bies

Yes, it turned out it was mostly a skill issue - now i don't have much problems controling Apache and maneuvering in hover, sometimes stabilizing hover, with FTR being held, reuires full focus, but its perfectly doable. And ED is also tuning trim, hover, FTR, SAS behaviours so things will change a bit in near future.

VR head position of infantryman (keyboard 3 view) inside Mi-24 compartment is placed some 0,6m too low - like the head is lying on the seat. To see though the window you need to stand up.

Newer systems are classified, but many 1970-1980s are not and could be modeled in reasonably realistic way.

More Cold War assets would be great.

Thanks for all answers. Surely it is far more complicated than that, plus Ka-50 FM has been created 15 years ago, with limited documantation, limited SME input etc. And what destabilize Apache during this maneuver is tail rotor Ka-50 lacks completely so there is even no analogy between the two. It's like Attitude Hold can't deal with tail rotor input, or heading hold treshold is too big, or Force Trim Release being held even with stable hover making destabilizing helicopter in all planes to much, or it requires perfect controls replica with magnetic force trim and motion sensation - but the last is not the case with other helicopters. Or i just need more practice. Overall Apache FM probably require some tuning in this regime - it couldn't be SO hard IRL. People in DCS use no spring 50cm long sticks and still, it requires 100% focus, a lot of time to finish simple maneuver, and slightest mistake = crash or flying all around. But Apache is early in early access so ED probably tune few things. Anyway it's the single situation causing problems to control Apache for me, i prefer to do it without ATT Hold at all. Thx for answers again, but if someone know how it's done IRL please write that as well.

Hi, when i'm trimmed and in stable hands off hover, how do i change the direction my nose is pointing in confined space? 1) I've tried the easiest - to push one pedal, but at light touch stabilization fights me and when i press a bit harder to overcome stabilization authority it chnges direction to one side correctly, but loses stability in all 3 planes, translating me hundreds meters or slowly rolling helicopter 360°. 2) Hold Force Trim Release, make a maneuver, and release the button? Is that temporarly disable heading hold? 3) Disengage hover (Attidute Hold), make a maneuver and reengage? I use both stick and pedals with light spring and Instant Trim, very precise 50cm joystick. What is correct procedure to make that simple maneuver?

It will be presented only when close to release.

I disagree. In reality ED wants more or less what community wants, even if some decisions were not perfect. This dichotomy of us and them doesn't apply here.

Also Tornado IDS Desert Storm, A-6E 1980s Tanker War and Desert Storm.

There was an interview with F-111 pilot, he flown two types including F-111F. He said they were flying with Sidewinders regularly and trained to use them against fighters during 1980s. According to him F-111F obviously wasn't nearly as nimble as F-15 and it couldn't dogfight an Eagle or even slatted F-4E they often trained against, but they were trained to utilize a mistake like problems with finding them at very low altitude, overtaking them, overshooting etc. and punish them with simulated Sidewinder shoot. According to him the best defense was just to run away since there was no aircraft able to catch F-111 at low level due to very small drag of 72° swept wing, crucial in dense air down low. F-111F carried Sidewinders on stations 6A and 3A:

It's not profitable if company is able to make full fidelity ones: for cheap, low fidelity module, you still need to make exactly the same quality 3D model, textures, cockpit, flight model, armament ballistics and parameters, damage model, half of the systems etc. It would be making 70% of the job and selling it for 20% of the price.

Good proposal to have Marneuli AB modeled, but when it comes to "the only accurate Georgian airbase" man needs to remember the Caucasus Map doesn't model today's timeframe. It is roughly 1990s map which is to model the region accurately as it was during ~1990s when Kobuleti, Kutaisi, Senaki, Tblisi-Soganlug and other airfields were still used by air force. Just like Normandy models 1940s.

That would be great. But for F-86, MiG-15, A-1 etc. 1950 Korea map would be perfect. And some 1970s/80s Fulda Gap divided Germany for later Cold War.

As Russian navy (understood as Russian Federation) are remnants of Soviet Navy it could be possible to model them better. Kuznetsov, Kiev, Kirov, Slava, Kara, Kresta, Kynda, Sverdlov, Sovremenny, Udaloy, Kashin, Kanin, Krivak and many more are all Soviet build and developed ships so there should be enough data to model them in more dateiled way than we have today in DCS when it comes to systems, sensors, weapon etc. When it comes to graphics and 3D model it's just a mater of money, Nick Grey said in the interview how much they need to pay for one good quality model, it wasn't exactly chap. Maybe it would be better to make 3 good quality models instead of 1 of amazing quality?

Yes, Cold War Germany map is arguably the most anticipated one together with Vietnam. But personally i think just one e.g. ~1970s would be ok. Changes in a decade were not that big, especially from flight simulator perspective. I would guess somewhere around 1960s all main NATO bases in Germany were already developed and functional, Berlin wall built. Civilian infrastructure developed obviously. Maybe two versions 1950s and 1980s at most. Germany 2023 vs. 1970s are massively different and it would be huge turn off for all this Cold War scenarios, but 1960s vs. 1980s would be ok.

My mistake. I assumed you are talking about official DCS modules - not fan made MODs. Rafale MOD, F-16 MOD, Mirage 2000-5 MOD, Jaguar MOD. This way we can make e.g. 2023 Taiwan Strait clash as well: F-22 MOD, F-35 MOD, J-20 MOD, J-11 FC3, J-10 MOD - voilà - we have everything covered, just missing the map...

I agree India-Pakistan borded map would be a good choice as there were many real life conflicts in this area with use of military aviation in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999. Obviously after 1999 anything more than special forces skirmishes became impossible as Pakistan deployed its own nuclear weapon, ending India-Pakistan wars. But i don't know the post is sarcastic or i don't get it? But we literally don't have that in DCS. We don't have F-16 with F100 engines like Pakistani F-16A, we have the opposite - F110-GE-129. We don't have SEPECAT Jaguar, nobody even announced one so it is not even being work on. We don't have Mirage 2000-5, Razbam developers stated it's classified and impossible to make, we have early 1990s classic Mirage 2000 and Indian 2000-5 have different avionics even compared to French 2000-5. We don't have Su-30, Su-30 will never be modeled in DCS and it is not being work on, few developers already confirmed it's impossible.

Size you've proposed may be a stretch, but overall Korea map would be fantastic. As for now we have zero Cold War maps in DCS. All maps like Persian Gulf, Syria, South Atlantic, Sinai, North Australia, Kola Peninsula you name it - are modeled as modern day. All this 20-30 Cold War DCS modules should have at least one single proper timeframe Cold War map. Rural, little industrialized, mountainous 1950 Korean map would be awesome. Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, Fulda Gap, Kola, any of that.

I'm wondering if it would be possible/profitable to outsource cockpit graphics rework for Huey, Mi-8, F-5E, F-86, MiG-15. Without even engaging ED's resources.

There are many maps in DCS, available and in developement, but except for WW2, they are all modeled like in civilian simulator as 2020 modern day timeframe - and this takes away some of the combat simulator atmosphere and makes DCS feel like cockpit simulator/civilian simulator/sandbox etc. when you fly historical aircrafts like 1944 Bf109, 1972 MiG-21bis or 2005 F/A-18 over 'modern day 2020 civilian map'. Other military simulators had maps modeled as particular warzones with proper timeframe. All the maps like 2020 Persian Gulf, Marianas, South Atlentic, Sinai, Kola Peninsula, Australia etc. are proper only for fictional scenarios - there were no wars over them in ~2020. What is more even "modern" modules like F/A-18, F-16, Apache etc. are modeled as year ~2005. 15-20 years old standard of second Iraq war, not 2020. Fictional scenarios are not exactly bad, but there is a problem when all scenarios have to be only fictional. My wish is to have e.g. 1950 Korea map, or 1967 Six-Day-War Syria map, 1960s Vietnam map, 1973 Yom Kippur Sinai map, 1980s Libyan map, 1980s Iraq/Iran border map, 1991 Gulf War map. As they would portray real all out conflicts and match aircrafts we have in DCS. Or when fictional - at least some plausible like 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis map of Cuba, Cold War Fulda Gap divided Germany map e.g. during Berlin Crysis, Arctic Crisis 1970s-1980s Kola Peninsula map etc. cheers

It would be nice to have this features in the Viggen, adjustable mirrors like in F-14 Tomcat and kneeboard on pilot's leg like some modules already have. cheers and thanks for your work

Is there any guide what are optimal settings for Nvidia 3d settings?

Is this aircraft from combat squadron or they had some special one for demo?

But why "every single cockpit"? I-16 Rata, Bf-109 or F-86 Sabre flying with GPS navigation as well? Why? Why even spending time and resources to make GPS for pre-GPS era modules?

F-111 makes sense. It was phased out after USSR collapsed so it should be declassified with documentation available. HB will have experience modeling variable-sweep wings flight model and TF-30 engines for F-14 Tomcat, side by side cockpit interaction, FLIR turret and terrain following radar for A-6 Intruder, 1970s/80s USAF A/G weapon inventory for F-4 Phantom.