Pikey

Would agree with above. Blue Flag can be hard for people new to DCS. Also, when you are out of fighter lives you can still do reconnaissance work on the free TF-51. Also other people with more modules may have a few more lives to spend on attackers and helicopters. But Blue Flag isnt the simulator, its a group of guys that work hard to put a good game together for the last few years. There is a vast choice in server and you can make your own games togehter and no need to depend on a single server.

You know home plate is at the end. :)

I started writing a guide on how to approach a module and it was too much work. I dont think there is any way past familiarisation with cockpit > bindings > familiarisation with the handling >bindings > All the Lessons in order > cold cockpit startup test > Combat >third bindings review > iterate. If you go off piste, fine, but everything has an order. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate. Just people get it wrong. You cannot do any combat until you can fly, that's all there is to it. To fly, you need to be able to startup, fly to specific place, come back and land. For multiplayer, add in communicate and you are set. Maybe there are some things in there to drop in via experience, like binding comms, kneeboard and familiar keys but I'm somewhat jaded with learning aircraft ever since the Mirage 2000, every week you had a new feature and a changed process and eventually it gets hard to unlearn and relearn. The F-18 and F-16 taught me to not study BVR first for bindings, since close dogfighting modes need to be fastest and most natural on your HOTAS. This isnt about DCS as much as how to approach a complex task that requires many hours work. There are some things that can be done better, but honestly, not that much, most of the effort has to come from yourself.

You missed the absolutely obvious imo. Why does a normal flying skill need a cheat difficulty feature added? Genuine practice on a common required flying skill, is normal, that's why so many people are doing laps of the boat right now, to improve their case1. It's no different to "landing", "taking off", "flying formation". It's superfluous. Not needed. The often posited counter is, "Why not?" The counter-counter is, "Where does it stop, you cannot have all the things, you have to choose". I could also ask for autotrim for my P-51, Landing rollout assistance on my Spitfire, automatic temperature control for cowl, oil and carb flaps on the P-47. It never crossed my mind to request a cheat feature as it would irrevocably damage the point of the game/sim. Your arguments and counters in turn 1. I didn't read that one, I don't agree with it as a reason, but I'll be damned if you could call AAR a game, I find it is very tedious. Why are people even asking for this!? :( I have thousands of hours over 12 years in this product and at no stage did I think, "You know what I need in my life... I need more AAR, it's holding me back in life." 2. If anyone actually did any proper fuel planning, they would realise there is very little use for AAR outside of empty fuel launches and CAP stations. The list of people doing these tedious activities is mutually exclusive of the list of people that cannot spend enough time to practice AAR. People taking up empty fuel instead of weapons, that is funny, see it all the time on BlueFlag. Yeah, fuel tanks dont exist, pylons are for weapons apparently. At least for those people who have 30 mins max to spend. Who are these people doing laps for 3-4 hours on a CAP station at best endurance in these forums? Own up, we need to identify you so you can go on a list at Interpol. Show me a flight plan, now, from someone that cannot AAR, with a refuelling plan on a DCS map. They don't exist. Fairies. Either that or there are groups of people flying sorties in DCS with p1ss bags. Come on! 3. Is entirely infered by people feeling threatened. It's not said or even implied, it's mistaken for advice on 'keeping practicing'. If you want to quote individuals saying that, fine, I do not agree with the tone or people saying it. But when someone says "practice is the answer", this is not the same as 'git gud' whatever that really means. Everyone who does AAR had to practice. Some more than others. Some have controllers that arent great. I was one of those. I do not believe it is unfair to say keep trying, rather than institute a crutch. Maybe I was bullied into 'no stabilizers on my bike', and I'm a terribly damaged individual with scars on their knees. Or maybe scars on the knees shows you tried. If something is worth doing, it's worth spending all the time it needs. Earn some scars. Don't damage the feeling of success by widening the goal posts. The victory would be hollow. But it is really a hollow victory, you dont need to AAR and can get by without it. I've also got news for you folks that cannot yet AAR that you will NOT like to hear. You get rusty if you dont practice! 4. See point 2. It is still not required. Show me a fuel plan from a person here that cannot AAR and says they need an automation, for a mission. I want to see these folks being airborne for more than 90 minutes at a time to believe they exist. Otherwise tell me fairies exist. 5. You just made that up on the spot. There is no public evidence to suggest "Easy AAR" is WIP. If we are going to make things up, let's imagine a world full of peace and beauty where people could AAR all day long because they had a VKB+extension, motor-neurone diseases didnt exist, everyone had VR and so on. Inventing stories is not part of reasoned debate and you made me use sarcasm to reinforce that, which is sad :( 6. Agree. There is no connection. DCS has long wanted to capture a broader audience. They've made mild strides with documentation, accessibility, localisation, easy modes, videos, but as soon as it gets to a feature where it automates part of the flying, they are stuck because the purpose of a simulator is to fly it, and quite frankly it's hard to design an auto AAR system that doesn't entirely trash the concept. Proximity fuelling? Flying over a base? No what was asked for was some sort of driving assistance and you cannot force the driving of a plane any other way than clientside when in multiplayer, there are big SP-MP differences in what you can do due to security. AAR cheat is not a "FREE" option. People need to get that out of their heads. It's free to wish for, its not free to deliver. A common counter argument is about people having choices, which in principal is correct, in a world where literally everything is free with no consequences. People are not understanding the extents of this, that development time is finite. It is an option that requires developed, it will take time, man hours. It is also not as simple to develop as you can imagine it. There is a finite list of things that can be achieved. And I'd rather something else, which is why said as much, not because I have some weird agenda or feel special, this thread never occurred to me before it existed. Some day, when the 3000 bugs are closed, the planned features created, the infinite number of wish list items can be tackled. Until then, cool, it's a wish list item we can disagree on.

You know what... OK. There are too many manuals, some are hidden so you cannot find them. There's too many videos, especially the hidden ones you get at the end of the hidden manuals. You are right, you simply dont need to know 99% of the stuff anyway, but the improtant 1% is clearly buried somewhere you cannot find it, the back of a book, links to a secret manual, that leads to a hidden private Youtube video. It's also deliberate. Also you are right about being told to read the manual, whilst on the forums, for items that haven't existed in wikipedia. Thats true. It is also true it's a conspiracy to prevent people becoming proficient with the simulator. I'm sorry you had to discover this way. We are sad lonely virtual walter Mittys who are underconfident, cannot socialise with the real world and deserate to hang onto the only secrets available. Must guard those secrets!! I've also been sent here to delay and confuse you with stories about manuals, because our master is buying time for the next great push of confusion. Or... You just have to read a lot for flight sims because they are a bit complex.

Like vertigo, if you dont read, you wont know. Short answer, You dont need a cheat for fuel because its there already (unlimited fuel) The maps are too small to make it be required (so no one is missing out on anything) It might take important development resources away from critical needed fixes Nothing else except the ridiculous counter arguments is in play.

As I already said, it's not the presence or absence of the options that anyone is concerned about. The folks that have been here a long time know that they have waited years and years for very important basic stuff: Weather, ATC, AI, MP performance. The concern is we will never get anywhere if we cannot get better weather/clouds etc, the waiting time is into many years. By all means, put this at the back of a very very long queue.

OK, so let's boil this down, rather than the story about never reading a manual and "reading 1000 pages about stuff I have zero interest in yet", you didn't like the Tomcat cold start Lesson because it had a lot of tests and switch manipulation that was only tests and didnt get you off the ground fast enough. Am I wrong again? (I suspect we will disagree) And to reinforce your point you've picked the GR video over the ones listed on the Heatblur website as the shining example of the best way to do it? Even though they state it's a stripped down process only they use? https://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/tutorials.html# Maybe you weren't even aware of the F-14 online manual, it hasn't had a mention so far? So explain why anyone should have to put up with less detail and if we don't we are trying to defend a "niche status"? That is absurd in the extreme, the type of degenerate nonsensethat perpetuates the imaginary rift you have in your head. I'm not convinced there is a problem at all with the information available for DCS, else I'd be needing to use GR videos too. As it is... I'm coping with the Lessons and the manual for the little things. I think the fact that there is a THIRTY-SIX part video series on the F-18C from the Producer of DCS, is enough to show that there is clearly important information out there that needs to be studied and can't quite fit in a five minute bundle. Maybe people LIKE this? Maybe rather than feeling like people are threatening your intellectual right to pick a Grim Reapers tutorial, you might just allow the people that want more to not feel like their space is threatened by the encroaching quick wins of the spoonfed masses? I can accept people want less. Why is it that if I want more, I'm labelled as trying to protect a niche status?

So what you are saying is, you have good background and theory, feel confident enough to be able to step into a P-51 and get her started up, without reading the manual or doing the start up lesson, faster than 30 minutes. OK. Fair enough. But then for the Tomcat, you were equally surprised! (why?) You skipped the cockpit orientation to go to the startup. There is a pattern here. You cannot skimp on learning, there are no shortcuts. You went back later, found lesson 1 it talked about Engine Tests, got bored, because you wanted to quickstart blow stuff up and became unhappy that your expectations were not met. Either you propose DCS should not simulate as much detail to require a manual. Or you suggest that flying an F-14B was so easy a glider pilot should have no problem without even a manual. Really? I understand that having some background knowledge helps, I have plenty too, but the cold start lesson for every aircraft (except the I-16 that i noticed) is good enough to get me going and failing that even I will open the P-51 manual on page 125 and step through the cold start process. No need for this: The question is, why is DCS setting this expectation and how should it approach the steep learning curve better? I agree it is likey bewildering to a newcomer, but why does a newcomer expect so much without simple effort like reading manuals? Let's remove DCS from the equation. Is operating a plane supposed to "easy"? If all the simulators were flyable without a manual, would that be a realistic simulator? Laying the blame on DCS for being complex is ridiculous, DCS tries to be as close as possible to what it's simulating. This conversation sometimes forgets that the topic matter is the issue, not the simulation. I don't think anyone here is complaining about possible new features added to the sim, but the main gripe from those that are saying "no" to a cheat system for AAR, is, the concern that the development time gets pulled away from the things this sim really needs... like ATC, AI, weather, MP performance. We have been asking for the fundamental things for a many years now, the long term consumers are terrified we wont get them and the time will be stolen by folks requesting stuff they don't need, wont get used and doesnt add to the sim, who leave it in disgust after spending 30 minutes not reading a manual and complaining it was too hard to use. It shouldn't need a crutch for flying straight and level at the same speed. But sure, a cheat, for those that want it, might be OK, as long as it doesnt detract development from the actual purpose of the simulator. This cheat will not help you get satisfaction from the sim though. It will only serve to remind you what was said in this thread, that if you want to be good at something, you have to put in some effort. If you simply want to drive further in your mission, set unlimited fuel on.

I've never seen anything significant released in DCS that wasn't announced with some sort of hype. The topic of SAM simulator comes up frequently as a wish list, people would want that. There has been mention by ED that they will improve the IADS for SAMs. I would see that bit of work as a prerequisite to making any further deep simulator. Lastly, an objective look - I'm not sure a specific EWR simulator wouldn't clash with LotATC which would have more features than one of these early radars. I cannot see it really being worth the effort to develop inside the CA product, an entire specific simulator of these radars. And its a bit niche because it wouldn't be much fun operating in single player. Was it said anywhere if this was part of the WW2 assets or the base game?

Oh man, I always wanted to know about this and the Spitfire but was too embarrassed to ask!! thanks!

Also, if you have a donor hafu and nothing from your own radar it's your 101 cue to check radar elevation.

Use Mist mostly for CTLD and legacy scripts (for many years) Use MOOSE for many things, mostly spawning air defences like GCI and CAPs, everything really. The main reason for needing scripting is for longer running missions over the single sortie time, for join in progress, management and automation. So things like repeating caps, repeating defenders, repeating tankers, player management, replenishing things that got blown up, messaging, saving progress to disk. Generally its not needed for 90% of normal sorties. But for long running stuff, you cant live with out scripting.

source please. thanks.

A great thing about the WW2 forums is the passion, enthusiasm and collective knowledge of the readers here. This can make things quite intimidating to ask basic questions in, after all, its not a mechanics forum or an aeronatutical forum, but a Flight sim forum. It's just that these things get wrapped up together and the knowledge begins to overlap. Back in the day my Dad enthused about engines and mechanics and I ignored him and played with computers...the generation gap split right there. About all I know about the internal workings of the combustion engine is that pistons go up and down moving a drive shaft with a propellor on the end. After that I'm lost, I don't understand manifold pressure or its relationship with prop pitch/RPM, very well. Not confidently at least. And it's always an interesting thing that, whilst a car has a throttle, why do planes have all these extra "go-faster" levers? :P. Some of you are laughing, others are nodding, right? OK you are all laughing... Penny form the Big Bang theory is finally in the ED forums. But I found a dummies guide for normally aspirated engines and thought I'd share it. I found it helpful. I'm sure im not the only person who would find it useful. If you have related "dummies" guides that work on Penny's level, please share below, ask below, argue intelligently below etc. :) https://www.avweb.com/features_old/pelicans-perch-15manifold-pressure-sucks/

We are seeing this with a few modules where planes are heading RTB. No one so far has reproduced with a basic script so we aren't sure what is goign wrong. The symptom is as you described... AI climbs to 35,000ft, gets stuck in high AoA, turns on AB, runs out of fuel and ejects. I suspect it is ultimatley rooted in a DCS problem but unless we reproduce with basic script we are scuppered.

Flying in VR is not the same for everyone. I began with Rift CV1 +1070 and am now on Reverb +2080S. I would have made different recommendations for each. For lower quality VR I'd be tempted to rule out certain modules, for varying reasons. Traditional non electronic guages can be excellent for glancing, but ONLY after you worked out what the numbers were and have good references. Altitude can be especially annoying to read, even if the tens of feet are much easier. VVI is obviously easiest. Speed, once you worked out the position of the needle meant X, is fine. Small switches you didnt learn yet are harder to learn in VR. Modern huds are usually all readable, but the modern fighters have different issues, usually around the MFD's. The easiest benchmark is the F-16. Completely unreadable radar with Oculus Rift CV1, to the point where it caused me to spend nearly a thousand pounds to upgrade to Reverb+2080s over 6 months just so I could use it. However... now I can. And it's completely readable in my setup, so... this is important to understand where folks talk about F-16 negatively. Which is why I began by saying not all VR is equal. It's worth mentioning that the Harrier is easy to read most everywhere but it still has MFD's with imagery and patch to patch IR stuff can be a bit painful to interpret. The Tomcat is a funny one... performance - yes a bit, small items, yes very much, but how many items did I learn eventually? All of them, and it became a non issue. Learning the cockpit comes. But nothing was as frustrating as the first cold start tutorial in the Oculus Rift CV1. Mirage is a bit painful around the small black buttons in the corners. F-18 is OK, but again the FCR, especially around the altitude next to the locked item, really clutters badly and needed the Reverb grunt. So, YMMV, depending on your hardware. It's the combat requirements that can be the main differentiator, and they all have individual quirks or pain points for low quality VR setups, mainly MFDs, Radar and imagery/pod work. It's never the flying, modern jets are so hands free compared to a helicopter or warbird. So if you aren't worried about trying to be competitive, pick the module that performs the roles you like most. F-18C is hard not to recommend due to that versatility, but if you have a passion for something, follow that instead.

need to bookmark this. There have been a few posts, not all of which I can find. I've seen the symptom but never tioed it to the new client join. Is there any report made elsewhere?

I'm going to say it, but the redemption of AVIODEV was a long time coming. I believe the C101 is a good module, but basically the only option for them from now on, is to release things as per the EA model that is current (not 6 years ago). Anything that isn't close to completion will cause concern, because history says, they are not fast to completion. And that sticks. So, I think, if I am correct, they will continue to follow the model of saying very very little on this topic until it's close - and I mean proper close, not what was close 6 years ago with the C101 into EA. There is no alternative if you only have one released product to be judged upon.

I like the concept, I find it very difficult to keep iterating a test on a mission on a Dedicated server because passing forward the file repeatedly is painful. I dont know wether the suggested way is possible, FTP and configuring junctions etc is all messy and I'd rather someone did all that work for me too.

I still don't understand this thread. I honestly don't know why anyone that couldnt AAR would need a cheat to do it when it's already optional. It's not an elitsm thing (although, AAR is not hard or elitist). If you can't AAR, don't. No one is forcing anyone, it's not a requirement for "Level 2" content. If you want to do a longer mission, put unlimited fuel on. If you find unlimited fuel wrong, then why does an AAR cheat make unlimited fuel wrong and AAR cheat OK? It's simple basic common sense, it's not needed. The maps are max 400nm, the combat range of most jets, assuming the airbases are on the edges, but they aren't, they are all through the maps. You are never more than 50nm from an airfield, go back a tad earlier and refuel. Refuelling is almost pointless on these maps as it is, it's really a flavour item that isn't required to be able to play anything. Before anyone says, "But i'm 150nm from an allied airbase", what the hell is a tanker doing there in the first place? A HVA like a tanker wouldnt be there in the first place, the S3 over the CV.... not required because there aren't enough planes causing enough queues to make you need to refuel. All the reasons for having a refueller imply that the person requiring such a thing in a mission wants to do something that isn't required and is using another excuse for not having done what they should have done in the first place, like plan for fuel, not sat in AB for the last 10 minutes, done any route calculations or preparation, designed a mission that wasn't realistic, the list goes on. If you have time to be in the air long enough to use all your fuel and are too far from an airbase to refuel at, you have time to practice AAR and stop wanting an automation that you will never use and feel good about.

I seem to have come up with a reliable method then. Pull up out of gun range along the side of the Ju at the same altitude. From a parallel course, bank in slightly so that the target begins to slide forward in the canopy. Judge this so you will strafe across his tail at a fairly significant tracking rate. He'll come through your cross hairs and all you need to do is manage the elevation and ensure you are trigger down before he arives. He'll end up with a raking 1 second burst and your lateral tracking rate is too much for the AI. Often that full burst will be enough, they just often take their time to bail out.

Yeah, I've no issue picking out scenarios to do. What I need is something that works with the DCS engine and has a lasting player persistence they can keep coming back to the server for. The factions and proxy nature make that pretty complex already... ISIL joining the FSA for a push on Govmt forces in east Aleppo - for as long as that lasts before turning on each other. DCS can't keep up with the factions and its very much infantry driven, which is the worst news for pilots at 15,000feet. The other thing about insurgency is that it pops up and down all over the country with no such thing as a clear front line. Conventional warfare makes sense to people, modern warfare... people think they want it, but it's dreary. The Israeli 80's stuff would be much better to simulate and gives a reason to have persistence on the mission/server. SAMs... nah. You have Damascus and Homs and the coast. Government strongholds surrounding the Russian port and airfield. Players always go for them anyway, but the fighting is not there. I'll model them as they are, but the action would be in the ISIL strongholds and where the action is, like Aleppo, the north, Raqaa, Palmyra in the centre. With the exception of an SA3 ISIL captured near Palmyra and theorised SA6's, ISIL don't have anything bar ZSU's, kintetic and manpads. Syrian Air defence is not something Operation Inherent Resolve is touching, it only kills Russians seemingly. They avoid the Russian areas and Government direct attacks (they successfully proxy those) and concentrate only on ISIL. Apart from that cruise missile attack, which was different and isolated. So, (and I have thought this through a LOT) an imagined realistic modern conflict ends up as: Strike a <oil well/weapons storage/VBIED/fighting position/mortar/tactical vehicle> at grid XYZ. Long flight, drop a bomb pair, go home. Oof. I think players wont like that :/ It seems to play out like a training map, lots of disconnected missions all over the map, no SAM's, no multirole, no air contacts, never below 15,000ft MSL. Dreary? Is that what players want or is it just me? I can randomise that, put scoreboards up but what I really need is a way to make it a game (like some were hinting at, I didnt ignore those posts) Players came back to our server 'RedSands' because the player would actually contribute to an online map, capture things or enable the capture and change the game. That is quite empowering and one of the reasons the BlueFlag formulae has lasted so long. What I need is a "game". A way for players, in this map/scenario, can bring their own strategies ideas and beat the game whilst feeling their contribution is meaningful (unlike real life). I can script pretty much anything I've ever tried to do, but I am at that... planning stage. I considered "Intelligence and reconnaissance" scripts... a way to unveil targets. I considered gaming a humanitarian "score" by how much you protected civilians, delivered food and water via helos, leaflet dropping, searching for C&C elements and using a map to score cities liberation... somehow. But I'm finding this very hard overall to execute and start writing.

The night fighter claimed as many FW190's as the israelis shot Syrian fighters in the largest air combat since ww2. (mid 60's). Numbers are just boggling in WW2, we pray nothing close ever happens again. So it's hard to work out numbers. As to if it could dogfight, does it count if you can sneak up and shoot and run away? I can't imagine it had fantastic roll rates but it could move and go fast and was light, so really, it's a tool with lots of amazing choices and real advantages. I don't think you would rate it on the same criteria that you would a modern day fighter though.

Basically you've discovered the units for each country aren't as fully filled out as they could be. And even when they are, sometimes there are no replacements for the country in question. This has always been an issue. I think the insurgents "country" should have all untis and so should the USAgressors to create two full pseudo countries to use, one in each coalition. Examples: EWR on NATO countries, Civilian ships - only Ukraine and Russia, generic, the only Civil airplane - Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. So on. The coaliton>country>group issue is stemmed form the mission editor and Lua in that these are tables and that mission format is pretty much unbreakable. Still, woudl prefer this not to be an issue, but you can edit the countries_db and I think even if you edit it only on the server, it should be fine.