particular type of fuel is in short supply, resulting in limited flying hours available for an aircraft type. Knowledgeable People, please weigh in, because I'm genuinely curious about this now.

So if I understand the original post, what you're asking for sounds like early-early-access? To me, EA as it now is pretty much what you're describing; you get to fiddle with the WIP version of the module, bugs and all and missing features, until the finalised version is released. In the nicest possible way, unless I'm missing something in your post, it just sounds like impatience. And where should ED draw the line for what is needed in a module before releasing a demo version? If you take it to extremes people would be asking for modules to be released the moment they are flyable. For my part, I'm happy with the current strategy that ED has for new modules, and I'm actually very grateful to them for even having an EA programme. In truth we all benefit from it. Players get to enjoy new modules many months before they are deemed fit for a "release" version, and ED (and ultimately the players again) get the benefit of a much wider network of testers pointing out bugs and problems which drastically shortens the overall development time. Very few developers give people this opportunity with their software. Personally, I would almost prefer it if ED *didn't* announce new modules so far ahead. I remember my heart racing when I was the Apache teaser just over a year ago, and I've been desperate to get my hands on it ever since, but I'd still be just as excited it they only told us about it a few weeks before the original planned EA date, or even just dropped it on us in a Deka Ironworks fashion. I just think that if we sit back and wait patiently we'll get a great product *when it's ready.*

Wow! What an innovative idea! If only all software developers would give us a discount based on how long the game is in development! Just think of the money I could have saved on Cyberpunk 2077. It's encouraging though, because I guess that means if I finally decide to get Star Citizen now they'll probably owe me money for the game.

"F/A-18D...why don't we have it yet?" You forgot to say the magic word

I would dearly love to hear about any real-world pilot you know, military or civilian, who would regard flying anywhere near an F5 tornado as one of the "smaller things"

People, let's not forget that while politicians the world over are telling us that the pandemic is beginning to ease, it is by no means "over" and people are still getting sick. The latest news even points to sickness playing its part in the delays to the hoped-for release date, and that kind of thing is beyond anyone's control. ED is staffed by people, not robots, and sometimes people have real-world issues that get in the way of targets and deadlines. If you really feel cheated then make a decision. Ask for a refund and buy it again for more money after release, or ask for a refund and never get it because "principles" or just wait it out and enjoy it when arrives in a (hopefully) working condition. Your money, your choice. Honestly, it's like everyone thinks that every other module isn't worth touching whenever a new toy is about to drop.

Find your DCS.exe file, right-click on it and select Properties, Then open the Compatibility tab. Near the bottom there is an option saying "Run this program as an administrator." Make sure that is checked, click Apply and then close the properties window. Now do the same thing for your Streamdeck.exe. Once I set both to administrator mode I had no more problems with hotkeys.

Don't forget the AEW7 variant (which is probably still classified to hell). Wikipedia states: "The main role of the Sea King ASaC7 is detection of low-flying attack aircraft; it also provides interception/attack control and over-the-horizon targeting for surface-launched weapon systems. In comparison to older versions, the new radar enables the ASaC7 to simultaneously track up to 400 targets, instead of an earlier limit of 250 targets.[30] The effectiveness of the AEW7 was greatly increased via the addition of a Link 16 data link, allowing gathered radar information to be analysed and rapidly put to use by multiple allied platforms in range." So in effect this could theoretically provide us with a flyable poor-man's AWACS.