Lace

The difference between real flying, and simulator flying (not specifically the AH-64), is that real pilots rely on many stimuli which are absent from a computer sim. Things like control forces, almost imperceptible seat-of-the-pants g-forces, vibrations, external cues, etc, which even the best VR setup is missing. Simulators are very good for practicing certain scenarios, workflows, procedures, etc, but not great for relaying the actual process of controlling an aircraft. A real pilot will have an almost instinctive ability to manipulate the controls almost subconsciously based on many hours and reps. These movements will not necessarily translate directly into the game 1:1, depending on a number of factors, like input device location, stick forces, travel or curves. Combined with the lack of feedback cues above, and the reliance on the image on the screen, then no wonder they will end up behind the curve and potentially lose control of the aircraft. This doesn't mean the flight model is wrong, or that they would be unable to master the module with a few hours of practice, it is just that no matter how much some users try to convince themselves, flying a game, is not the same as flying an aircraft. They are two different, but related skills, each of which take practice.

Mental math is a big part of flying.

The magnetic north pole is not in the same place as the geographic north pole. To complicate this further, it moves, and to complicate it even further still, the magnetic field is not constant across the globe. Each place will have a variation value which is valid for that chart issue date. The chart should also show the rate of change. IRL, when flight planning you draw a line on a chart and read off a true bearing. You will then convert this to a magnetic bearing using the variation value, and you will then convert it again to a compass value using the compass deviation value as placarded in the aircraft. Note the values could be positive or negative. C = D+M = V+T Compass = Deviation + Magnetic = Variation + True Cadbury's Dairy Milk Very Tasty. It also works backwards, which is more useful when going from a chart to the aircraft T+V = M+D = C True Virgins Make Dull Company Depending on where you are, and therefore how big the variation is, will depend on what you do with it. a 1 degree error on a 60nm leg will result in a 1nm error. If the deviation is small, and your typical leg distance is small, then you may well disregard it (most pilots can't hold a heading accurate to 1 degree anyway, 5 is more realistic for most VFR fliers, even in good weather). I can honestly say that I've never used it in DCS. There is a good app you can download called Aerovariation, which will give you current and historic values for anywhere on earth. AeroVariation on the App Store (apple.com)

[wags] huh, what's that 2.9 doing there? [/wags]

F-111 would be a day-1 instabuy for me. From a technical stand point multicrew is pretty well established now, the F-14 showed variable geometry is possible, and the F-15E TFR should translate over without too much difficulty. The only issue I could see would be economic - are there enough potential customers for such a dedicated single role platform? (though I guess the same argument could be made for other modules already produced). Wags' recent interview with Mover & Gonky surprised me a little when he said they will soon be running out of 4th gen aircraft, when there are so many iconic examples still to produce. Notable by their absence and my personal favourites would be the F-111, F-117, Jaguar and Buccaneer, but I could list so many more I would like to see represented.

Must be due one soon, it seems a while since the last OB update. Surprise F-4E anyone?

DCS for me has always been about the aircraft (helicopters included of course). I like the idea of CA or a RTS element, but really these are sideshows. My dream is a fully developed 70s-80s GIUK/BALTAP/Central Front focus for DCS, with a full inventory of AI ground, air and sea assets and an expanded range of 3rd/4th gen aircraft and a fully developed dynamic campaign engine, with varying levels of involvement based on rank (play as a junior wingman and just fly your mission as fragged, or as a more senior Officer, and play from a more strategic perspective - as a pilot. I don't want to be spending half my time organising logistics for ground units)

It's funny you say that, but that's exactly the feeling many students describe the first time flying a very light helicopter (like an R22/44) - like balancing on the head of a pin.

Personally, I'd like to stretch it to include Leuchars, Lossiemouth and Kinloss too! And add a Buccaneer, and a Nimrod, and a Phantom FG1, and an F-16A, and...

Baltic Approaches would tick those boxes, and be more in line with the typical map sizes. Perfect hunting ground for ASuW Viggens and Tornados.

Looks great. I fully expect this to become my go-to map.

You are limited to a four-ship group, but you can use Perform Task' > 'ESCORT' or 'FOLLOW' function in the ADVANCED (WAYPOINT ACTIONS) to attach additional groups to your own flight. This allows mixed types of formation, and additional numbers of aircraft. 'Escorting' aircraft will automatically engage threats, whereas 'following' aircraft will not IIRC.

Perfect, just what I was after.

As the title really - I assume wired connection and decent SSD, but what else helps? Do we still want a decent multi-core CPU? What about a GPU?

What are you regularly changing? I only change five numbers on program 1 & 2 during each startup, takes literally seconds while the INS is aligning. I set program 1 as anti ARH/BVR, and program 2 as a WVR anti IR dispense pattern. Sometimes I'll program 3 as a pre-emptive pop-up attack, longer duration pattern, but not always. Do you have optimised profiles for each specific threat? Quite interested in how others set it up.

I'm sure the long awaited DTC facility will offer this and more.

I will be replacing my Cougar. Not bothering with the panel as I fly VR, and I'm in the process of building more accurate panels for my pit anyway. £299 in the UK. Big selling points for me (above the Cougar) are the ICO/AB detents, and the additional couple of buttons for extra UI functionality.

Use a collective (or even throttle) with a 2-axis mini stick. That way you can use the mini-stick for the VIVIANE while maintaining helicopter control. It is also possible to fire the HOT3 on the move, so you don't actually need to hover. Run in, pop up, launch, maintain guidance, then break off the attack. Speed is life. No need for a second crew member or auto hover.

I'm really hoping there is a recce element to the dynamic campaign engine. It would be great if target information actually needed to be collected, rather than just presented.

I do a lot of my DCS flying when travelling overseas and use an XBox controller. With some clever mapping you can still do a lot of what is required even with a limited number of inputs. My approach is to not worry too much about the terminology used - this varies aircraft to aircraft, but the functionality is largely the same. Try to have as much commonality as you can between modules and it will help you remember what you need to press and when. For instance, all TGP have a zoom function, and designate/undesignate function. They will probably have polarity swap and other functions which are less commonly used - consider whether you actually need these mapped to the HOTAS. Try to keep it to the basic, essential functions only. Normally you'll need to fly through a few different scenarios to find out what you do actually need to use regularly via the HOTAS, and what you can setup prior to the merge/attack run. Use one modifier for non-aircraft functions, like changing views, zooming, etc, and keep it separate from the aircraft functions, and again, keep it common across all modules. Pre-made profiles mean you have to learn someone else's interpretation of the workflows and memorise their assignments. Develop your own and you will find them much easier to understand and recall when needed.

This is my CAS cheat sheet if it is any use to you.

Surely this question could be rephrased - "Did you grow up playing Falcon 3.0 or Strike Eagle II?" It's a tough one. If our Viper had the LANTIRN capability it would be a no-brainer, as I do like the TFR capability of the mud-hen, even if we don't have it available to us yet. The biggest negative for the mud hen is the two seat thing. I know it is possible to fly single-pilot, but I feel you do need a (human) back seater to get the best from it, and to operate it the way MD and the USAF intended. So at the moment, the Viper is slightly ahead.

I did not, thanks for point that out. I might give it a trial.

Happy Birthday

I'd go further and suggest a browser based stand-alone ME. Purely so I can sit at my desk at work mission building.