Lace

The Gazelle is a good module and my favourite DCS helicopter alongside the Hip. As long as you fly it in a realistic way, it will perform in a realistic way. It is a very light, manoeuvrable and nimble helicopter. You can push the envelope way beyond what any sane real-life helicopter pilot would, and you will get some very unrealistic results. However, I don't feel that detracts from the module at all. Most modules can be abused in a similar way. For example, the Viper will allow you to exceed VNE without consequences. Fly as you would in real life, and you will enjoy the process more IMHO. I mainly use it for recce, and I'm not sure how it currently works with multi-crew, which is pretty much essential for the anti-tank missiles. For single pilot, guns and rockets are fine.

The DCE has to be one of, if not the biggest improvement ED can bring to DCS. A literal game-changer. Sandbox is great, but directed effort is better. It might finally feel like we are fighting a virtual war. Happy new year to the team!

Source? Your eyes must be waaaay better than mine if you can spot humans from 10,000ft IRL.

Only a couple of FC3 have never been flown, but most modules will have at least the occasional flight. I definitely have my favourites, and most anticipated releases, but with the complex modern stuff there are simply not enough hours in the day to properly learn them all. 90% of my DCS flying is in the same two or three modules. I bought BS3 on release, took a couple of minutes to set up the controls, had a quick 20 minute flight, and then thought, nope, there is no way I am going to learn this one. Not to disrespect to the hard work which has undoubtedly gone into it, but I just know that it will be a permanent fixture in the back of the hanger, gathering dust with the others. There are some modules you can just jump into and have a go with minimal reading (MB339 for instance, most WWII aircraft), but others are just too different from my calibrated normal to be worth the effort and the risk of negative habit transfer (Tomcat, Apache, anything Russian or Swedish). My go-to fixed wing is the Viper, until the Tornado. For Rotary it is the Hip and Gazelle, until the Kiowa. Same for maps. Marianas and South Atlantic are hardly used. Most of my flying is NTTR, Caucasus or Syria. Personally, even if I know I'm not going to fly a particular module very often, I would still buy it to support the devs. The next module they produce may be one of my favourites.

SA-15 has a maximum range of 6nm and 15,000ft, so relatively easy to stay out of it's MEZ and ignore. The problem will be if you are forced lower when engaged defensive against the SA-10. As you pointed out, a single ship against this target is completely unrealistic. My tactic against a single SA-15 would be a low altitude ripple launch of two AGM-65s. One of which usually gets through. You don't say how many Gauntlets there are, or how tightly packed. Do you need to kill them all to reach the Grumble, or can you take out one or two to punch a hole? Assuming make a gap big enough to give you some manoeuvring room against the SA-10 my tactic then (since the AI is pretty dumb in DCS) would be to sit at the edge of the MEZ and play with it. Bring ECM and lots of fuel and repeatedly pop-up, wait for a couple of launches and then duck behind cover. Extend, rinse and repeat. Once the SA-10 site is out of missiles, you could cruise up and gun the Flap Lid if you wanted, but a HARM or Maverick would be safer. Depending on how big the site is, you may need to RTB to re-arm and refuel before it is safe to press the attack. Realistically though, as Exorcet said above, stay home, and wait until you can allocate sufficient resources to do the job properly.

Great, thanks!

If I leave the GPS switch off, or disable GPS through the MP, does anybody know if the INS drift and at what rate? Is this currently simulated?

I guess persistent damage, fuel and ammo consumption would be a core requirement of a dynamic campaign engine, so it would make sense to add it to the mission editor.

This is exactly how I do it. Not sure how it can be any easier or quicker to be honest. I'm not sure how or why so many VR users seem to overcomplicate it. My trim hat is mapped as LMB/RMB/Scroll up/down, with trim functions mapped as modifer+trim hat.

There are work arounds for most issues. However, it should really feature as an item in the briefing pack. It is pretty important information, which is notable by its absence.

That's a function of the viper, rather than the campaign though? The TOS function of the CRUS page only works as a Direct-To the selected steerpoint, it doesn't take into consideration any intermediate waypoint of deviation from a straight line. At least, that is how I understand it to work. It is still achievable to hit the TOS as fragged, it just means a little more mental maths, and occasional SP juggling. Often I will set the TOS for the target SP, but then fly the planned route either manually, or using heading-hold, rather than steering-select. Depending on how much the route deviates from the ideal direct route, then add a few more knots. I think the computed times as planned is a problem, as the clock essentially starts ticking as soon as you enter the mission, rather than the fragged takeoff time. It essentially assumes you are instantly airborne at waypoint zero, and then calculates the TOS for each steerpoint based on that time, which is why in reality they are usually 15 minutes behind due to the startup time and scheduled takeoff time. I think this is as much a mission editor issue, as a campaign one.

The Ka-50 looks amazing, but one has to beg the question, why? Apart from some very niche content creators, who exactly benefits from the beautifully rendered equipment hidden behind maintenance panels? Is there any gameplay value there? I mean, I get the whole 'different departments assigned to different tasks' argument, but there must have been thousands of hours invested in the 3d artwork that likely nobody will see, whereas we have some AI assets which look like they belong in MSFS 2002. I hate to be critical of what is genuinely impressive work, but I just wish they'd address some of the terrible legacy units first.

Full burner, emergency jettison, pitch up and turn for home. See if you can get to FL400 before your tanks are dry and then glide to a dead-stick landing on the EPU. Quite a fun challenge I think. You can get 50-80nm if you are lucky (and with a following wind). Or at least get yourself the right side of FLOT before ejecting.

Or even better if a kneeboard package could be created and customised as part of mission planning! Then the pilot gets to choose exactly what goes on there; briefing images, chart extracts, approach plates, target info, or even PDF manual extracts.

Sounds a lot like AI wingmen to be fair.

Rarely MP, I think the fact that the mission planner is absent from the MP experience is a problem in itself, and something which requires a DTC to fix IMHO. Why is there such a rush to get airborne? In SP my step time is normally 20-30mins prior to take-off time, is this too much for MP? Also, why would two flights be fragged for the same target? Is there no strategic planning or in MP missions? Don't people talk to each other before starting to plan? Although that does remind me of some cold war wisdom - "what would you do if you approach your target and find it a big smoking hole in the ground?" - "make it a bigger smoking hole in the ground!" As I said, I believe (and hope, given the planned Dynamic Campaign engine) that the mission planner should be completely separate from the mission editor. One is for content creators, the other for pre-flight prep and briefing, and this absolutely should be part of the in-game experience. As you say, it should be an intermediate step between picking a slot, and entering the cockpit. That should satisfy most users I'd imagine. The Mission Planner as it currently stands is essentially useless. However, I have no more power than you to influence the implementation of the F-15E or any other DTC, or make any changes to the current mission planning flow.

At least modules like this require considerably less time investment to learn. I reckon it's possible to become pretty competent in a weekend or less. It may be study level, but it's a study of a simple aircraft with simple weapons. Definitely more F-5 than A-10C or AH-64! The L-39 is really showing its age now, and the Hawk is long gone. I think this might be ideal for some low-intensity type scenarios, or just general bimbling.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The only way a DTC makes sense is as part of an improved mission planner (not necessarily mission editor - I believe these should be two separate entities). Why would you change your loadout from what is planned? The whole point of planning is to ensure the aircraft is correctly configured for the mission. I can see why JSOW spammers might wan to to do it your way, but for people who want to fly (and more importantly, plan) realistic missions, then a proper planner and DTC implementation is critical. I will feel very short changed if all it becomes is a quicker way to enter LL for IAMs so Air-Quakers can get back in the sky faster. Take the Viper for example - I want the mission planner to be capable of weaponeering, MFD page ordering, CMDS programs, steerpoints, OAPs, VIPs, threat rings (these aren't magic, they need to be entered in planning and are based on intel, not an infallible map), ALOW, Comm ladders, HARM tables, etc. Basically everything which you would input IRL before you step to the jet, not after. TL;DR The whole point of a DTC is that it is a planning tool, not a hot-pit shortcut.

I know it doesn't - I was wondering why. Do you have a link to the other thread by any chance? Ok, - found it:

Just curious really, I know it trims in pitch for 1G, why doesn't it trim for roll? Surely with zero roll demand from the pilot (via the stick), the aircraft FLCS should be able to provide any required roll trim to give a zero-roll rate condition. Is there a deliberate reason they* didn't code this in? * I don't mean ED, I mean General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin. I'm referring to the real-life Viper.

I think you are eggs-aggerating there.

SWOTL was great. FF ME-163 please!

Of course, it is a while since I've seen the film, but given their role I should have remembered they were RF-8s!

That seems, erm, comprehensive.