Lace

I know it is possible by modifying files. Let's face it, most things are, but its shouldn't be necessary, and surely can't be a difficult issue for your programmers to tie in the VR model with the wallpaper and music theme?

It's certainly possible to do hot-pit turnarounds during surge tempo ops, but that was kind of meant for a real Cold War turned hot scenario when the expected life of an airframe was no longer dictated by maintenance schedules or fatigue cycles, IYKWIM.

I think realistic refuelling and rearming times should be at least a switchable option. With a time skip function it would mean players are not sitting at their computer for 30-60 minutes (unless they want to watch the ground crew in action), but a realistic amount of time would have elapsed in the sim world.

Yep, looks terrible in 2.7. Way too dark and like a can of furniture polish has exploded in the cockpit.

Yes, it was important to maintain the element of surprise. The Apaches would have had a much tougher time if by the time they arrived at their targets ALCMs were already hitting targets across the rest of Iraq. But this is the Hind thread, no point in discussing what the Apache achieved in ODS, especially given it was the A model, and not the D model DCS is producing.

+1 Surprised to see that the MiG is still with us after 2.7 - I thought they would want to showcase one of their new halo modules rather than an older FC3 model. It would be nice if there was a VR scene to match the main menu wallpaper scene.

I'm having something similar, crashes sometime into second mission but in my case it is only crashing to the black screen in my Rift S. It used to do this occasionally with 2.5.6 but it is much more frequent in 2.7. Latest patch, and latest NVIDIA and Oculus drivers installed, and usual cable checks on the HMD but still no joy. System specs in signature.

That's the beauty of aviation in the UK - you get to enjoy both systems. I fly an imperial altitude (ft) on a metric pressure setting (mb/hPa). I measure fuel in litres and oil in quarts, and oil pressure in PSI. My logbook is in h:m, and the a/c log is in decimal minutes. DIstance is in NM, but runway length metres (and ATZ in NM). Cloud base is in feet, but visibility is metres. They even mix units within the same rule "you must not fly lower than 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 600 m of the aircraft". It's all very simple really - you metric lot are missing all the fun.

Glad you enjoyed it. At least you 'found' some of the bad guys! Keep well ahead of the convoy and keep your speed up. Floating along at 20kts is asking for trouble. I find a low figure-8 clearing both sides of the road a mile or so ahead of the convoy is a good tactic.

Thanks for the detailed feedback. Much appreciated. A few points to counter. I deliberately set the AI skill to random in order to introduce an element of unpredictability and replay ability to the missions. In hindsight this seems to be a mistake as too many flights are either crashing or not properly engaging into the mission. I am in the process of rewriting the missions with higher AI skill levels which will hopefully fix some of this. Wingman fuel management - what can I say, even giving them an extra bag of gas they still seem unable to manage their fuel consumption. It seems more of a DCS issue than a mission issue as you say. Mission 1 - Noted about ROE, though a little tension and uncertainly was intended here. WRT to the MLRS in mission 3 - again with random skill sometimes they hit, sometimes not. I will add some feedback on the fire mission request. Also I believe abandoning the mission due to heavier than expected ADA is a realistic outcome. Mission 5 was a bit of a tough one. My intent was to have the SCUDs launching as the player approaches down the valley. They have a 7 minute prep time before firing so it was tough to get the trigger point right given the amount of variation possible regarding player GS and distance covered in that time. It worked in theory, but not so much in practice. Thinking about it now I will trigger the SCUDs at mission launch, then stop them after 600sec, and resume when the player flight is one minute out. That might be a better solution. I get that it was more a procession than a combat mission and certainly not one of the better ones. Mission 6 would have been better with AIM-7s, but unfortunately our pretend A-model Viper doesn't support them. I had intended to write full flight plans including times on/off station, friendly OOB etc. but more feedback from the AWACS could work in the meantime. Again regarding the general lack of direction - this is intentional to an extent. I was attempting to simulate a dynamic and unpredictable WWIII scenario where it was highly probable that much of the chain of command would already have been disrupted. The first casualty of war is the plan, and in my experience confusion is generally the order of the day. I can only imagine how bad it would be for real. I wrote these missions primarily for myself, but the feedback received on this thread has been really valuable in how to improve them and what type of missions other people enjoy flying. I have been a bit slack with missions 7 and 8 but I'll try to get them published soon. 7 is an airfield attack and 8 is supporting a USMC heli landing.

It's an interesting idea, but since the ordnance loading is already massively sped up from real-life, I think any changes in ground crew behaviour is inherently unrealistic anyway. Essentially you would be penalising those who use a broad variety of airframes, and rewarding those who dedicate all their time to one. I'm not sure about the night vision aspect either. I've never heard of night vision abilities improving with practice. Certainly you will become more accustomed to operating at night (pretty much all of my training was at night, because at that time that is when we would be expected to fight - I believe doctrine has changed in recent years), but I don't think night vision ever 'improves' to any measurable degree. I'm still not sure how any of this can be implemented without either offering some kind of fuzzy logic to the weapons systems, or helping crutches, which IMHO goes against the study sim nature of DCS. If I miss on a rocket pass it's because I didn't perform the attack correctly, properly taking into account aircraft coordination, range, wind, etc, not because my 'pilot character' lacks the necessary rocket skills. It works in a game like GTA, I just don't really see it working in DCS. G tolerance, stamina and fatigue may play a part, especially with the dynamic campaign - you cannot for instance just fly back-to-back 12 hour sorties without some serious degradation of combat effectiveness, but again I'm not sure how that would actually play out in the game. Maybe the contrast and volume of the world just fades over time making target spotting harder, and radio calls to be missed. Maybe the flight controls get sloppier and sloppier until you take a go pill or get a few hours sleep.

What stats do you suggest are down to the simulator itself rather than the player? Other than G-tolerance I'm struggling to think of much, without adding automatic helpers for gunnery, AAR, landing approaches, etc. The way you get better at DCS is by learning the systems and practicing. How would a set of RPG stats be implemented?

I think it was worth it on release day 1, but other opinions are available. What you have right now is a very capable and feature rich (if by no means complete) multi role 4th gen fighter. It can perform BVR and WVR A2A, deliver laser guided and dumb bombs, and fire HARM and Maverick with more realism than any other module, plus a fully functioning TGP. There are still some major elements missing, such as IAMs, HTS, ground RADAR, navigation planning aids (TOT, CRUS etc), BIT tests, ECM, pilot G resistance, HMCS is still missing A2G stuff, plus apparently some flight model tweaks (but having never flown a Viper IRL I am in no position to say what they are, if indeed there are any). Plus cosmetic stuff like the canopy lifting arm and locking arrangements not yet animated correctly, on non-foldable arm rests but that's minor stuff really.

Of course fighters were (are) built with neutral or even negative stability (especially with the advent of FBW computers) but your claim that it was not possible to fly any aircraft hands off without George helping was just plain wrong. And taking a nap is inadvisable even with the autopilot on, they are pretty poor at RT and collision avoidance I don't, and being a fighter I doubt very much that it was designed to be positively stable.

Sorry but that is just wrong, any aircraft with positive stability which is correctly trimmed will fly hands-off. No auto pilot required.

The live weapons loading revetments on the Golf apron should have the aircraft facing outwards (i.e. to the SE away from the runway) since they can be loaded with live ordnance on these parking spots and any negligent discharge will be in a 'safe' direction. It can be seen quite clearly in Google Maps. Google Maps Although thinking about it now, with 2.7 aircraft can be spawned anywhere on the ground (with any heading) so I guess the point is moot.

A little Mi-8 mission for anyone who's interested. A basic convoy escort with a surprise or two. About 45 mins playtime. Low unit count and very frame-rate friendly. MI8 CAU 08 APR LC SP Convoy Escort IED.miz

What can I say, Jester just bugged me. Besides, no self respecting fighter pilot needs self loading ballast nagging them from the back. Anyway, back to the Hind.

Best is a matter of opinion and entirely subjective. I tried the F-14 in two 'free-to-play' weekends and was completely unenamoured by it. The Hind on the other hand was an instant day-one pre order for me.

DCS is the game I wished for as an 11 year old! I have a 9 and 7 year old. The 9yo likes to fly aeros in the Yak, and the 7yo just likes crashing from what I can tell. For all it's complexities, it is still possible to to just enjoy flying around without having to spend hundreds of hours in the books. This was what 11 year old me was playing: On a serial link between two PCs in my parents attics, AirQuake before there was even regular Quake! Edit - I'm 42 to answer the OP.

Mate, it was a joke. I don't see any need for a virtual iPad in DCS. As an aside though, much of my flying IRL is very close to an EW range which regularly NOTAMs GPS jamming - so it definitely happens in peacetime too! Paper backups a must (and still a legal requirement in the UK).

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I have no issues using the hardwired kit in game. I was just making an observation that despite the multi-million dollar navigation suite in modern military aircraft, navigation and planning is done via iPad, just like us lowly GA pilots.

How many hours do you have IRL Zhukov? Not disagreeing with you, but you could apply that statement to pretty much any vocation (driving, cooking, coding, etc.). It took me about 10 hours before they let me loose on my own in an aeroplane, and 22 hours before I was allowed to drive on my own, so no, the actual art of stick wiggling is not that difficult compared with things many non-pilots do day-to-day. For many wanabees the limiting factor is not ability, it's usually financial or medical (or marital!). There is an adage regarding pilots and experience: After 100 hours, you think you know it all After 300 hours, you know you know it all After 1000 hours, you know you will never know it all. You can teach...

Why? The whole point of destroying bridges is to cause horrendous routing issues for the enemy. To cause supply lines to back up stall advances making them easy targets for area bombardment. However, it would be nice if the amphibious capabilities of ground units was modelled. Pretty much the whole WARPAC arsenal had wading capability for that very reason. Some deployable pontoons would be nice too.

I passed on the F-14 for this very reason, but somehow I feel the Hind will lend itself better to an AI pilot/CPG given that it is a less complex and less dynamic platform. Flying as CPG I imagine it will be possible to have the pilot fly the planned route, perhaps hovering behind a treeline on request while weapon systems are prepared and then pop up for delivery, or perhaps flying as pilot I can just order the CPG 'weapons free' and allow them to allocate and engage targets as they see fit. The fact that the Hind fulfilled plenty of other roles too mean that the CPG is less essential than the RIO in the 'cat. They are only absolutely necessary when using ATGM AIUI. I think the two-crew requirement for the Hind is more about redundancy/survivability than workload.