liotczik

For me, the current state of cities and buildings in DCS is quite enough, to participate in urban combat. Landing on the rooftops, sliding along roads, between buildings - all of that was done, with enough joy. Actually MP in good 'ol Counterstrike was equally fun as was in Modern Warfare, with all it's eyecandy glory. Agreed on enchanced infantry modelling. However to become AA, you'd have to had the ability to play as infantry. Even now we have AI soldiers on the ground and I wouldn't call current Black Shark an AA clone. Also we have a possibility to drop them from like Mi-8, so the basics are already there. Actually, I find it also amusing ;) With that attitude, I can get twice the joy of flight, as you do :P I can't fly FSX helos, surprised? They are too much away from how they should be and they tend to do different things, than I'd expect from them. Sure, I can take off, fly a distance and land in one piece, but completely without joy and immersion. Instead I fly X-Plane, in a beautifully crafted MD500, and the word is, that the OH-6 Cayuse modification is in the pipeline. Oh, by the way, with working armament :P Still, it's not the same, as it would be in a dedicated combat simulation.

Do I understand right then, that there is absolutely no chance for us to get DCS: AH-64A, because it's not flown anymore? Even for playability and it's popularity sake?

Of course :) I've shot down enough helos, while flying for "the dark side", to be perfectly aware of this. On the other hand, they were flown by not really smart AI. Still, in certain conditions, even they were able to escape in one piece, so it is possible is some situations (and by 'certain conditions' I don't mean, after I was 'winchester'). It's just like evading missiles - sometimes it works and sometimes does not. Maybe after first Ka-50 mods show up ;) Even now there is a switch on collective for A2A missiles, only it's not used. On the other hand I'd prefer to hide, instead of trying to find out, how big that degree is. So, 1 on 1, still it depends on both pilots' skills and surroundings. I've been able to repeatedly outmaneuver badly flown Zero while flying P-39 on the edge (Sturmovik 1946, although I'm fully aware how that looked like over Pacific during the war). Helicopters are sneaky by their nature and not all jet pilots are going to bother playing hide and seek low in the weeds. Sometimes it's enough to evade for some time, to discourage the pursuer by making him bored. Also I don't understand, why everyone is waiting for helos like a cat for a mouse. There is no glory in killing poor slow rotorheads, try someone equal to you - that's a challenge! Or try yourself to fly the Shark properly :P Another thing is, while more realistic radar modelling will help with detecting, I suppose that flying jet fighter in DCS won't be as easy as is in Lomac and that - at least at first - could give Shark pilots a slight advantage. Tell me, how many of you bothered to read Shark's manual? There is a reason, why pilot training takes years. The closer we get to the reality, the more training and knowledge we require to operate out digital aircraft to their full capabilities. That's the most valid point - without RWR and jammers, I'm busted here. That is, until some more modern helo or modded Shark appears ;) Another thing is, that while surely they can lock me up, it's not certain, that they will do so. Many new pilots have trouble detecting even high altitude fast targets. Also they can't seek all the map at once. Actually it would be quite interesting. Imagine that the helicopter flight is the goal of the mission for both sides. One is protecting them in co-op and the other try to prevent helos from like attacking their ground forces. Both escorting your friends (instead of nameless and non flexible AI) and fighting smart and unpredictable enemy (instead of predictable and schematic AI) would contribute to better experience for everyone. Actually joint multi platform missions, with different tasks for both sides, would be more realistic and immersive, than BVR/dogfight/tank busting only skirmishes. I just hope, that not every jet pilot has some kind of grudge against helos and will gladly lend a helpful hand, while blowing up threating enemies from the sky :)

I just can't imagine anyone, who tried this, and was bored ;) Video footage starts at 0:39

From the given descriptions, I think that it's not the VRS, who kills all of you in the first place, while trying to rapidly decelerate. VRS is only a follow up of loss of translational lift, which happens around 60-40km/h. You have to anticipate it and gradually add a good amount of collective before LTL causes high descend rate, which leads to VRS and kills you as a result. The faster you fly and the more rapid deceleration you want to perform, the bigger and more sudden is LTL. That's why you can manage when flying slowly but crashing when flying aggresively, as you can't compensate with collective fast enough and in the exact moment. Also remember, that Black Shark's POH states, that it has never exceed pitch up/down of 60 degrees (let's leave aerobatics alone for a moment). I've encountered 'horizontal VRS' after rapidly exceeding that pitch value. Normally, sometimes I brake dynamically from around 290km/h to zero as fast as possible, with use of sideslips and pitch up and I've never broken anything in a such way, because of adhering to helo's limits and timely executed collective increase. One more word about collective: while LTL may be sudden and quick, do not yank on the collective! Move it quickly, with firm move, but do it smoothly and only as much as is needed.

All the resources I'm familiar with, state, that helicopter pilot is not totally helpless and easy prey for a jet fighter. I've tested some of these ideas in Longbow 2 and Enemy Engaged and they indeed worked! I'm curious, how it would be with DCS quality and attention to details. I don't expect helo to be a threat to a fighter (however heatseekers could change that to some degree), but when skillfully flown, I don't expect it to be only a prey. At least not an easy one. Think about tanks in DCS. They are no longer totally easy prey, as they used to be in previous sims and if they could deploy smoke grenades, they would become even harder nut to crack. Add to this smartly placed area defence assets and you have a problem even with a small platoon.

I fly Enemy Engaged (AH + CH) with Hind mod, as well as mods making the whole sim very similar to Jane's Longbow 2 (mostly sounds and MFD's, but not only). Especially the addition of 'gwut' file made the whole gameplay more realistic and less arcade kill'em'all. For example bullets fly ballistic paths, have time of flight, do a realistic damage - that wasn't the case with vanilla. Currently on the helo-sim market, modded EE is second only to Black Shark and certain payware addons for X-Plane/MSFS. As for the EE2, run away. Fast. The Hind is great. Certainly not at the level of Black Shark, but for sure more real than vanilla EE. Moving map, collimated gunsight (but not HUD, just like in our 'old' Su-25), inertia, even startup procedure is partially simulated. Not to mention working pilot cooling fan :D I'm far from considering it only as a stop-gap before DCS: Hind. It's a real high quality by itself and a highly recommended download. You won't be disappointed, just don't expect walk in a park with this bird :D Don't forget to try Ka-52 also ;) The only one thing, that could be made or modded more, are NVG's. Mods make them better (at last they are usable at all!) but they are still long behind even Longbow 2's NVG. Another essential website for anyone interested in 'newborn' EE is EECH Central http://www.eechcentral.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page On the main page you'll see v1.12 mod to be downloaded. I highly recommend it, as an easy way to get all the community enchancements in one shot.

"Call of Pripyat" lying on my desk - fantasting feeling :) And at the right moment, after like a week of struggle with a certain Black Shark mission ;) It's time to get down and personal for a while :D

You can do it also with fully loaded helo, but only at the very first signs of VRS developing, while rotor is in a state of like half-VRS. Only then you may be able to arrest vertical speed to the point, where remaining rotor thrust is sufficient to blow the vortex down and regain full lift. And while you have less than a second to react in such scenario, it is better to avoid it, than rely on reflex. 50m AGL is enough to recover, if you're quick on controls and immediately start to dive with like 20-30% of collective. That height is enough to accelerate past 50km/h and flatten flight path to avoid deadly crash. The ground effect is indeed really helpful in such scenario - in worst case you'll wreck the helo, but live to tell about it. Not pulling G's, but forcing fast airflow through rotor disc, in an opposite direction to downwash. Most VRS cases will develop at less than 1G load - think what do you feel when starting the elevator down. I've also experienced "horizontal VRS" while hard dynamic braking, which led me to believe, that VRS is modelled in Black Shark in a more complex way, than simple [iF IAS<50 AND VS>5 THEN VRS]

Another faithful one! Welcome aboard :beer:

As I've written: "Of course, most likely you'll have to use 2-3 controls at a time, but these are essentials." Steering coupling is even more visible in helos, than in fixed wings. However even there, you have torque induced yaw, aileron differential yaw, sideslip coupled with bank and so on. It's important to understand, how to use separate controls and integrating them into a complete control system is only after that understanding was achieved. One instructor pilot told me about a student, who was told to turn a Cessna. He banked it 90 degrees and wanted to yank on the stick "like in a computer jet-simulation"... Nothing is simple in aviation ;) In your example, if you want to accelerate - you push 'the speed stick' (cyclic) forward. Basically, what you do, if you push too much, is entering a dive. Then you begin to loose altitude, so you use 'the altitude stick' - collective. And in a dive you begin to accelerate rapidly, because of banging on cyclic. Everything is correct. Combat, or non combat, the flight principles and helo controls always work in the same way, only you use them a bit differently, for different effects. Combat maneuvers only tend to be more aggressive and often uncoordinated on purpose, like in a pedal only turn or sideslip deceleration, where sideslip indicator ball is far away from the center. But still, pedal = direction, cyclic = speed. Back on topic - Eagle, do you have by a chance tracks from said formations flights? You know, a picture is worth a thousand words, but movie is worth a thousand pictures ;)

Cool :) I myself more just fly than fight, because of sweet flight model. Formations will be a lot easier, if you get used to use cyclic to control speed, collective for altitude and rudder for direction (course). Most people (especially at first) use cyclic for direction and altitude, collective for avoiding crashes and pedals maybe in a hover... who needs pedals anyway? ;) Of course, most likely you'll have to use 2-3 controls at a time, but these are essentials. Also use trim, it's easier to let the helo fly by itself and only correct it a little from time to time, than fly it all the way manually. cyclic = speed collective = altitude pedals = direction

Nice pics, serious skills allright :) However these are purely 'airshow' type formations. During combat missions you should have maintained way bigger separations, both in horizontal and vertical. Also diamond formation isn't the best choice, outside of airshows. It has no use for combat and even for cruise isn't the best around, as the trailing a/c has forward view somehow obscured and flies in turbulent air behind preceeding a/c. Horizontal separation is to provide maneuvering flexibility (though I'd say you were more than flexible with accelerometer peaked form 0 to 3g's :P), prevent midair collision (what does it mean "that crash was not planned" in the chat?? :P) and prevent damaging/destroying several helos with one enemy missile/AAA shot. Also it helps keep better surveilance on terrain, because every pilot sees it at a bit different angle, which may help detecting targets/threats. Also 4 small helicopters apart are harder to spot, than 1 whole close group. With the help of ABRIS, I'd say that around 100m is good for cruise and 200-500m or even more for engagement. It confuses the enemy, as to from which direction the attack is coming. Just not split too far away, to maintain mutual support. Vertical separation is something developed especially for Ka-50, in order to prevent damage to other helos, in a case when one of the pilots had to eject (these rotor blades can fly pretty far and unpredictable, when jettisoned). This type of separation also gives a little bit better view coverage, as well as helps to better blend the whole formation into surroundings (to give it a 'wavy' appearance instead of a straight line, because of shapes that are predominant in the nature). While we speak about how combat helicopters use altitude, it is interesting to mention a formation developed by Russian pilots during the first Afghan War. You need at least 3 gunships (although 4 would be better), two flying first and one (two) in overwatch position behind them, on a higher altitude. The first two constantly alternate positions between themselves, while making turns of 30-45 degrees and changing altitudes. Paths of the first two should look like a DNA chain. The trailing helo (or a pair) looks for threats and directs the first pair to engage/evade. The front pair try to be at the same time hard to hit and rain steel of death on the badguys below (that's the reason behind double snake flight paths, as they are both bait and shooters). Imagine, how datalink is useful in such scenario! After some time helos change their positions in formation, to relieve first pair - that's why it's best to have another two trailing, instead of one. Pair-to-pair change is more efficient than moving only one from the front to the overwatch at a time. Some simplified variant of the above would be well known finger-four formation, which I find useful both for cruising and combat. It's the most multipurpose and efficient formation in my opinion. When setting an ambush, you'd probably want to go line abreast, while elongated trail would be a good setup for quick slash attacks or 'circle of death' (think Il-2 ground attack tactics here). Another cruising classic is echelon (also known as stairs), as it combines easy cruising with evasive/split capability. Also while flying NOE, try not to raise dust cluods with rotors - no camouflage or tactics will help, when you're followed by a sand storm :D That are some quick advices for helicopter sims, anyone more interested into helicopter tactical movement and formations should get familiar with FM 1-112 Army Attack Helicopter Operations ("approved for public release; distribution unlimited"), Chapter 1, part 3-7 Movement. Feel free to experiment and remember, that all this knowledge wasn't developed while sitting behind desk, but more likely behind instrument panel ;)

I wish, that armored vehicles (or any ground units capable of) would deploy smoke grenades and shift position, when under attack.

AH-64A not good enough?? :shocking: Being Jane's Longbow 2 veteran myself, I mostly flew A variant anyway and would love to try it again, even with the old school gauges cockpit.

He posted track from the sim, asked about sim and I haven't flown real Ka-50 so far, so I think it's OK to speak about proper procedure that way ;) Nice find :) However take note, that this technique applies to a heliport (which means obstacles next to the helipad, as indicated on middle picture, page 12) or elevated helipad (think oilrig or skyscraper) only. In such scenarios you want first to move away from possible trouble makers, and only then begin take off itself. Compare it to taking off from a frigate, where first you lift off, then fly sideways to clear ship's structure and then begin to accelerate. In such scenario, helipad visibility is important because it's pilot's only reference point, with distant features being obscured by obstacles and/or terrain/sea hundreds of feet below. Also, you want your tailrotor as far as possible fromsaid obstacles (like wall or rocky slope), so it's best to move away flying backwards. Given the facts, that Ka-50 FARPs do not have high structures around, usually close behind you is another helicopter and Shark has exceptionaly poor visibility to the rear, I think it's safer to take off with 'clear airfield procedure' from your pdf. Additionaly, it's easier to perform. Search Youtube for videos of taking off and landing helicopters, as an additional training source, this one being my favourite: (yes, elevated helipad procedure in action :D) (clear field procedure, for comparison ;)) Another thing is, that this pdf clearly shows proper helo take off and landing profiles, with regards to safety and preventing fatal crash in engine failure scenario. Ascending and descending vertically is a bad idea (sadly, sometimes there is no choice).

If you're interested, why you ought to take off like that, here is more info on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height-velocity_diagram http://www.dynamicflight.com/flight_maneuvers/takeoffs/

I've loaded your track file and here are my remarks written hot while watching (some will overlap with what was already said): 1) Use ground power and notify the tower on what you're doing, if you want more realism. 2) By all means don't fly that high up vertically! Engine failure and you're busted. Proper technique for a helo take off is to: - lift off vertically no more than 10m and check if engines work correctly and you're not overloaded, check power settings needed for hovering, if all the needles are where they should be - retract gear and begin to accelerate forward while holding height of no more than 10-15m, try not to lower the nose more than -10 degrees - you may begin ascent after you've hit 80km/h - I've never heard of flying back to see the helipad. Note, that while hovering over center of it, you can see enough of it to perform emergency landing. For me that backward movement looked more like too much pitch up on lift off. 3) Watch your airspeed and rotor rpm. That warning lights and sounds are for a reason. Also try not to force EEG to limit engines because of too much torque. Get a habit of periodical monitoring of all the gauges and caution panels while in flight. F.e. use blade pitch gauge to see hom much collective you can pull up - you tend to pull up too much => helo accelerates past Vne and engines gets limited, which causes low rotor rpm. 4) Be more gentle with controls. Aircraft, and helos especially, doesn't like jerking on the stick & co. Move quickly but smoothly instead on instant large deflections. Make 10 small moves instead of 1 big. 5) Don't use trim reset feature while in flight (on the ground it's OK, to quickly prevent helo from rolling, after you've landed). 6) Watch your vertical speed indicator, you've rarely flown at a constant altitude. Watch your altimeter - generally you don't want to fly high. 7) ABRIS was all the time on main page and PVI-800 wasn't set to anything (I don't know if it was the case or track shows incorrectly). Use them, as they are really helpful. 8) When making a turn with some forward speed, first bank and after you feel, that helo begins entering the turn, add some rudder to balance sideslip. That is different from most aircraft, where you have to use stick and rudder at the same time while entering a turn. Also you can't totally eliminate the sideslip while fying straight, but try to minimise it. 9) Don't trim by rapid pressing on the button. Instead press and hold, establish desired attitude, wait for the helo to settle there and only then release trim button. Proper trimming method combined with gentle controls inputs will help you avoid oscillations, which were even bigger by flying that fast. 10) When you want to lower your altitude, use collective, instead of dropping the nose down! Remember, that nose is for setting airspeed and rotors are for the altitude, not the other way. As a side note, the same is true for fixed-wings (diving aside, as it's a different maneuver). Pitch for speed and throttle for altitude, that's the correct way of maintaining proper landing approach profile. 11) Why extending the gear at about 290 km/h IAS, while the limit is on max 200? They could get damaged that way - by no means gear should be used as air brakes. Overall, not bad, it's just the small things that need improvement :) Treat the above, as friendly instructor constructive ctiticism. Play around for a while, get used to Ka-50, try in person what was said and post another track for evaluation ;)

I've just come up with an idea, that there could be an additional option for multiplayer, where players could mark next to their names how they prefer to fly (like red icon for aggressive Rambo or blue for sneaky Fantomas and more) and what type of crewmember they would like the most - calm and checklist maniac pilot could make a good team with razor wild gunner. That way they could compose crews with the right attitudes, just like people tend to play on servers, where they feel comfortable with the usual company. Right now it's even more wild, because wingman can fly to where he wants and when you discover he's gone, it may be too late. In a two seater at least that wouldn't happen ;) Also imagine how great training tool would be to introduce a two seater! You fly and instructor immediately gives you feedback on your performance, instead of evaluating track file and posting opinions on a forum. And if you think it's insane, know that we have here one guy, who learns people online, how to fly and fight in Sturmovik series. Graduating from his school is considered somehow prestige, so it could be done, in terms of playability. Another thing is Hovercontrol.com. Actually you can sign up there and ask for a multiplayer ride with an instructor sitting in another helo. He watches you and gives you feedback. After you pass an exam, you'll get your virtual "certified pilot" wings - kind of very nice feature. I would love to see a DCS module devoted solely to training, featuring something like BAe Hawk and all the missions and campaign reflecting training syllabus for air force pilots. Most likely that won't ever happen, but it would save newbies a lot of hard work in order to find resources and learn them. Maybe we could see more numbers of educated, kind of professional virtual pilots, if our training was done in some organised manner instead of 'every man for himself'? You may be surprised, but studies have shown, that it's easier to communicate for two people who know English only as a second language, than for English native speaker and a non-native. I can confirm that, as far as my experience goes. By far I don't want to argue with you, Lucas, as your points are also somehow valid. It's just I remember sims like Gunship 2000 and Solo Flight and when I compare them to the modern sims, I see that "the best is yet to come". And that's the source of my enthusiasm :)

You're right :) However, I think it could be possible (because it was done before) to make AI copilot\gunner. The question is how to make an aircraft, which is controlled both by player and AI and how to adapt current AI to suit into that, as I don't know, if DCS engine would support that. I've got some ideas, how it could be done to work nice, sadly I'm not a modder nor a programmer and can't make them happen :( As for language barrier in multiplayer, operational brevity words come to my mind. Afterall you don't have to discuss Shakespeare in the middle of a battle ;) The more serious problem, in my opinion, would be finding right person for the job. The way the multiplayer works, I can't imagine flying with anyone random. Flying f.e. Apache calls for cooperation and some degree of profesionalism, instead of 'flying left - shooting right'. However my brother, who is mostly FPP fan, really enjoyed being a door gunner and was surprisingly good with TADS/M230, so you never know :D I understand, that whatever plane we discuss, there will be always one group supporting it and another unhappy with it, but I think of it as of a glass of water: for me it is half full, and not half empty ;) I'm happy just because there is a company dedicated to producing high quality sims. As for the Little Egg (or Teardroppy as we usually call it), I have to live with Ka-50 + gunpods for now ;) Anyone here familiar with 'Vietnam Medevac'? Not a true sim, but not a silly arcade either. Certainly one of my top favourites.

Then concentrate on the most important things. - break left, so you can watch both bandits and RWR with more ease (TrackIR or at least mouselook is a must here !!) - stop fiddling with search radar in close quarters. Put it into boresight, or even better into vertical scan, and stick your eyeballs outside, so all you have to do in order to lock them up, is to pull your nose around (and with vertical scan all you might need is bank...) - master the RWR, as it's more to it than only a warning device. It can provide you with a lot of well organised and easy to handle critical data. - practice aerobatics. It's not a joke, as you'll find it a useful ability to perfectly fly the aircraft, without being glued to the HUD all the time. How many times you've lost it all, while looking around shoulder for a longer period of time? After some practice and gaining muscular memory, you'll be even able to more or less straighten up or recover the plane while being blackouted. As for the tacview replay, I prefer external cameras, because they show three dimensional world, instead of a map. I watch the same engagement from my, bandit's and missiles' perspectives and then formulate conclusions. Also Youtube is a great source of education videos. Often I could spy really interesting ideas and moves inthe most ordinary and plain-looking footages :) Also I use labels, although modified ones. I've checked with normal labels, how far I can see the dot being vehicle, ship, rocket or airplane and noted the max visibility distances. Then I've made my labels so they show only apostrophe, beginning at that max range. Basically, I've only enchanced the dot as if it was without labels, only bigger and a little easier to notice.

Akhem, AH/MH-6 and Pucara are also dualseaters, the first one being multirole too ;)

As was said before, X-Plane is much better suited for such endeavours. Possibly you could mod some files to achieve it, but it would be like using a microscope to hammer nails. Yes, although you need some preparations. Do you want car with wings or antigravity vehicle? Do you want it to be as 'realistic' as possible or totally science fiction? Also you need to know some basic concepts of creating flying machines in general, so you know what you're doing (more or less, but still). Creating totally new construction is actually harder, than replicating an existing one, because you don't have any data to begin with. Actually I've owned a flying bus for FS9, so why not? :D X-Plane users are known to build radio control models, out of identical X-Plane aircraft, that have demonstrated flying characteristics close to their digital protoplast. Don't expect everything to be right on the spot, but indeed you can evaluate your project that way to some, not so small, degree. Sadly, X-Plane doesn't model ornithopters, apart from that you are free to experiment with anything else. Jets, props, helos, zeppelins, gliders, rockets, orbiters, biplanes, triplanes, double coaxials, assymetric... You name it. Be sure to check out HPM aircraft: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=9708 http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=7527 http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=6976 http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=6927 !!!! http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=6365 http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=5446 http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=5340 He's the real artist when it comes to unusual custom designs. Curiosity is fantastic element of human nature. Don't let it rust and discover the world of aviation as much as you like :) And if someone says "curiosity killed the cat", just send them a present from me, possibly a laser guided one ;)

Here's a little simple engagement I used to gain proficiency at evading missiles. It's a hardcore version, where you have to survive a medium range head on with MiG-29S armed with 4x R-77 and 2x R-73. Your F-15C has only bullets for the gun and consider shooting bandit down only as an additional bonus (it is possible but not easy) :) For now let's leave dogfighting for another occasion. The name of the file comes from this, I've used it in the opposite way. But even now it is possible to dodge 4 missiles (he won't have the opportunity to shoot them all) and get away in one piece. One word of advice though - he's also got a gun and is set to Expert ;) Feel free to modify it as you like. I suggest changing some of the following parameters and see how much impact they will have on the engagement and it's outcome: - initial distance - offset and aspect - general altitude / altitude difference - time of day / weather (clouds!, also pay attention to where the sun is) - loadouts (f.e. try to get yourself a pair of AIM-9's and see why it is wise to carry not only AMRAAMS) - plane types - AI skill level - try the same scenario with or without countermeasures - put AI in your place and see how it does ;) - try 1 vs 2, 2 vs 2 and 4 vs 4 scenarios Try to watch tracks from at least the most interesting fights, to get the idea how things work in relation to each other, what made you evade and what caused a shotdown. Turn ON wingtip smoke and labels, if necessary. Use external cameras, because it's often hard to see everything from the cockpit, especially at first (that last is also true for the RL pilots, spatial orientation is gained with experience). aim120 test.zip