Zeagle

+1

Like the OP, I resisted the Mi-8 for a long time. Once I finally decided to learn to fly her, she became my favorite aircraft. I love to fly just about anything. I have most all of the modules. But there is something just special about the Mi-8. I hope she gets some love from ED. BTW I recently got some Virpil pedals. I was doing fine with the twist stick before. But I highly recommend pedals.

+1 for the Thud

it's all good man. I understand what you are saying. But I think that for most DCS players, this and anything radio related is a bit of a mystery. It would be nice if we could get some folks from the real world all together on the same server to create a more realistic training environment for DCS. This is something I have tried to do in the past but with limited success. If you are interested, maybe we could work on something.

Russian please

Yes but get two flights orbiting the target and your screwed with the -2 ism But I mean we can all do what we want. It's our sim and our servers..

This is fine if there is just one flight in the area. But get two flights in there and this gets confusing fast as there could be two "dash 2" guys answering. Flights always use the lead callsign, such as "DRAGN34" and add their position to it. In this case wingmen would be "DRAGN35", "DRAGN36", etc. (BTW...5 letters only for the callsign) This way you know which aircraft in which flight you are talking to. The wingmen never get on the radio unless the flight has been split up. Obviously they are on some intercom or interflight freq to talk among themselves. If two flights have joined, then you could have for example DRAGN34 with DRAGN27. They would use the lead callsign for ATC until split up. In this case they would advise ATC that the wingman is actually DRAGN27 or vice versa depending on who was in the lead. If they were talking to some ground unit, I am sure there would be some sort of pre-brief as to who was going to be doing what. As far as the ARMY way of doing things, I have no idea. I did talk to many US ARMY helos in my career. All the flights I worked conformed to the above description. We never had confusion as to who was who. Except maybe that one time the USAF tried to intercept some US ARMY helos during my busy day working the Cayman Caravan. But that is a story for another day.

I have actually seen this callsign in real life. UGLY01 flight of 2 A-10's.

Callsigns are assigned to flights. They don't just pick them themselves. For example, take the 93rd TFS MAKOS. Their approved callsigns include MAKO, SHARK, and AKULA. They usually append a number on the end of that to help differentiate callsigns in the ATC environment. You might have MAKO11 flight of 4 and SHARK21 flight of 4. The individual callsigns would be MAKO11, MAKO12, MAKO13, and MAKO14 and likewise for the SHARK flight. When joined-up they use the callsign of the lead aircraft. When they split up they use their individual callsign such as SHARK22 or SHARK23, etc. When a flight is joined up, only one aircraft talks to ATC. Those numbers appended to the callsign have no relevance to any number physically on the plane. The Navy is a different in that they use the board number or MODEX for certain operations. I do not know how the Army does it. I am sure that an ATO would direct a squadron to use certain callsigns and flight numbers in order to cut down on confusion. Now, a JTAC or AWACS controller, or some other kind of commander onboard an aircraft will usually have a pre-briefed callsign that they will use. All players are usually aware of this callsign. An AWACS controller might have a specific callsign to use independent of the callsign of the aircraft he is in.

Well I think they did a good job overall. But the parking is bad. Maybe that is a DCS limitation.

Reflections are a fact of life under a curved canopy. Ask any aviation photographer and they will tell you reflections are a real issue. I personally don't think they are a problem at all in sim.

I don't know why this is so hard for Ugra Media. There is only one runway at Khmeimim. The runway closest to the ramp is a taxiway and parking area. The large aircraft you see in the lower right is being loaded with equipment.

I am using the same stick. I like all the functionality. My collective is the Virpil CM-3 throttle. Pedals are Virpil ACE.

learn something new everyday

I am assuming that is the Tiger APC? Does anyone know what the LUV ground vehicle prefix means? Are those vehicles supposed to have lights?

I thought Blue Thunder was rather well made. Thankfully I never actually watched the whole Firebirds movie. The cringe factor was just too high.

14 days exactly from order placed to unboxing my ACE pedals here in the US. I think Virpil has their act together now. I think I waited 2 or 3 months for my Virpil HOTAS setup.

Check the MOOSE_Missions example AID-A2A-061 -- Setup the squadrons. A2ADispatcher:SetSquadron( "Kuznetsov", "Kuznetsov", { "SQ CCCP SU-33" }, 20 ) -- Setup the overhead A2ADispatcher:SetSquadronOverhead( "Kuznetsov", 1.2 ) -- Setup the Grouping A2ADispatcher:SetSquadronGrouping( "Kuznetsov", 1 ) -- Setup the Takeoff methods A2ADispatcher:SetSquadronTakeoff( "Kuznetsov", AI_A2A_DISPATCHER.Takeoff.Runway ) -- Setup the Landing methods A2ADispatcher:SetSquadronLandingAtRunway( "Kuznetsov" ) AID-A2A-061 - Takeoff From Ship Runway Test.miz

try this solution spawn_test_modified.lua

+1

I suspect a power problem. 525W seems a bit low for that setup.

Both of those are used in aviation on a daily basis. So there is no war to be fought there. As for wind, I don't know how ED managed to get the wind backwards. But it looks like they succeeded nicely.

Works good for me. No issues. No noticeable fps drops.

True.

If something causes your tail rotor to not be "effective", then it most certainly is LTE. I read through the whole LTA / LTE thing here on the forum. That was like watching people arguing over what kind of dog pooped the poop they just stepped in.