Lace

Yes, I've uploaded it to User Files, it's just awaiting approval.

I have made a small semi-realistic training mission for the HOT 3 missiles. You are a Cyprus Air Command Pilot tasked with performing a firepower demonstration at the RAF Akrotiri small arms range. The mission takes place at dusk, and can be carried out under NVGs or using the ambient twilight. Duration 30-40 minutes. No radio comms or needless voice chatter, just perform the task as briefed. Edit to state the obvious - Syria map required. null Cyprus HOT3 Training Exercise.miz

The 500lb GBU-12 ideal for anti-armour, especially as you can essentially guide them in through the commander's hatch. Anything in the 1000lb class or over is excessive for single vehicles.

I take it back, mine had a much better flight yesterday evening, and even managed three vehicle kills. I did find I had to be much closer to the targets, and stay in a very predictable (and therefore vulnerable to return fire) orbit, but he did ok. He picks up targets from a long distance, and starts tracking them, which is good, but still fires through the terrain if they are blocked and he is 'Weapons free'. It's also worth remembering (I'm guilty here also) that it's only a 7.62mm minigun, so doesn't have the stopping power of the other helicopter's bigger crew served calibres, and will be mostly useless against anything armoured.

There is no 'landing speed' for the Viper, it is all AoA. If you are coming back heavy you could be 180KIAS+ over the fence, if you cleaned off the jet and are running on fumes it will be around 140. Also density altitude makes a difference as stated above, so another reason not to fixate on the speed, and just look at the indexer.

Mine manages the odd hit (<1%), though you need to manage his ROE as he also tries to shoot through mountains.

Because realism. Because planning, anticipation, fuel management, pressure to make ToT over a long ingress and get desired weapon effects otherwise hours have been wasted. Needing to AAR otherwise you just won't get home. Operating in some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world at that time. Needing a full strike package to work together, rather than just safely cruising around a killbox waiting for a TIC call. It doesn't appeal to everyone, but there are plenty who do want that. Desert Storm was a real 'pilots' war against a near-peer enemy. GWOT (especially in later years) was a low-intensity ground operation against insurgents and technicals, with a bit of uncontested air support thrown in.

Agree with the points above. Though not tried any BFM yet. Very noticeable that there are no big trim changes required when changing configuration. Managed a couple of decent traps despite having not flown it in a while. Overall very positive I think.

Agreed. I'd love a Desert Storm Iraq map, but we've got enough sand to do medium altitude CAS wheels over. An OIF Iraq map* is just more of the same. For sure Kola will be my go-to map once that is released. * Of course I'll still buy it, begrudgingly.

As much as I love the idea of complex random failures, I can't help but think this is going to result in a huge upsurge in 'bug' reporting. Looks amazing though, can't wait to fly it.

First off, any map can be used for any purpose. DCS is a sandbox game and there is no single map which has no greater training utility than any other. Most modules training missions use the default Caucasus map anyway, so which ever additional maps you buy, you will be limited to 3rd party campaigns, or creating your own missions, as the training content for them will be limited, and in some cases completely absent. NTTR has been available a lot longer than Sinai, and does feel slightly dated in some ways, but it is still a personal favourite. Sinai is a great map, with a bit of overlap with the Syria map, it allows some interesting scenarios. However, unlike Syria, it has no genuine NATO basing options (Incirlik & Akrotiri). NTTR has only USAF basing options, so massive liberties must be taken when creating scenarios if you want anything other than Red Flag type training exercises, and of course you cannot use naval assets (no CVN on lake Mead!). Sinai has potential for a modern Egypt/Israel conflict, but not much more than that, unless you are again using a lot of artistic licence to create very hypothetical missions. TL;DR - NTTR and Sinai aren't particularly versatile if you are a stickler for authenticity, but if not then either will suit your training needs for any platform or time period.

TM Cougar throttle with hall sensor upgrade (USB) TM Cougar stick & grip (USB) Realsimulator FSSB stick base (no stick) Realsimulator angle adaptor Monstertech mounting plates for throttle and FSSB All in good working condition. Sensible offers considered, either for the FSSB and Cougar combined, or as separate items.

Is that a new version of Tacview or something else?

It would be great if we had some accurate separation modelling with possible airframe contact and damage if weapons are released outside of tested parameters. There are some good videos available of mishaps during envelope testing. At the moment they seem to just 'pop off' the jet at any speeds or g loads. In a related note, over-G of the targeting pods would be great too.

It's difficult. As much as DCS likes to think of itself as a 'sandbox', unless you are willing to take very big liberties and substitute units then absolute accuracy to real world operations is not easy. We have the wrong aircraft and the wrong maps. I've built 'Operation Martyr Yalçın', and 'Operation Outside The Box' to a reasonable level with what is known publicly, but still with a lot of artistic licencing. Often I start building them and then give up as the assets are just not available to make it realistic. I sometimes feel that completely fictitious scenarios are a better way to go.

I'm planning a full rewrite of these once the Kola map is released - happy to post up here again if there is any interest?

Honestly, in terms of slick, refined gameplay, the DVG Leader series takes some beating. I've even played as a co-op 2-player with the kids. 'Red Storm' is a better 2-player game, and is based on the older 'Downtown' game, which is Vietnam themed. These are slightly less accessible than the Leader series though, and take a bit more set up and resolution, but it is possible to game out some large battles, especially with RS.

I looked at adding that one to my collection, but the turn time does seem like a headache. Not that I actually get much time to play any of them these days. I do really like the contemporary Cold War ones, in the same way I like Cold War era books - when much of the enemy intel was based on guesswork and grainy photos, rather than the post-89 stuff, when we actually got to peek behind the proverbial (iron) curtain.

Merry Christmas all! Let's see what 2024 brings...

Do it. It is worth it, but be warned, I have >2800 hours logged on C:MO, and that is only since the upgrade from CMANO. God knows how much in total. It also makes you realise how much is missing from DCS in terms of assets and sensors. It literally has every sea, air and land unit from the end of WWII until the near future modelled, plus a full globe (including orbital assets).

Yeah, I use Vassal for Red Storm/Baltic Approaches, since the play area and set up time can be quite significant. I think the 'Leader' series works well enough as a physical board game though, and to be honest I spend too much time at my computer as it is!

Anybody else play this stuff? I have the original 'Thunderbolt Apache Leader' from GMT circa 1991, and later relaunched by DVG. They also produce 'Hornet Leader' and 'Phantom Leader' which are solitaire games of moderate complexity, but very much in the spirit of our DCS modules and simulated Ops. They are good fun and if nothing more offer a way to expand understanding of tactics, ROE, threat systems and weapons employment. In more of a naval context, there is of course the classic Larry Bond's 'Harpoon', and the 'Fleet' series of games, which although mostly surface warfare based, offer an element of air action from carrier based assets and shore based MPAs. Harpoon of course evolved into the computer versions, which have been superseded by the excellent Command: Modern Operations, but it is nice to get the old, tactile feel of a physical game sometimes. There are others, 'Tac Air', and the more recent excellent 'Red Storm' and 'Baltic Approaches' add-on, which game out a 1987 cold war turned hot scenario in central Europe. Anyway, I thought there may be some DCS players who are not aware of this stuff who might find it interesting.

Oh, there are so many things which could be 'better' in DCS, but this particular one comes up time and time again by people who don't realise that it is not a mistake, but intentional*, and based on reality. Proper wind and water modelling, along with swells, chop etc. would be great. Turbulence downwind of mountains, rotor effect from buildings, trees etc. The list goes on. * (either that, or it is a very coincidental mistake)

I qualified my statement that there may be exceptional conditions. However a 50% and 30degree rule is good enough for this EASA ATPL study guide, and correlates with what I was taught while learning to fly. WINDS – EASA ATPL Exam Guide (wordpress.com)

It does make sense, if you know how wind works. I've posted this before, but here we go again... Wind works like this in real life. The way DCS does it a bit backwards, but does make sense if you want to define conditions on the ground for airfield ops. It is realistic that winds 'slack and back' (in the Northern hemisphere) when approaching the surface, so should be about 50% reduced, and backed by 30degrees (veer by 30 in the Southern hemisphere) compared with those at altitude. This is even more noticeable at night where the slacking and backing effect is increased due to colder, denser surface air, however DCS doesn't take this into account*. The effect is reduced over water where there is less surface friction. Again, not modelled in DCS's atmosphere*. Having these independently configurable wouldn't make sense from an atmospheric modelling point of view, as which ever one you choose to define will effect the other. It is just not realistic** to have the wind speed and direction the same at 1600ft as it is at the surface. Perhaps ED need to place a note in the manual explaining this to prevent this confusion. * AFAIK ** 99% of the time. As always there are some unusual cases where this might not be true.