Lace

L-39 if you like ex-soviet avionics & instrumentation. C-101 if you prefer the western stuff. I have to say the L-39 module feels quite dated compared with the excellent MB-339. I don't have the C-101, but it is also 7-8 years old now.

I have created a spreadsheet which calculates TOT separation by inputting a dogleg offset to the attack run for a four-ship flight. You can play with the timings, desired final attack heading (relative). It may be of some use to some MP squadrons, so I thought I'd share it. Fill in the blue pen, read off the yellow boxes. Assumes turn away is +ve and turn back to target -ve. (doesn't matter if it is left or right). The example below shows a four ship splitting from the main attack axis at 30 second intervals and arriving over the target with 22 second and 30 degree separation. Attack Separation Geometry Calculator.xlsx

I use button 15 on the throttle (red front, LH pinkie). Seems like a fairly useless button on most modules, and easy to reach.

I don't think this is specific to the Gazelle, all module FMs are a bit fuzzy around the edges, as the data only exists within a defined performance envelope. I've said it before but realism is a two-way street, if you want the modules to behave in a realistic way, you need to operate them in a realistic way.

I have to say the FM changes have now knocked the Mi-8 off the top spot and the Gazelle is my favourite helicopter in DCS. Added to the fact I have learned the VIVIANE sight I'm now having a blast flying ultra-low level anti armour missions. Gotta love those HOT3 missiles. Well done @Polychop Simulations

Currently on 2.8.7.42718 and still not working in MT (not tried ST). I've tried mapping both L & R, just R, tried using modifiers with my controller, and using the in-built swap functions, and still can't get any control from the rear HCs. Front works just fine.

Just came on here to post the same. Everything mapped correctly for LH & RH WSO grips, but no function once in the sim. @falcon_120 Did you ever figure this out?

All of the above are correct. IAS is pitot static derived - what the instruments actually read CAS is IAS corrected for instrument errors - how fast the aircraft actually feels like it is flying TAS is CAS corrected for temperature/pressure and is the same as GS in zero winds conditions GS is the speed at which you are actually covering ground - useful for ensuring an accurate time-on-target At low level, there are lots of air molecules, so a fast indicated speed. As you get higher, your IAS/CAS will be lower, as the air is less dense, and there are fewer air molecules hitting the aircraft. The aircraft will feel 'mushy' even though you might be covering ground at a high speed. There are some online calculators is you google it, which can give you an understanding on how they are all related.

Here's a quick test. M2.1 for the Viper at FL450 ISA+0, M2.3 for the Mud Hen. Clean jets, full internal fuel. Tacview-20230709-093432-DCS-Vmax.zip.acmi

Go higher. I've seen over M2 in the F-16C & F-15E. Why did you pick FL360? Arbitrary or was there reasoning? What was the OAT? Also, you shouldn't need unlimited fuel, perhaps in DCS that does something funny to the gross weight? You will need to burn off that weight as you climb and accelerate, and probably run it down to nearly empty. Remember, as you said, these speeds are the very edge of the envelope and require everything to be perfectly optimised to reach. You will never see them in normal operations.

ZULU is standard for most ops. You could be coordinating with units outside the immediate area, or even within the AO. For example, Turkey is Z+2, Iraq Z+3, Iran Z+3.5. There is usually enough going on without wondering what time it is.

I didn't say it is the same, I said it is often the same - obviously it depends on local weather conditions, but it is generally within one or two mb of your departure field, because that is the pressure setting for that region. Over longer distances it can diverge further from your initial setting, but your final setting should again be quite close to your arrival QNH. I'm not sure where you fly, but in the UK we don't use quadrantals, it is a semi-circular rule for VFR deconfliction, with 000-179MTrack being odd+500, and 180-359 even+500. However, IME most people don't use it and compliance is not mandatory. I'm sure some readers might find this interesting, but we are drifting well away from the OP question now.

Yeah, it's in no way meant as a criticism, just my personal taste. We are obviously massively constrained by the game in ways we would not be in real life, and there is a need to cater to all types of players and their own expectations.

Played the demo mission one over the weekend. Very well designed I thought. I'm often reluctant to buy the DLC campaigns, as I feel they are overly scripted and and feel a lot like starring in a movie rather than fighting a war. There is too much characterisation and storyline, rather than just well designed, credible and realistic combat employment. However, after trying this one, while there is still a lot of chatter (I realise a lot of this is to help new players learn the aircraft and procedures), I think it has the makings of a great campaign, and I am looking forward to the full release.

When held.

More simple aircraft, not simplified (i.e. FC3) modules. Think 'A' models of current aircraft - A-10A, F-16A, AH-64A, which would make great 'lite' versions of the current offerings, which new players may find intimidating. I know from a commercial perspective these would not make sense, and apart from a few more niche users, the majority will always chose the newer, more capable models, but I think they would be a great stepping stone for new players, and a greater challenge for those with more experience (manual bombing, rear-aspect missiles etc.). In terms of new modules though, F-117, F-111, Buccaneer and Jaguar would top my list. I would really like to see the whole EW and ASW elements expanded in time.

Snap. Want the throttle to replace my Cougar. No use for the panel.

Actually, they are not exactly the same. The CMS switch on the Viper stick is only a 4-way, without push, like the original TM Cougar grip. The Warthog grip has the CMS push function.

Nooooooooooo. As a VR player I hate the 'Press Spacebar to Continue' prompts. Read faster.

I had an attack on the Moskva's sister ship the Marshall Ustinov in one of my Nordkapp missions. The only way I could write in any chance of success was to have the vessel heavily depleted of ammunition, and empty of SA-N-6 missiles (plausible after several days of hostilities). Even then I had an AI 4-ship of F-16As armed with Penguin ASMs, and the player flight 4-ship with AGM-65Gs to simulate more Penguins. Your chances against a fully operational Slava Class Cruiser are slim to none, since our Viper lacks the ability to carry Harpoon, and you would need a significant number to overwhelm their defences. Perhaps if you can get it in port, using terrain masking and a lofting attack with some GBU-31s, you might be able to kill it, but in open water, that's not happening. C:MO is really good for testing different strategies for these kinds of attacks. Most DCS players seem to seriously underestimate the survivability of modern warships. They are highly sophisticated ships capable of resisting multiple simultaneous attacks. Since Slavas carry 64 SA-N-6 missiles, plus CIWS, you have to consider that your ASMs will also be shot down, Any serious attack will require you to deplete the long range missiles before you launch your ASMs, or go in with >64 missiles, which is a significant strike package (16 maxed-out Hornets) Unless of course you are the actual Moskva. Only IRL can the Russians lose their Black Sea Flagship, in a land war, against an opponent with no significant naval power.

Ok, so I tried again last night and all was well, so I guess the issue was the 2 minute LL entry. Thanks @_SteelFalcon_ for the reminder.

Yeah, I did put them in, but it might have been after the 2 minutes. TBH I'd forgotten about that stipulation.

Normal alignment and LL entered into the DED. I'll try again later today. My brain might have still been 'thinking in F-15E', so it's possible I did something incorrectly. The problem with so many excellent FF modules, is that every time I learn a new one, some penguins fall off the iceberg!

1. Crawl, walk, run. 2. You will not master this in five minutes. Flying and operating these aircraft is a full time job IRL, and only comes after many years of building foundation knowledge. 3. Don't be afraid to ask questions. 4. Use the included training missions. 5. Learn how to create simple missions to tailor your own training and practice reps. 6. Learning modules is like learning a new language, the more you already know, the easier subsequent ones are to learn. 7. Go do a flying lesson IRL. This will give you a real appreciation (although massively diluted) of the workload and physical forces acting on you during flight, and a greater understanding of key principles of flight than hundreds of hours of stick wiggling in a game will. 8. Don't read the manual start-to-finish. It is not a novel, it is a reference book. Pick the relevant sections for the new skills or procedures you are learning, and focus on that. See point 1. 9. You don't need to know everything to have fun. There is nothing wrong with an air-start, guns only engagement. Not every flight has to be a 3-hour, IMC slog with multiple AAR, complex attack profiles, strict comms etc. 10. You don't need expensive kit. I do a huge amount of my flying with a cleverly-mapped X-Box controller, and can still be 100% combat effective, and can AAR with button throttles and a thumbstick (not a boast, just a evidence that an expensive set up is not essential). That'll do for now.

First time in the Viper for a couple of weeks. Cold start and full INS as normal, and then depart Nellis. I noticed that there was no STPT distance or ETE information in the HUD or the backup HSI, and I was unable to engage STR SEL A/P mode. I don't think I did anything unusual during start up, but I couldn't find anything obvious as to what was wrong. Has something changed? The route was showing up fine on the HSD page of the MFD, I just wasn't getting STPT info. I checked in A-A, A-G and NAV modes. I can post a track, but though maybe I've just missed something in the changelog.