Lace

I am a pilot IRL, not as a profession but for personal enjoyment, for fun. I enjoy taking the wife, the boy or the girl away for sightseeing, or to visit somewhere new, practice an aerobatic routine or even just have a pointless bimble on a CAVOK day. But I am relatively limited in real life. I am never going to be able to fly an F-16 in combat (too old, too blind, too tall). I am never going to fly Red Flag, or fly carrier ops in a Hornet, or support an infantry column in a Hind. With DCS I can attain a reasonable level of proficiency in these aircraft in the safe environment of my home, and even though it is immersive and intense (especially with VR), I know that everything I do in game is ultimately free of consequence. I also know that flying in real life has very real consequences. Do I think I could jump in an F-16 if someone let me, start it up and take it for a spin based on what I've learned from DCS? - very doubtful ( I have circa 200hrs on type). There is too much to learn, limitations which don't apply to the simulator, emergency checklists which nobody on here learns because you generally just blow up when hit and mechanical failures are rare. Real life has rules, procedures, ATC, weather, all of which take up valuable brain processing power. Could I sit in the back of a D model and throw it around the sky for a bit? Of course, but so could my 9 year old, it wouldn't make me a real Viper pilot. I use X-Plane to practice some of my real-world flying (given Covid restrictions I have been spending more time and money flying my laptop this last year than any real aircraft) and it is genuinely useful if you can use the same aircraft you would fly IRL. For example, If I am taking up a PA-28 (a type I don't have many hours on) a bit of time in XP11 can let me practice my scans and checks etc, but I can't say honestly that any simulator I've flown has helped me with the actual stick-wiggling art of flying. The reason is that while it is possible to fly 'by the numbers', there is still very much an element of 'feel' to visual flying. That is the one thing a static simulator can't convey. As Ikarus above correctly states, simulators are a valid method for maintaining and recertifying instrument flying procedures, because instrument flying is very much heads down and watching the numbers, and very much not about 'feel'. There is a reason airlines invest $millions on simulators, it allows them to practice emergency situations which present too high a risk to do 'for real'. They do not use these same simulators to train ab initio pilots - for that they use real aircraft. There is a good reason for that. QED. TLDR: Lots of hours in a simulator make you a good simulator pilot. A simulator can help a real pilot maintain proficiency, but it will not make a non-pilot a pilot, IMHO of course.

It's definitely a powerful editor, and quite a learning process. I did manage yesterday to write a nice little convoy escort mission which involved disembarking an EOD team from an Mi-8 to disarm a roadside bomb. Sadly no animations, but the mechanics of it worked. It seems that what is generally required is a bit of lateral thinking.

Indeed. They aren't just going to rock up to the ground crew and say "Today I fancy 1547 for my GBU-12".

I thought they all just used ForeFlight on their iPads for nav IRL anyway? Can we have a virtual iPad instead?

Surely this is something established well before stepping to the jet? Codes would have been allocated during briefing based on likely deconflictions and/or spoofing and set by the ordnance teams during loading. I can't imagine IRL it's something the pilot has much control over?

^^^ That's great info, thanks!

This was the intent, but I'll play around with the Escort function and see how much use that is.

Thanks, I think I follow that. I'll give it a go this evening and see what happens.

Care to elaborate?

Would it be possible to have individual weapon/pylon weights displayed, (perhaps even with drag indices?). I see a lot of asymmetric loadouts IRL, particular with the Viper (that is my main fixed-wing DCS a/c), it would be good to see how balanced (or not) these loadouts are during mission planning. For example, JDAM opposite LGB in the same size class probably wouldn't make much difference, but I imagine AGM-88 and CBU-87 would - in this case is it better to put the AGM-88 on the TGP side or the HTS pod? I know we can work this out either using weapon databases or through trial and error, but it would be useful to have the information readily available during planning. On a similar note, weapon info 'tool tips' boxes would be nice too. I know the AGM-65D is the small EO, and the G is the big one, but new users may not and when I jump in my Mi-8 after a while off it would be nice to know immediately whether I need the S-8KOM, S-8OM, S-8Tsm or S-8OFP2 rockets loaded, without having to go back through the manuals. We don't all know all weapon types for all aircraft.

And helicopters...?

It would also be nice if we could have a 'western' AI as part of the English cockpit too. AFAIK it is a requirement for Yaks on the UK register to have this gauge replaced (or blanked), along with the metric ASI and altimeter.

Not sure if this has been mentioned previously but it would be nice if it was possible to fly mixed flights of aircraft. It is already possible to have different ground vehicle types make up a ground group or convoy, but AFAIK this is not possible with fixed or rotary wing aircraft. With the Hind, Apache and Kiowa inbound it would be nice to have mixed AI/player flights, as IRL the Apache and Kiowa operated as teams, as did the Hind and Hip, and also the Hind P and V models as a pair. Not as common with fixed wing types, but still not unheard of to have different types/versions in the same flight.

Like many of the CA elements, reaction to effective enemy fire requires improvement. Maybe one day.

Smoking and moving. If of course, as you rightly say they see them coming.

Amazing work, well done!

The 'free' DCS World is the gateway drug. How many of us are exclusively flying the TF-51 or Su-25T around the Caucasus? The money comes from the modules. The incentive for ED to improve the core game is that it will attract more users, who then go on to purchase one, many or all of the additional modules produced by ED and third parties. Start charging $50-80 for DCS and they may see a reduction in new players. I don't know, but I'd like to think that like any business, ED have done their homework and have a funding model which works for them. We (on this forum) are a small subset of DCS users, and having spent in some cases many thousands of dollars in on software, hardware, even full simpits specifically for this game would think nothing of dropping $50-80 every few years for an update, but perhaps the majority would not.

Splash damage is more than capable of a mobility kill by knocking off a track, or damaging delicate IR sensors, optical sights, comms equipment, kill an unbuttoned TC, effect crew morale etc, all of which will reduce the effectiveness of heavily armoured MBTs even without a penetrating definitive 'kill'. Sadly this is something which is not (yet) realised within the DCS World environment. These things can all be repaired IRL which is why a more an absolute kill is preferable, but are more than enough to at least temporarily attrite the enemy forces.

I find rudder trim works better for TGP load outs and aileron trip for pylon load asymmetry. Not sure whether this is normal for real-world operations.

F-117 would be a day 1 EA purchase for me, no question. Still not sure why all the air quakers out there don’t get it that some of us are genuinely interested in aviation and love variety. It’s not just about how max detection range, TWS and how many AMRAAMs can be bolted on. Some of us just love aircraft. The F-117 would offer a very different, more suspenseful and planning oriented experience than say a air superiority fighter or CAS platform, it’s all still part of the rich tapestry that is modern (ish) air combat. I get the multi-role stuff has wider mass-market appeal and therefore brings in the money, but with the new dynamic campaign that is planned, then hopefully we might see some other types to keep us genuine enthusiasts happy. Bring on the wobblin’ goblin’, the Predator, Sparkvark, Viking, Bronco and all the other oddballs which will never see light of day on an MP server. And regarding the Yak, if you haven’t tried it you are missing out. Me any the boy spent a good few hours practicing formation Aeros this afternoon. It may be unfinished but it is a great module!

Agreed, I raised this exact topic a while back, but it’s well worth reiterating.

I know, I know, it is an incredibly minor thing, but I don't like the way the seekers on the GBU-10/12s are locked in the straight ahead position. These (AFAIK) are free to move and will be effected by the AoA of the parent aircraft and droop on the ground.

Mission 6 now ready. A bit more action this time, providing CAP for the 4th (US) Marine Amphibious Brigade. Northern Flank 6.miz

Thanks for the feedback. I get it about the procession feeling of the mission - it was a difficult one for the timings. The SCUD launch sequence takes 7min40, so to have them launch as you approach down the valley meant sticking to the planned leg speeds. Also, I always set unit proficiency to 'random' I feel this offers a little bit of re-playability as the AI reaction is never quite the same each time. Sometimes the F-16A CAP beat the MiG-23s, sometimes not. Sometimes the SHORAD are on the ball, sometimes they are still napping. The SHORAD will certainly get you if you loiter too long. Also, there is a fuel management element - if you get bounced by the MiG on egress, then you should be at or close to bingo - do you engage, or try to drag them towards the Norwegian HAWK coverage?. Anyway, that was kind of my thinking for 5, it may not have quite worked out as planned. Mission 6 is going to be more of a scrap, and the USS Guadalcanal is on it's way!

Fixed and uploaded the new version - I had forgotten to increase the airfield warehouse quantity for CBU-87s. It was set to zero so the crew were unable to fit the requested loadout.