S. Low

I have fewer launchers if I use steam. Steam has very good customer-friendly policies for refunds. Steam has very very good file management. I’m not leaving steam.

Hey newy it’d be pretty nifty if those pop up tool tips said which thing it affects more, CPU or GPU. I like that you’re including in the SSAO tip that it’s a “big” gpu hit. helps people figure out what settings they need to adjust

I had a couple crashes when trying to launch instant action missions. Reports were sent. I’m not concerned about it

I skimmed through the patch notes and it seems the instant action missions of most aircraft were updated. Not sure about official missions, training, or campaigns. But they should be. Honestly Ed should drop a patch that changes default cloud setting to new clouds in everything so I don’t have to go through all of my user missions and change the cloud settings

Much appreciated!

Aw no steam sale? But my wallet hurts....

When your whirly bird is up at 8,000 ft because clouds are very very nice. I can't dogfight the p51 to save my life, but it sure looks good before I get shot down

Once the sale hits steam I'll pick up syria. Maybe FC3 too....

No no, thank YOU. *Throws wallet*

Looks incredible and performance (rtx 2080, oc’d i5-9600k, 32gb ram, 1080p track ir) is very good. I kept all my settings the same (some medium , many high and ultra) and then bumped my clouds up to ultra. Only seeing a couple frames lower. Not a noticeable frame loss given that I’m still in the 50-70 range mostly. Bravo.

It’s a good module. Challenging to land but the rest of it is amazing . As to OP’s question, you don’t need rudder pedals for minimum requirement to fly. But you do need them if you intend on putting a great deal of time into being good at flying helos. And further, getting the expensive professional $300 pedals does offer a huge huge improvement in accuracy over the less expensive plastic models.

I believe bignewy already stated that may 31 is a steam placeholder date. June is more likely the ea release date

They made the P instead of D because the infantry is bad, yet they are releasing the Apache this year as well? Anyways I should stop with this endless debate. I always welcome improvements to dcs across the entire scope but I won’t agree that helos are a bad fit for dcs or that the current ai infantry/vehicles arent fun to shoot at and be shot by. Thank goodness ED has made these helos. Cheers

Buy more storage

This thread is getting sillier and sillier. Helos don’t serve a function in dcs? I primarily fly helos. If you remove helos from dcs i will basically stop caring about dcs. And I just don’t care very much at all about multiplayer. Even if I did care I’d just join a group that had a focus on helicopters and appropriate mission design for helos. For example i decided to finally learn the ka-50 that has been collecting dust while I used my other modules. The first campaign I’m sure is very old now but still interesting. First mission has you engage insurgent separatists who are shooting from a crop of woods at your convoy. Come around, Switch to rockets and increase the fire rate and then send a barrage of them into the section of woods where the enemy is firing from. Believable and interesting. Second mission has you do some interesting navigation through foggy mountains and end up providing cas for a mechanized unit attempting to take a fortified separatist village. You use some long range vikhrs to take out the bunkers and then you can sneak around to scout the village or just run in with rockets and 30mil to clean up for the friendly column. So far very fun. I don’t see the problem here? I can do the hinds tactics in the blackshark right now, but I’d prefer to do the rocket and gun runs in the hind, and I’d much prefer to do the atgm sniping in the Apache. The ka-50 is a good placeholder for now. But to my prior point, you simply range out the target and launch a heavy barrage of rockets and break away before getting close. What is the issue? And if certain SA units are just unrealistic in their implementation , simply delete them from a mission. I’m interested in the hind because it’s the hind, because it is a stable attack chopper with a better looking cockpit view. It’s perceived usefulness as a one-man army doesn’t really enter into my analysis. Youll never get an AI that will live up to what you want it to be, and besides it sounds like some of you are trying to make dcs turn into something like arma or squad when it won’t and shouldn’t. I don’t need to transport real humans playing a shooter game to feel interested and engaged in my helo flying. I’ve put over 2,000 hours in arma 2 and 3 doing transport and cas helo missions for dudes playing the shooter side of arma, and dcs with its more realistic FLIGHT simulation is far more compelling to me. The only reason I even consider buying squad is to fly the helos, but after seeing how terrible the flight model is I just don’t care. I’m not flying for the mission, I’m flying to enjoy the airframe. The mission can be accomplished by all sorts of methods and tools. This thread is just complaining to complain I think, especially when most of us here have already pre-purchased the module but haven’t a clue as to the product quality aside from EDs good track record. It’s not out yet and we’re getting into debates as to how it is used? Don’t use it on air quake servers and don’t fly against Sam sites. Problem solved? All I can say is thank goodness ED lends an ear to both multiplayer and single player communities. I’d miss out on tons of awesome stuff if ED only ever made things to satisfy the desires of people playing one specific type of multiplayer game

The tag on this thread now says project on hold.

I’m not active in dcs multiplayer but I’ll say that criticizing “air quakers” for playing a perceived wrong way on a server designed for air quake doesn’t seem right to me. We can all join groups that focus on more realistic mission design if we want to and play on private servers and commit all sorts of time to that realism. Years ago (before my kids) I had devoted probably a couple thousand hours to arma realism squads, writing instructional training documents and leading in game training, going on mock deployments, getting chewed out and receiving in game discipline for doing something in game that would have political consequences in real life , etc etc. Ive enjoyed plenty of time in ultra realism simulation while living alongside the more arcadey servers. And now I particularly appreciate that if I wanted to hop online without much spare time I could just jump into an air quake server and try to practice some notching or other generic bvr stuff. DCS is a highly complex simulation and it’s worthwhile to be able to jump into one aspect of it and practice (imperfectly). So just leave the air quake guys be and go join a team for realism simulation

Most impressive

SWEET

Flying in Afghanistan would probably be less fun than you think. Just go to the mountain ranges in the caucuses and fly mostly around the peaks.

Keep your autopilot modes on, flight director off. Hold trim button while you gently position yourself to fly straight and level. Release trim button. The AP modes help correct all the opposing forces of the whirlybird. Leave them on and get used to flying with them. I’m having to do the same.

Well popping radar dome over a tree line or hill, and the hellfire loft function are real. But I'll be curious to see how DCS implements it.

Sigh, how long does it take? I'm personally more concerned with the flight model and the weapons systems. If this is a very time consuming and tedious part of start up, I personally would not be offended if they offered a "simplified" boresight option for start up procedure.

We don’t sight in any guns on any other aircraft. Is this a maintenance procedure or do pilots have to do this in flight or as part of start up?

Lol yeah it's the 9L. I was at work typing that and didn't realize my mistake. I didn't even think of the rack or when it entered service, that's a great question! Yeah I was thinking 80s. Obviously cold war lasted a couple decades and had different generations of jets. "Late cold war" is probably what I'm looking for. Someone else pointed out that AIM-9M wasn't used by Navy until Gulf war 1 1991, so cold war restricted Navy jets should be using AIM-9L (my example loadouts had a typo of 7L). About the TGP, i'm not sure. Some have mentioned a nightpod or something? So the hornet had some sort of inferior TGP? I think it'd be "close enough" then to use litening pod for the cold war restricted hornet, and leave the ATFLIR for modern ops. Swap out JHMCS for NVGS in editor or at start up I think. Ground crew might give you the option.