Baaz

If this were true, then why was it that US Apaches fired the opening shots of the Gulf War in 1991? Apaches were sent in deep behind enemy lines to take out Iraqi radar sites. Written article: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1091apache/ Video:

+1 Nice to know I'm not the only one who does this.

DCS in general is a niche. Flying helicopters in DCS is an even smaller niche. Most people want to jump into a jet and spam 100 AMRAAMs, or Phoenix's; measuring their e-peens by how many kills they have more than the next guy. Fact is, anyone can jump in and fly a plane; but it takes a pilot to fly choppers. I'll take FLAK for that statement I'm sure. Don't measure the value of any bird by how often it's seen in multiplayer. I enjoy flying the Gazelle very much. I use it as a light scout chopper, and as a means to put the fast movers where they belong with the MISTRAL variant. Point is, don't give up on it so quickly. Stick with it, and eventually you'll have an "AH HA" moment where it just clicks.

You haven't spent much time up there have you? Outside Vancouver, Seattle/Tacoma, and Portland area there's not a whole hell of a lot. Towns are rather small, and once you get east of the Cascades, things turn barren very quickly. You can even see the sudden change in the images above. It really is night and day between east and west side of the Cascades; something I love about the area. Can be on the beach, an hour later be in high mountains, and in another hour be in high barren plateaus. Square area may be more, but I'm not sure if we're talking much more data than the Caucasus

Day one pre-sale buy for me.

Please, can we take a break from desert sands. I'm really needing a map with more greenery.

I'm not for or against this idea; I'm just not sure a model of an aircraft we have already is the answer. I think a more generic trainer like the T-2 or T-45 would be more suitable, and bring more variety of aircraft into DCS.

+1

+1

Apparently this thread has moved beyond your ability to make logical arguments. At any rate, I'm done here.

You're argument is falling on deaf ears here (speaking only for myself). At no point does the OP request ED to do anything. Furthermore, we already have aircraft capable of doing the job as shown in the video posted in this thread. So what exactly are we asking for, or arguing about; whether someone can 3D draw a basket perhaps, and maybe water falling from an aircraft??

Currently ED lists 12 modules still in EA (11 actually, as we won't count the Hawk). Does that mean all 11 are not worth owning? By that standard, we all would be looking at a very different DCS. We get it, you don't like the idea of non combat aircraft being in DCS. However, I think you're being out-voted here. Seems there's many more people FOR the idea than against. Personally, I don't see how it hurts you any. People are free to do what they want with their servers; DCS is afterall a sandbox anyway. If you don't like how a server is being operated, there's nothing to stop your from flying on another, or make your own. To repeat, and to stay on topic, I'm all for the OP's wishlist idea.

Then why would the Devs allow aircraft such as the Yak, or CEII into their simulation? Fact is, DCS is slowly evolving. Apparently, you can't seem to accept that. As someone who owns DCS and that other sim, I find myself coming to DCS a hell of a lot more because of the fact it's flight characteristics for the aircraft are much more realistic. The only thing the other simulation has going for it are the global possibilities and better ATC, IMO of course. I can't tell you how often I come to DCS just to fly off in the YAK or F-5 for no other reason than to simply fly and enjoy the scenery. To the OP, I'm all for this idea. The more possibilities that can be brought to DCS the better.

I think this is a bit of a stretch, and maybe well outside the scope of reality at this point. I don't expect any further development on the BS. I expect things to be fixed... eventually, but I don't expect to ever see anything new; ESPECIALLY with more iconic helicopters on the horizon. I expect ED to be busy for the next year or two with the F-16, Mi-24, and AH-64. And let's not forget about PC's OH-58, and at some point the Bo-105 from MT-5. As much as even I love the BS, it's not going to be the reigning champion of attack helicopters in DCS for much longer.

Due to newly enacted Russian laws, the BS3 has been placed on indefinite hold.

Not sure if you all are aware, but in the latest podcast posted about 6 hours ago Nineline stated the Mosquito's external model has been scrapped and sent back to the drawing boards. Check about min 14:50 https://discord.com/channels/387790657881899009/448264467470352405/826257307129479190

After further reading about stalls on pages 211-212, having an approach speed less than 145 knots could be problematic. As discussed earlier, a typical approach begins with an approach speed at 145 knots. Our AOA indexer is set for a 15.8 units approach. This gives us a final touchdown speed of 135 knots. According to page 211, "First indication of the forthcoming stall is the onset of light-intensity buffet occurring at 16 17 units AOA with maneuver flaps set to AUTO..." and further on page 212 that "The airplane typically recovers (from Post-Stall Gyration) [bold added] as soon as airspeed reaches 130 KIAS. Based on those two statements on pages 211 and 212, I interpret them to mean that coming in at less than 145 knots on approach could lead to a stall of the aircraft prior to touchdown.

You are correct about there being no statement for having less than 1000 pounds, that's why I said, "I can't say you would be wrong..." What is certain is I'm no SME on the F-5. Your guess would be just as good as mine.

From page 204: "The typical landing approach is shown in this scheme below. Landing weight is 11700 lb (remaining fuel 1000 lb), without gun ammo." [bold added] Under these conditions your approach speed will be 145 knots. The formula stated above is for conditions above typical. The -1000 pounds is to remove the weight that had already been accounted for. I can't say you would be wrong for reducing the speed 1 knot per 200 pounds less than 1000.

From page 205 of the Flight Manual (found in your DCS "Doc" folder): "WARNING! If the remaining fuel level is more than 1000 pounds, add 1 KIAS per each 200 pounds. If the guns are fully loaded, increase the speed by 5 KIAS." I know the above does not directly answer your question, but using the above rule you should be able to calculate this out. As for determining the weight of your onboard stores, you would just have to get the weights while doing your preflight minus what you expended. For those who don't know: "Formula to calculate runway approach speed depending on weight and ammo: Vapproach=145+5(if there is gun ammo)+(fuel remaining -1000)/200 EXAMPLE. If there are full gun ammo and fuel level of 3000 pounds, increase the speed by 15 KIAS. I.е. Speed before turning to landing course has to be 180 KIAS. Glide path speed has to be 160 KIAS"

Some additional information from the F-5 Weapons Delivery Manual to show that there should be no issue with dropping Snakeyes at 450 knots, and 400' AGL

Believe this is going to be a bug. I've provided several tracks below to show that I met your flight requirements (or very closely). After watching the TacView files, I noticed an issue with the bombs coming off the center rack in which bomb #3 and #4 were colliding. This appears to be a timing issue with the bomb release. Further testing would also show that the faster the F-5 was going, the more likely the bombs would collide. Slowing down to less than 450 knots negated the issue altogether. F-5_SnakeEye_test.trk F-5_SnakeEye_test_2.trk F-5_SnakeEye_test_3.trk

As Paganus said, this has been around for quite some time. What would make it even better is if you actually saw fire and smoke (like the smoke static objects) when you destroy them.

When this happens, look at the F10 map. Is your location shown on the map? If not, it's because DCS sees the aircraft as totally destroyed, and thus will not be repairable. Congrats on managing to get the crippled aircraft back to base though.

While Vietnam is preferred, for the time being I'll settle for any map whose primary color is green. All this desert sand is chafing my bits.