cw4ogden

Yes, can confirm AUX tanks do not transfer fuel for me either.

Crossfeed stays closed during normal operations to prevent the possibility of a dual engine flame-out. If you suck one side dry, having the X-feed open will flame out both engines. The best analogy is having two straws one in your glass, one inside your drink, the other outside of it. If you suck on both straws, you're only going to get air. Given the choice, with the crossfeed open, both engines will draw from the empty tank akin to the straw sucking air. As depicted in your photos it appears to be a bug. Aux's feed the main tanks keeping them topped off until Aux tanks are empty. Will test here as well. Keeping the crossfeed closed, fuel starvation can only kill the affected side's engine.

Stryker exceeds what a CH-47 can lift by a factor of 2. It's twice what you can lift weight wise, about 18,000 pounds as a rule of thumb at sea level - full fuel. Stryker weighs ~36,000 lbs. Also hoisting is different than sling loading. The hoist is used to pull cargo up the ramp or lift a survivor through the cargo hole in the floor. In hoist mode you're limited to 600 lbs. So hoisting and sling loading are two different things.

I don't know if it's modeled, but the FADEC back-up power needs to be on to shut down the engines, as the primary system cannot completely stop fuel supply.

3-5 seconds in the middle (run) position, seems closer to 5. hold in start position for 2 seconds.

Yes, I'm aware. I took that to mean either more features possibly, or more tuning. If it's just more features, this is a bug. If it that this a work in progress, can't hurt to get it on the record. Once trimmed, with the AFCS on, the pilot should able to take their hands off the controls for extended periods of time.

AFCS on flight is far too erratic, primarily in the pitch axis. AFCS on should look more like how the aircraft flies with "Bob" turned on. A trimmed out CH-47, with AFCS on, should require no significant inputs from the pilot in flight, even with significant changes to the thrust. Not trying to throw darts, just document what I see. My initial impression of the flight model is that it is a very good starting point. The flight modelling "feels" very close.

Thrust (collective) inputs should make significant changes to the aircraft's pitch attitude AFCS off. Pulling in thrust should cause a pronounced nose downward moment. Reducing thrust should cause the nose to pitch upward. This is caused by the fact the forward and aft rotor system are mounted at different angles. 9 degrees of forward incline on the front, 4 degrees on the aft. This angular difference causes the aft rotor's lift vector to be more vertical than the forward system's, and therefore any change to collective pitch will add more lift to the aft head than the forward head, and vice-versa. The difference in lift vector manifests in a rolling moment about the pitch axis. Pull thrust, nose goes down, lower thrust, nose comes up. The same aerodynamics happen AFCS on, but are largely (but not entirely) mitigated by the AFCS.

Bankler's is a useful tool, pre-installed on a few servers that may help too. A few servers had it in their name or description making it searchable, don't know if that's still the case. I personally think learning case 3 recoveries first is the way to go. Case 1 recovery is one of the hardest tasks in DCS, rivalled only by air to air refueling. Learning the case 3 intimidates most, because of the bookwork to understand tacan, but it is a much smaller stepping stone, to go from case three approaches to then mastering the case 1.

A real life technique for judging turns to line up with a runway is to keep your focus on the far end of the runway. Why it helps I don't know. Granted on the carrier this requires some imagination. I picture an imaginary runway running forward of the boat. I make corrections to arrive over that imaginary runway, not focusing on the "approach end" but keeping my eyes trained on the far end of the imaginary runway, an imaginary point somewhat forward of the boat to account for the fact the carrier's landing area represents a small portion of a normal runway. An imaginary point in space 5000' or so in front of the boat in line with the landing heading. Fudge a bit to account for boats forward motion, which obviously complicates it some, but the principle of looking at the far end of your landing area is known to help pilots judge turns to final. To apply it to carriers requires a little imagination but may help. edit: you are indeed, way too high to see the ball in the screenshot posted. a 3 degree glide slope means your landing area should barely be below the horizon. Roughly three degrees. I'd guess to make the 3 wire from the point you are in that screenshot, you'd need a 10 degree or more glide path angle. Well beyond what the ball can display.

@gonzolofogous Mast bumping almost always implies a negative G situation. Best way to visualize mast bumping is to picture pushing your rotor shaft upwards into a tilting see saw. If you push hard enough, the rotating see saw eventually will tilt enough that it contacts the rotor shaft, aka mast bumping. What I see in your video appears more like some kind of structural failure. I guess that could be how they have mast bumping coded, but I'd suspect over G or some kind of other limit being broken. If your G loading is above Zero, as it looks in your video, it's almost certainly not mast bumping.

I think it predates this patch. You can try F8 groundcrew, then i think f9 request launch, occasionally it works. But once the ground crew bugs out, probably need a server reset to fix it.

Ok will do. That seems the most plausible cause.

Thanks for the quick reply. I am in the U.S., Eastern Oregon to be more specific. My provider is a local service called Anthem Broadband. Traceroute to the DCS website hangs on an IP address of 10.100.0.2 or similar. I was suspecting either my provider is having issues or possibly my IP was banned by mistake by ED? Those were just my best guesses as I can get through when I enable the VPN, but DCS still fails to authenticate.

Currently getting the DCS offline error in combination with being unable to access the main DCS website. I can access the forums, and my internet is working fine otherwise. Attempting to load the DCS website times out. Attempting to load the game results in authorization failed. After following every troubleshooting guide I could find, one recommended to try enabling VPN. This worked for accessing the DCS website, but not the game. Any Ideas why I would need a VPN to connect to the website, and can't connect at all to the game?

Arguably true. I meant from my own stable of aircraft, I prefer the dedicated role aircraft versus the jack of all trades, i.e. f-18, f-16. From a purely subjective standpoint, if I want to bomb I prefer the Av8b. If I want Air to air I like the tomcat, even though the f-18 is in many ways better. I'm only down on the f-18 in the very subjective way that is whether you like a module for it's more intangible qualities. Sound and ergonomic design as well, in particular not liking McDonnel Douglas's set of audio and various instrument layout etc. That said, I recognize it's role historically and it's role as one of the DCS flagship modules. Just trying to put a reason to why it's one of my lesser used planes. The A-10 is the exact same phenomenon, but three times worse. I've tried repeatedly to like the A-10 and I just don't.

If DCS was Dungeons and Dragons, the F-18 would be the druid. It can do everything, but is the best at nothing. I find it odd how finicky I am when it comes to liking a module or not liking a module. That said, I agree with the original post, the F-18 to me just feels bland. To me it's like choosing the camero, when you have access to Jay Leno's entire garage. That said, I recognize it is a fantastic DCS module. Absolutely one of the best picks for anyone starting out who wants bang for buck.

It's a long thread so forgive me if this has been said before but, running a HP reverb in VR, when closing, contacts are a blob and easy to see, until they become rendered. When they are rendered they become all but invisible and are incredibly difficult to see, even using VR zoom feature. So on a sliding scale instead of being difficult to see at range, then easier as you get to medium ranges, and easier still as you get very close, currently It's very easy to see distant targets, virtually impossible to see medium range targets, and easy to see, and difficult to identify all but the closest range targets. For my two cents: the middle ranges are the most broken, though near and far could use improvements. Far away, the blobs could use to be smaller. I don't have a suggestion to fix near, as identifying is a different issue that seeing / spotting. I do think Identification is too difficult, even using silouettes and tactical identification techniques. I'd guess 30-50% of the time during a merge, I can't tell what just flew passed me. And nearly 100% of the time I can't identify in time for a safe head on attack. Given the wide range of gear and 2d versus VR, I know balance is hard, but in my humble opinion playing in VR puts you at significant disadvantage, especially in the WW2 thru cold war era. Edit: there are also issues with whether or not a specific plane or ground target are even rendered. Depending on where the player looks, there are occasions when you can not see something in your central vision, that is plain as day in your peripheral vision. Meaning: to see a plane or ground target, sometimes you can't look right at it.

Forgive me if it's been mentioned in the 16 previous pages of posts, but it seems like the main complaint is balancing dot size amongst various screen resolutions. Is there any reason DCS can not look to see what resolution the player is running and scale the dot appropriately? Preferably with the ability to tweak it slightly for variations in gear, i.e. screen size.

You should probably go for the BF-109. The A8 is arguably the worst ww2 "fighter" and the Dora gets nerfed into being painful to play on 4ya's ww2 server. If they even have a dora slot, it's so far from the action, likely you'd eventually just submit and fly a 109.

I think part of the problem is the channel map's relevant period of the war isn't supported by the aircraft pool in DCS. Meaning no early Bf-109s, hurricane early spitfire etc. Channel seems fitting for Battle of Britain era, but I'm not a historian by any stretch. Given there are only one or two populated WW2 servers at any given time, and they tend towards "realistic", they choose normandy because it's more time period appropriate to the stable of WW2 aircraft that currently exist. I've tried running a WW2 channel map server and my takeaway was there isn't enough interest to make it feasible. Until ww2 fans can populate more than a single server, options will be limited to flavor of the month which is Normandy.

If you get to my last sentence it reads: "...I'd guess it occurred within 30 to 40 seconds..."

@Moxica In addition to the relatively new flight helmets (late 90s) that upped the sound protection game, army pilots typically use something called a CEP or communication ear plug, essentially wired airpods with wire to the back of your helmet. I don't recall them being noise cancelling, but the combined effect of the helmet and the ear plug makes the ambient noise really low. I actually preferred not to wear them as I couldn't hear the ambient noises of the aircraft well enough.

As a civil and military pilot in the U.S. and worldwide, I can also confirm that there is no requirement to call anyone prior to starting your engines. The only exception was when operating at U.S. Air Force bases. There is no FAR or military regulation requiring communication to start your engines. I've seen in in the Area Planning manual as procedure for specific airfields, almost always U.S. Air Force, but otherwise and for 99% of all flights, (can't speak for the airlines) there is no requirement to call anyone until you are ready for clearance, and or taxi.

Fair enough. My apologies, you are exactly right, I let my emotions regarding some non DCS <profanity> taint my response to you. I'm sorry for that. There aren't a lot of shortcuts and you seemed to be wanting one, but I get your point. Glad UncleStains suggestions and to a lesser extent mine helped. My perception was you seemed to be asking for a magic solution to a complex task that people spend years mastering. But that's no excuse either so again, sorry for the tone of my other reply.