Hunter_5E

Here's an instance when it was just too late and a hard landing was inevitable - or was it? Could the pilot have escaped using the Vuichard technique if he'd quickly realised his situation and acted quickly enough? Hard to tell but probably unlikely so close to the ground. You'd need serious ninja reflexes to escape that one. Bell 412 settling with power Also, was that vortex ring state or settling with power? Hard to tell definitively but I would guess most likely vortex ring, given the hard flare at the end. Strangely enough, Transport Canada makes distinction between the two whereas both the FAA and EASA consider them to be the same thing. I find it a bit disconcerting that they don't all agree. I was trained in Canada so I agree with their opinion that there's a distinction between the two. I can't remember the exact definition they gave but consider this situation:- A Robinson R22 with two big guys onboard approaching a mountain top landing. Pilot doesn't do a power check before committing to landing. He makes a perfect approach at a shallow angle but as he exits translational lift over or near the landing spot, he finds that even with full power he can't keep from sinking to the ground. He's not in vortex ring at this point, just found himself outside the performance envelope of the aircraft at that altitude - the aircraft is settling with power. So essentially settling with power occurs when the performance limit of the aircraft has been exceeded in a hover or below translational lift speeds. That's my understanding of it - feel free to post the correct definition if mine is a bit off. Interesting topic. Any thoughts on this?

Came across this on YouTube today. Brilliant footage of a Lama flying with a spraying rig to visualise how a vortex ring behaves and demonstrate how to escape it. Well worth a watch.

There is a very good FARP mod by Suntsag that requires no ground units or anything - just place one of his FARP objects and you got a fully functioning FARP. They are very compact and sit at ground level and they come in a few different sizes. I use them all the time now as I like them much more than the default FARPs in DCS. Check them out here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273049 ( post # 8 ) To see what ground units are required to enable various FARP services on default FARPs, look in the "DCS User Manual EN 2020.pdf" which is in the "Doc" folder in your DCS install. Pages 308 and 309.

This worked briefly during a recent version of open beta but has since stopped working again. There is an .lua file specifically for this so I'm assuming it's supposed to be a working feature? @BIGNEWY - please can you ask if this function can be activated again? It would be great as currently the caution lamps are huge in full screen view (even more so on triple screens) and cover the whole top half of the screen. Thanks. Recent thread discussing this issue:- https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285458

Still learning... played around some more and realised I had to split the "Do Script" into two parts to allow spawning in multiple instances of the same group. Having them in the same script box is why the first ones deleted when spawning in the next ones. Essentially I took the first line from the script and made it run on mission start. That basically declares that "Tanks" are a global spawnable object. (I think... correct me if my terminology is wrong) Then I put the second line on its own to run when the F10 menu item is used. Voila, multiple spawns without deleting the first ones. Mission file below for anyone who may be interested. F10 Spawns Moose Test 2.miz

Ah ok, I don't have the Harrier myself so assumed it suffered from the same restrictions as other fixed wing. My bad.

Here are the two pages detailing what ground support equipment is needed for a default FARP to function. Came from latest manual "DCS User Manual EN 2020.pdf" from the "Doc" folder inside DCS.

The Harrier can land almost anywhere you want, it's "Takeoff from ground" and "Takeoff from ground hot" that are not possible without a small mod. Perhaps that's what you meant? Check out this thread here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=286616 Should have the info you need.

Using a "FLAG IS MORE" condition should do the trick. In the screenshot example I set a start flag on first and used 3 APC's instead of troops. Each APC increases the flag value by 30 as they enter the zone, so 90 total if all are in the zone. (Actually 91 as flag started out with value of 1) Then I used a "FLAG IS MORE" condition to trigger a "Message to all", if the flag value goes over 80. Triggers as soon as the third APC enters the zone. Hope that helps. EDIT: Posted mission example as well in case you want to look at it. Made in DCS stable. Flags Test Mission.miz

After watching "MOOSE for Dummies - 1. Mission Editor and Script" I played around and made a simple test mission to see how it works with spawning stuff from the F10 Radio Menu. Very easy to do and works very well. You do need to use "Switched Condition" for the F10 Radio Menu items to make them repeatable. I used a Ka-50 as the client aircraft but if you don't have it, just change the aircraft type in the editor so you can sit in it and see the tanks spawn in front of you after you use the F10 menu "Tanks" item. Tanks are same coalition so they won't shoot at you. Tanks will spawn a second or two after using the F10 menu. If you use it again while the first spawns are still alive, they will be deleted and the new ones will spawn in at the original position. You can spawn them as many times as you like. Try it out. Test mission below, made in DCS stable version, in case you don't use openbeta. F10 Spawns Moose Test.miz

Check out this thread here:- https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270982 Should be what you need.

From what I've read and seen in youtube vids, you can't infinitely spawn units or groups from the F10 menu using mission editor alone. That requires scripting with MOOSE or MIST apparently. You can set up a whole bunch of late activated units or groups in the mission editor and spawn each one in sequence. Once they're all spawned in that's it, no more. Not sure exactly how it would be done though as I haven't tried it myself. Don't know if you would use switched condition or once.

Mine works fine without another trigger to turn off the flag. I haven't got a lot of other stuff going on at the same time though. Maybe that makes a difference? Anyway, glad you got it working dmatt76 :thumbup:

Here is a good source for mission editor tutorials - made by Suntsag. This is where I learned about these things. Good place to check out.

Sorry, I assumed you were using the "Sound to" like most people do with the "F10 Radio Item". You did say "Radio Transmission", my bad. The principle is the same though. If you set it up as a "Switched Condition", that is what makes it repeatable. Here is how I set it up and it works repeatably from the F10 radio menu.

To enable placing them dynamically while flying the mission, make sure you tick the box for "F10 User Map Marks" in the Mission Options tab in mission editor. If that check box is not ticked, you can't place markers while playing the mission.

Use a "Switched Condition". That makes it repeatable.

Seems like this only worked for one open beta version - broken again since the following updates. @ED moderators - please could you ask if this function can be enabled again? Since there is an .lua file specifically for this I'm hoping it will be simple to get it going again? Makes a big difference in full screen mode as currently the indicators are huge and spread across the whole top of the screen. Would be great if we could size and position them again. Thanks.

Came across this on youtube yesterday. A woman who is command pilot in a Blackhawk and co-pilot in a Chinook at age 19. That's good going by anyone's standards - respect. Of course it helps that her dad and uncle own Billings Flying Service and she started flying at 13 but hey, still a more than respectable achievement. I'll bet she's a heck of a good pilot as well having started so young. Teen Helicopter Pilot Fight California Wildfire: Meet 19-year-old Ashli Blain Edit: If you come across other stories of inspirational women in flying, please add them to this thread. Let's hear it for the girls :thumbup:

Peoples. I would like to offer a sincere apology at this point for pretty much being responsible for fanning this little flame into an inferno. I over reacted and I'm very sorry for that. Perhaps someone else would have done it anyway if I hadn't but I was in first so take responsibility. Backstory:- I'd had a crap couple months of chasing people over various "financials" and had several of them blatantly lie to me on multiple occasions, saying they'd done things when they clearly hadn't. Told me what they thought I wanted to hear just to get me off their backs - despite the fact that I'd been totally calm and courteous on every call with them. Ended up costing me money - not a lot thankfully but enough to be infuriating. After all that I was wound pretty tight at the time I read Polychop's post on FB. No excuse I know. One of the golden rules of forum etiquette is never to "post angry". I ignored that, my bad. Won't happen again. One thing I would like to say to the Polychop guys however - you need to take a moment before posting news like that. Your original post on FB came across as "OMG we're screwed! We've no idea what happened and we're getting no help!" When in actual fact it turned out to be "We've hit a snag and it's fairly major, but we're on top of it and ED are helping us work through it. We'll get back on track soon enough." Pretty big difference between your initial panic posting and what actually happened. I'm not trying to take blame away from me over reacting - just saying that we ALL need to consider what we post and how it will be perceived by others. If you'd taken a moment and posted what really happened instead of that impulsive panic posting, I probably would have gone "Dammit, that's it blown for this year!" and moved on, even though I was wound tight at the time. Anyways, sincere apologies again. Best wishes to all.

Hi Newy, Not having a go at you here as I know your job is to keep the peace and maintain some order here - which you do with great aplomb. Cudos and respect to you there. I certainly don't wish to think the worst of ED, not at all. I'm a big fan of the sim. We can't escape the fact however that the code changes in question weren't something cooked up overnight. ED must have known a good while ago that these could potentially derail the Kiowa project, yet seemingly they didn't reach out to the team early enough... only after the damage was done. Unless we haven't got the full story? If not, please enlighten us. If ED did mess up, a simple acknowledgement that "Yes, we dropped the ball on this one." would go a long way towards making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside again. Trying to brush it aside like nothing happened and nothing went wrong is bound to raise some hackles. Honest and open communication is the key to maintaining harmony. People are much more likely to forgive and forget if they are given the truth straight up. If you mess up, fess up. Then we can all move on in peace. I learned that lesson early in life and it has served me well. Please just keep us updated with honest and accurate news.

Screenshot 1: Outputs text message and optionally a sound message to all after group destroyed. Screenshot 2: Outputs text message and ends the mission after group is destroyed. (Condition = "Group Dead" for groups) Screenshot 3: Outputs text message and ends the mission after static object destroyed. (Condition = "Unit Dead" for statics) If you want to have the action triggered when more than one group or static object destroyed, just use the "NEW" button under the middle box "CONDITIONS" and add the other groups or statics. If you use the "End Mission" option, it will reload the same mission or the next in the list immediately after triggered. Use the "Message to all" option if you want to stay in the mission after it is completed and choose when to leave it.

Where did you read that? There is nothing on their FB page to confirm they've spoken to ED. We can hope and assume that they have spoken with them by now, that's all. It is not written anywhere though. No pitchfork here, just disappointed at the apparent lack of teamwork and communication on ED's behalf. A courteous forewarning could have saved the Polychop team a lot of stress. To get back to Sirrah's original post - accurate news posted here would help avoid rumours and speculation.

On reflection I can understand why the team only posted on Facebook and didn't get round to posting that news here as well. They're just still shell shocked and scrambling to figure out how to proceed after having their project properly torpedoed. To the Polychop team:- We (I'm sure I speak for the majority here) feel your pain over this setback and wish you all the best in getting yourselves back on track. Hopefully ED will step up and offer some help in working through the issues. It's the least they can do under the circumstances. Please do update us here on the forum when you can. We are all keen to see you do well.

I'm struggling to understand why ED didn't warn Polychop of the potentially show stopping code changes in advance. Now they say they're having to figure it out for themselves as well. Haven't even been given the details after the fact. I'm sorry but I have to say that is just a ridiculous situation to put them in. Way to go ED...