Ornithopter

I think the Normandy map is most certainly worth getting just to fly around in. It really is wonderful for every type of flying. It doesn't matter what you fly around in it with, whether that be an Mi-24, a Focke-Wulf or a JF-17, its still a map worth having, imo. If you want to fly WWII airplanes against appropriate air defenses, or otherwise just see what a F-4E can do to a WWII Panzergrenadier company on land, or an E-boat at sea, then you should buy the Asset pack as well. Those new units can be plugged into any map. They say it's a Sandbox, and so it is. Have you tried the free TF-51 and decided what you think of it?

I hear that's one hot helicopter, that Gazelle. In the Huey, you just pull the collective back a little bit, and learn to work the cyclic and pedals until you can hover in front of a fixed object through trial and error, not much different than learning to ride a bicycle when you were a child.. And that's the tutorial for that helicopter. You guys that use the Gazelle as your ab-initio helicopter trainer must really have the right stuff!

Please see the following bug report: Basically, FP created in Mission Editor not showing up on the NS-430. Only seems to affect C-101EB and CC.

Additional information: Tested, and only appears to affect C-101, both variants, both front and back cockpit. I tried it in the Mi-8, which I also have the NS-430 for, and the flight plan from the Mission Editor succesfully propagated into the NS-430. Also, tested the same flight plan in the Hornet, as made in the Mission Editor, and it showed up as expected in the Hornet's Nav computer. Tested on Normandy and Marianas maps

Up until recently, probably the very last update, I would make make a flight plan in the ME, and it would automatically give me a nice magenta line on the GPS. The FP and it's waypoints are no longer showing up. It happens I was using the C-101 on the Normandy map, but I don't know if that's relevant or not. I'll try it later with a different aircraft, but I know it most certainly used to work on the C-101.

I guess this is a different thread than the one I was looking at last night, and the issue came up. I didn't realize before that the comm transceiver and vor/loc capabillities are actually built into the 430. I thought that they had to talk to the onboard radios of the aircraft, but now I know better after looking it up. For me, it's not that big of a deal, but why doesn't ED just correct the product description? If people are not buying something, or feel like they aren't getting what they paid for, then how hard can it be to change a sentence on a web page?

Oh stop Rudel, and just go back to your Jazboom Mugage 2001D

Well, three out of four ain't bad these days for them young developer folk. Seriously, is there really a "situation"? Seems a little hyperbolic right now. There certainly is no reason to think that yet. Well, at least we hope not

They should make the description a bit more accurate about what it does and doesn't do. Other than that, how was the rest of the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Well, you might be right. It would be pretty cool though if there is a MiG-29 that could do one of those L/VNAV approaches coupled to the autopilot, with just a 430W, wouldn't it?

I don't happen to be in DCS buying mode, despite the current sales. I have enough aircraft for now on backlog. I've been flying the Chinook and the Aviojet lately. I'm flying the Aviojet because I'm keeping myself current without killing too many braincells. I haven't bought the Mig-29, and maybe someday, but not today. But, I have to ask, is a single sentence in a product description really that big a deal? A lot of people are loving this aircraft clearly, and they couldn't care less about a minor mistake in a one page description for a new airplane. Most likely the new college grad they hired to write the description just made a simple mistake after looking at the website of the real-world analog.

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge? If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios. In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work? I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference. I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101. I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff. Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?

Thanks. I always appreciate it when somebody comes in and can lighten it up a bit.

Coop need not be PvE. And PvP need not occur on open free-for-all servers. Obviously one can have a private server, with opposite teams both playing for "realism", thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the open servers. I've seen Milsim groups though that not only don't do PvP, they consider even the concept of it to be "unrealistic" as if it were some kind of blasphemy. I never understood how that could be...A skilled human opponent instead of a predictible AI? I hate to say it, but my guess is that a large number of MilSim-style/PvE only types would get their butts handed to them on a platter if they had to fight against a skilled human being. IMO, its an entirely new level of difficulty and requires a much higher level of skill. The open server people might not know how to communicate like a real pilot, fill out a comm card, or keep a tight formation, probably can't even navigate in the dark, but when it comes to shooting down the enemy, they are GOOD.

Of course, but I hope you'll at least be willing to indulge me as I relate an analogy from my youth, to better explain where I'm coming from: Back in school, there was this girl I was attracted to. I asked her out several times. Instead of saying "No", there would always be a polite excuse that left the door open just enough that I wasn't sure but still retained a little hope. Eventually, I finally gave up and lost interest. Ironically, 6 months later, she called, and asked me out. I told her no. The time had passed, and I wasn't interested anymore. I'm a passionate DCS helicopter fan. I own all the ED helicopters, but none from Polychop. I wanted both the Gazelle and the Kiowa on and off, but I could never bring myself to purchase them because I didn't have the confidence in the company making them. Perhaps, through fear of missing out, I've checked back periodically all these years to determine if I should change my mind. But it seems like there is always something going on, and when questions are asked, the answer is always to just to wait around a little longer. Ok, totally fair. But I've started to feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy takes the football away. I don't want to be like Charlie Brown. At some point, just like with the girl who wouldn't date me but was keeping me in reserve, up on a shelf, it's time to stop caring, and just move on. And when that point is reached, it really doesn't matter what the explanation is, because my own interest has expired. I hope this situation works out for the people who have purchased the Kiowa or the Gazelle.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't using "get good" in the literal sense, I was using it ironically. In DCS, I too learned the ropes of MP iteratively, not by jumping head first into the shallow end of the pool with a bunch of random people on a server, but by linking up with a group of experienced people who could provide that iterative structure, within a closed server environment. That's why I said earlier that joining a Squadron is a good thing for players new to the MP scene. There are people to help. Even for the most experienced of players, how does one find success in MP other than through effective teamwork? My first multiplayer experiences were in a different game. After I got tired of getting knocked down and frustrated every single time, I decided it was time to find mentors, wingmen, and teamates. I would imagine that story is not unique and describes the journey of many players from SP to MP. Yes, it takes practice, and who you choose as teachers makes a lot of difference. Choose wisely.

I can think of several reasons, but I won't get into them now. The point is, a new flight sim helicopter pilot first develops the motor skills to fly a helicopter without all the fancy stuff. If the Gazelle fills that role well, then that's just fine. I should have also pointed out that it took me an absurd amount of time to be able to fly the Huey with even a moron level of competence. I'm glad I took that time and put in the work, the old school way. Becoming a decent flyer was a lot more than just going through a tutorial once or twice, with a few notes, like most people do when getting a new fixed-wing aircraft. It was a whole new realm.

I do have advice. Start with the UH-1. Fly it, and practice it until you can hover it over a dime. Get a book from Amazon about flying Helicopters. It will explain things like steep approaches, pinacle landings, etc. You probably will need to get good rudder pedals and a joystick extension. Once you do that my friend, you will be able to load up any helicopter in DCS, map the basic controls, and fly it around the world first time, no probs. Avionics is a different matter and will try your patience in some of the more modern helicopters.

Is Mr. Polychop a real tough boss to work for or something? I don't have these helicopters, so I'm not out time or money, but I too would like to know what's going on. We've known about this for a while, but there really hasn't been a lot of discussion about it, so I assumed it was no big deal. On second thought, it seems like a majorly big deal. Could this be the first contractual test where ED would even consider taking on these 2 modules?

I don't really want a Flanker. I mean, yes, I do, but not right now. I want something that is appropriate to fight my Phantom II or my Mirage F1 in the 1970s or early 80s (obviously they can fight each other). There is the MiG-21, but that is so out of date, I almost don't consider it viable anymore. The MiG-19 is never going to be updated and will probably break. Was looking forward to a MiG-23, but we know what happened with that. Maybe someday we will have a MiG-17.

Well, you know what they say: "Get Good!" FWIW, I used to feel I was pretty skilled in DCS, but that was a long time ago. Nowadays, I don't think I would be worth a damn. It would take a lot of work for me to get back to the level where I think Multiplayer would be a possibilty. Maybe I still have enough in me to be the guy that flies a boring racetrack pattern in a C-130 tanker someday, on autopilot of course. There are options.

Many of you are talking about the chaos of "open" servers, and you make fair points. In the groups I am familiar with in DCS, they were the mostly the opposite, but with small groups including people like myself sometimes taking off the uniform of the squad to dabble on the open servers. The squad nights themselves were closed members-only servers with missions and scenarios designed by veritable expert Mission Makers. During "mission nights", the paradigm was definitely Dead Is Dead. So you get shot down, and well, goodnight guys, see you next week. These were very hardcore groups that made such an effort to do things "realistically" that, for a computer game, it could border on the absurd at times. I wanted realism to a point, but it's not a second career. For some people, I suspect that's exactly what they want. While boring as hell at times, honestly, that is the environment where you really learn your stuff, and hence why I went the Milsim route in the first place...to get better. The good news, at least I think, is there are much more casual groups out there. As far as open servers, if you get a group of half a dozen people together that know what they're doing, including an organic GCI person, you can just go in there and kick the living daylights out of the whole lot of them. It's very fun. As an independent operator though, I wouldn't have a clue how to get on an Open server and find wingmen or crewmembers. Maybe that just comes down to extroverts vs introverts but thats one reason why it can be really beneficial joining a familiar squad vs just showing up and trying to find friends for a session. Your choices are generally Larry, Curly, or Moe. There are a lot of different possibilities in MP.

Yes, all of the above. We all know that in a workplace, or in any social club, there are going to be people who grate on you. That's just life. Generally its the founders of the Cult Squad will set the tone for the experience that follows. I've been a member a few squads over the years and it was always a mixed bag. I'm not currently in any squad or doing any MP. Inevitably, the time comes when I'm no longer willing to tolerate certain nonsense: For example, there will always be the guy who interjects religion into every conversation; Or Politics. It's inevitable that I'll come to resent the "CO" who reminds me of Colonel Lard, or his XO, Barney Fife. I'm no longer willing to tolerate a RIO that giggles like Rosco P. Coltrane or have Frank Burns as my wingman; There will inevitably be the conspiracy theorist (such as Flouride, Elvis, Pandemic, etc), or the ideological nutcase. I kid you not, in one group I had to sit through a "moment of silence" for Manfred Von Richtofen, only to realize that I hadn't muted my microphone and they all heard me laughing my butt off at such ridiculous BS. This is a game, and I couldn't believe they were serious. I've encountered every type of meme warrior, troll, simpleton, knuckdragging, mouth-breathing fool that never matured past the 7th grade. I've sat through 2 hour long "Milsim" briefings that by the time it came around to actually flying I was already on my 6th beer, and to my amusement performed quite well. Oh, and I should add that racism was and is an immediate deal-breaker for me, but I've unfortunately seen far too many willing to go down that path. I've been told that I'm "too sensitive", but I don't think so. I don't miss any of this. So that's the downside. On the positive side, I have learned so much from others and become such a better virtual pilot than I could have managed all by myself. My very best times in flight sims and other games were in Multiplayer. I would join a squad in a heartbeat if I could find the right group of people. I doubt that's likely at this point, but I keep my eyes open for opportunities and an open mind. If someone is new to DCS, or any other complicated simulation, I would highly reccomend joining a squad. They show you the ropes. There is nothing quite as rewarding as flying with and against real people. If you are with the right group (or even a bunch of jerks who know what they're doing) you might be surprised at how skilled you can actually become. It's worth experiencing and if you reach the point where you don't like it any more, you can always tell them to FO and just quit.

I've been keeping my eye on this thread, and was suprised there was no discussion about it. I am a novice at the CH-47, but I've noticed this as well. And I'm thinking, "wait, the Chinook shoud be much faster than this!" The LCT becomes saturated at around 140 Knots. Now, it's not like I'm Mr. Helicopter here or anything, but my guess is that once the fuselage starts to pitch down, it becomes a bit unstable. 140 knots is like 260 kph. The Hind, the Hip and the Hokum are also considered fast helicopters, and they are rattling your teeth out at that speed. It would be interesting to hear what somebody that actually knows what they're talking about weigh in on this.

It would have been so much cooler if they had named him "Bob" instead of "George".