Richard Dastardly

SHAR was built around the GR3, which would be the AV-8A in the USMC - rather different aircraft to the Harrier II we have at the moment. They at least have a tested system for vectored thrust, that'd save a bit of work... it'd probably be less work to do a GR3 fro the SHAR afterwards than to do a SHAR from the AV-8B.

Because sometimes when there's a large amount of information you pick something you're vaguely familiar with to have a starting point - but there may be something remarkablel you miss by doing that until it's pointed out. I haven't actually flown the F-86 in this sim, but Gen 1 jets aren't really all that different to mid-40s props systems-wise other than the obvious propulsion management. The F-18 is a UFO in comparison, and automation everywhere - does have the disadvantage as the modern multirole jet of making everything else redundant though.

Nice - it's about time! 1986 is too long ago for comfort. Would be good to get another western European airframe ( long combat record too ) but I'll take anything interesting.

Going to throw a curveball in & suggest Viggen, simple startup, can take waypoints off the map in mission if you don't want to work the computer out ( not that it's difficult ) and the weapons go from very simple to stimulatingly complex. Advantage over the F-5 is actual nav computer, otherwise the F-5 is fantastic ( if a bit *too* basic at times ).

I think we're both forcefully agreeing at this point :) the distinction between helicopter & aircraft shouldn't need to be made, frankly, they're both just airframes ( and really it should be the same for CA tanks or any other vehicle ) - just have a vehicle check for a compatible resource storage / facility in range & let it reload/rearm/repair. Realistically many aircraft have been prepared for operations from FARPs, not just the obvious Harriers but far more conventional aircraft have operated from improvised runways. Not knowing the depths of how DCS goes about things I don't know what precisely the role of an airbase ( field or FARP ) is, it might be simple to decouple or require massive surgery... Anyway that's enough of that.

Navy Lynx would bring radar/torpedos/depth charges/antiship missiles as well as being super fast & agile - the Lynx has the conventional heli speed record, albeit not the Navy one ( and you can squeeze a few troops in ). I'd prefer any heli to have a bit of a niche, so a MH-53 rather than a CH-53 for instance... or a SeaKing from a particular period like the Falklands, or something else from a particular period. I probably wouldn't bother with a standard Blackhawk, as an example & I fly rotary more than anything at the moment...

You can only rearm helicopters at FARPs, you don't get the option to try if you land an aircraft there.

Yes, you've said rather more clearly what I was trying to say :) I just want to rock up in vicinity of a particular vehicle / temporary structure /whatever and be able to rearm/refuel, no matter where it is. You can't do anything at all to aircraft off an airbase currently even at a FARP, and having to set FARPs down to work on helicopters seems an unnecessary complication. Legacy issues might make decoupling "warehouses" from bases a bigger job than we think, but it would make life simple for us ( and *possibly* streamline code... after all this time it's quite possible it'd add complications! ).

Haven't tried in a while, but I had it happen on PGAW every time ( the right engine failing to start ) when I was there regularily. Not on other busy servers ( like the somewhat related GAW ).

SHAR 2 had the radar from the Tornado IDS, and ended up with stuff like Link-16 ( iirc anyway ) and AMRAAM as well as more AIM-9s. The SHAR 1 is more like a VTOL F-5 - had a radar from the naval Lynx, which is not exactly a platform intended for looking for air threats! the only real relation between them was they're both Harriers. If there's a full set of assets for one conflict that would be quite something ( not only that but for other Cold War scenarios at least with the British parts ) but actually whether it makes sense to do an Argentine M3 or a more generic export M3 is a reasonable discussion still. Doing a full asset set even with this limited scenario - 2x different Harriers, M3, Pucara, Lynx, Seaking? Puma? Invincible, Hermes, 3-4 escort ship types with a mix of missile systems that need to work, AI Nimrod / Canberra / Learjet / Etendard & exocet... that's a big job for one team. And that's ignoring whether they can depend - in a commercial aspect - on the Skyhawk being around & similarily for other unguaranteed community assets. If it's possible in DCS to do a modular approach they could do both for the M3, perhaps. If it's cockpit mods & weapons fits & some tweaked systems then that should be possible without *too* much work if it's designed in from the start.

You can use them as NDBs, set frequency & start transmitting as waypoint actions - but not as TACAN yet.

Nice, thanks - it is the sort of thing you'd do as a break as a modeller ( perhaps ) so expected, but I wanted to show at least one person thought it was important :) As a last one: * People for years have wanted to rearm aircraft at FARPs/on roads - rather than adding any complexity to FARPs can we somehow detach the dependency of warehouses from bases and just have rearming/fuelling/repair based on proximity to the structure/vehicle? that'd mean you could just rearm by arriving next to a suitable ammo truck without any other complication.

* Tree/tree shading improvements - currently certain sorts of light will make trees glow in entirely the wrong directions for the light, which I've seen in other engines using planar trees ( and has been fixed by adjusting shaders ). I seem to remember some render updates coming anyway? but trees & other vegetation do need work I think to bring them up to modern standards. Quite a few of us spend most of our time dodging trees rather than dodging clouds. * Update some of the older AI models; they don't have to be the fidelity of a 2019 module model, but picking a random example, the Tu-142 for instance definitely looks like something out of a couple of decades ago or modelled in an hour in Sketchup. Perhaps this could be partly a community effort? A lot of structures look equally like something from the 90s. * Oft-wished broader selection of ground units - but I also understand how that is an issue with CA. Perhaps just a bunch of outer models you can't enter in CA first & then add the interactivity later? either way just something to flesh the ground out. The vegetation issue is mostly something for the gfx engine team ( vegetation is a lot more than just modelling a tree ) but I did try and look for other things that the modellers might want to work on as a quickish break from high detail work.

That applies to everything else in the conflict - Lynx HAS2 ( Falklands only, HAS3 soon after ) vs HMA8 ( GW2, Afghanistan, export ones still used and rather more capable ), Harrier? we don't have a Harrier with a radar at all so there's no British CAP fighter yet ( and in fact even if you allow land aircraft somehow there's *still* nothing ); but the SHAR2 radar was *vastly* better than the SHAR1. No Etendard so no Exocet... no Sea Dart, no Sea Wolf, no Sea King. If there's going to be other period specific modules then it makes sense to match them but if it's just the usual piecemeal then it's probably best to go with what has most data, I guess?

Quite some time ago now ( like, 2017? ). I don't think many people are going to turn down a big heli, my personal opinion is that it needs a unique feature though ( hence why I was backing the MH-53 over the CH ). Would put a ( Naval ) Lynx over a big chopper though, myself.

WebGCI is down until further notice. More fun without, IMO.

Hey, Had a fair bit of experience with embedded lua in a couple of different game engines, this one seems a bit different to usual. I'm looking for a way of splitting a task up over several cycles so a long-running operation doesn't stall the game engine ( or server engine in this case ) out, as I've seen apparently happen recently; usually I'd do that by building a closure with a list of functions and executing them in order in the engine's lua frame tick handler ( which is often also the game engine physics tick ), but this one doesn't seem to have an equivalent handler. Is repeatedly scheduling tasks a fraction of a sec into the future really the only way of doing this? is it possible and then safe to use coroutines? Edit: after browsing some more of other people's code coroutines certainly seem usable - safe is not so easily discovered.

Did the fix make it's way into today's patch? don't have time to test properly atm.

Have to put the aircraft in A-G mode now ( which is in the very recently updated Chuck guide ). I have had moments where I couldn't actually get it in A-G mode & had to land & rearm, but I can't systematically duplicate that... generally it's very straightforward though.

You have to put the height of the tallest tree in the area in somewhere...

Ah, it's not me - been trying to learn the Viggen & beating myself up about this not working.

Mi-8. Ka-50 seems like a spaceship in comparison ( meanwhile the Gazelle flies like a spaceship ). The Huey is simple to start up, goes wop-wop-wop & doesn't need the forethought the Hip needs, but it's also annoyingly unstable & sloooow. The Mi-8 also has a huge selection of weapons you can use to completely miss anything you try and shoot at. Ka-50 is a really competent attack asset, but doesn't feel a lot like a helicopter most of the time. I have all of them & fly all of them, but I tend to use the Russian pair most.

Learn to taxi, then to take off, then to land, then to fire the simplest weapon, then progressively more complicated ones ( which will usually involve learning avionics in chunks too ), then navigation and then finally defensive systems now you can find your way to a fight. Then you need to learn to fly it properly, which isn't in the manual... But as everyone said, a bit at a time.

Well, I'd like a Lynx too - a naval one going to be essential for any Falklands asset set anyway ( and please whoever does it get that incredibly angry sound of the older ones ones right, never heared another heli like that ) - but a MH-53 has added value in other areas. I'd agree if whatever heavy heli was just a utility aircraft, given the way the west doesn't really arm heavy helis the same.

I'll second this - MH-53 is out of service too, so possibly less to get in the way. Full TFR & all the fun night-flying stuff *and* a big heavy-lift heli sounds a really fun combo. Sure it's a niche compared to CH-53 or a Chinook, but it's got more gadgets & can still do much the same job. Doesn't fully overlap with the Mi-8 or the incoming Hind, either.