ARM505

...because we like reprogramming our HOTAS's? :)

Ah, that's whats missing.....also ATI here, 4890, 10.3 drivers.

I was just about to ask about buddy lasing - then I remembered the rather painfully useless (at buddy lasing) guidance system of the Vikhr.....but, can a helo lase for the Su's Kh25/other laser guided weapons?

Yes, an IR guided non-commanded missile could do that, but what I really want to know is what on earth is going on with that Kiowa? Why is it's ammo container floating around in space next to it?! Shouldn't it be inside or something?

Nah. That baby is useless. I chucked it, sorry. :) Turn to target - that's what my pedals are for. I mean, 'look at tgt cursor, turn towards it!' That's hard man, we really need an entire function just for that one - NOT. Keeping ball in middle - yup, pedals again! Heading hold - just trim (ACTUAL trim, ie applied force, not wierd damping and fumbling about chasing some arb heading) properly, and use pedals in the conventional way (step on ball, etc) Hover hold, holding a specific heading - thats what my pedals and trim are for. Sorry, I can still not think of ANY situation that I can't do just fine by simply using the pedals for what they were intended. If God had intended man to fly with the AP yaw channel engaged, He wouldn't have given him pedals! :) Actually, this is all really directed at Kamov, not you guys (you've heard me before).....Kamov, are you listening?! ;)

Well, I'm sure you'll know what I'm going to say already :) I've said it before, if you plan on flinging the helo around the sky (ie generally a lot of heading changes), then just turn the heading AP channel OFF completely. Yes, yes, Kamov says you're a naughty boy if you do that (apparently) but hey, I'm the pilot and it makes my job easier then. No funny spikes, no bouncing and fighting. Just smooth turniness :) Ball in the middle, nice smooth pedal inputs, no problems....the pedal trim will still work fine. Again, I have a sneaking suspicion that all is not 100% correct in the AP inputs, but we'll have to see what happens.

Into wind helps too - I've seen some people try it downwind, it makes it noticeably harder.

It's not just simulating the helicopter - it's simulating the environment it's meant to be operated in. We are already bordering on a 'switch flicking' simulator, as opposed to an actual fighting vehicle in a human-filled, dynamic world. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if you want a -D model Apache, go and read Ed Macy's 'Apache', then ask yourself: Could the DCS world support what the helo's did in that book? Not just systems-wise, but how they interacted with each other (CPG to Pilot, Helo to other helo's, helo to ground, helo to other airbourne forces)? Not yet.....when you increase complexity and comms abilities of the platform simulated (and the -D is a mobile network point), you increase what must be simulated enormously.

20 minutes at idle?!? Did you mean 2? I hope so....I feel bad for my virtual engines when I don't allow the correct times - just force of habit. Thanks for the info though, very informative as always.

Continuing OT (sorry), here's one of that Hind that I took when I saw it at an airshow here (in Pretoria, South Africa). It was also used in the film 'Blood Diamond', in a vain attempt to kill Leonardo di Caprio (sp?) before he could mangle the South African accent any further. :) There's some technical gen on the poster for those with good eyes and who care.

Bombs/Dispensers on a helo are only useful for murdering people - ie. they don't have so much as a 9mm pistol between them, and therefore aren't a threat at all, or for structures that have no value, and are therefore completely undefended. So, guess my answer.....They are a GWOT - that's not 'Global War on Terror', but 'Giant Waste of Time'. :)

To get that kind of co-ordination on a normal public server is extremely unlikely, to put it mildly. So, I second the recommendation to join an organised squad, and you'll need to use voice comms as well (Teamspeak, Mumble etc). I see TS3 beta is out and about.... Those kind of multi platform strike packages can then become a reality, with human Opfor thrown in for good measure. Don't underestimate the level of player co-ordination required though. RL tends to intervene, since most sim players are older (I generalise, but it seems to be true). I normally have to bail because a two year old child is pulling on my legs.

Nope. It just does that. Fly low over a few water areas (not along the coast obviously) - you can't really miss it. It is really wierd, that point is valid. Not quite on the 'cutting edge', as it were, having wierd inter-dimensional holes where water is. :)

Ok Frederf, I think I see why you resist the term 'fighting', since it seems that to you it would mean that the AP channel actually 'won' the fight, and produced a result totally opposite to pilot input. Did I understand you right? Because that's not what I mean by 'fighting'. To me, that means that not all of my control input was allowed to be exerted, ie the AP took something away from me, and I don't mean filtered the result (ie an AP moderated rate of onset), I mean genuinely exerted itself against my input and ultimately reaching a kind of 'stalemate' (regardless of the fact that I 'won' the fight, and the helo did ultimately move in the direction I told it to, abeit not at my commanded rate, and eventually stopping the commanded roll/pitch) What I'm trying to ultimately say, is that FD mode feels more like the way it should be all the time - watching the RL Kamov videos doesn't show the FD HUD mode. I shouldn't have to press the trim button to be allowed to move the helo - the AP channels should take cyclic pressure/deflection commanded by the pilot into account when stabilising and not attempt to counter this. It's just a gut feel, ED may have it totally correct. In which case, Kamov, what were you thinking?! :) Happy Christmas in any case!

Well, I don't want to take issue with only your posts, but surely you've kind of proved the effect here? I mean, the aircraft moved further in COFF and SO than H+S? This is exactly what I'm getting at. And (I'm taking a flyer here), but maybe the effect would be even more pronounced at lower airspeeds, where the aerodynamic damping and straightening effects of the fuselage and it's horizontal and vertical stabilisers tended to resist change, ie reduce that 'contant pitch rate'? (I am aware that no control input results in a pitch/roll rate ad infinitum btw, obviously as conditions change, so does the rate). Perhaps when you refer to 'partial compliance' (sounds like a term the manufacturer would use when defending their product!), I would only ever call it 'fighting' (ie it resisted me). I know if it happened in an aircraft I was flying, I would snag it as 'fighting'. I simply don't see how you can call it a myth. Anyway, I've seen enough verification and descriptions of exactly what I'm talking about in this thread.

Ok, I'm not sure how to phrase this any clearer... So, when you apply a constant (small) stick deflection, with the AP channels engaged, the helo keeps a constant pitch/roll/yaw rate? It doesn't stop at a certain point beyond the original attitude? ie You move your stick, say, five degrees forward, and the helo pitches nose down until it ends up trying to go vertically downwards? It doesn't stop at, say, ten degrees nose down? Because mine clearly, repeatedly, does. Therefore, the AP channel is resisting my attempts to create a constant pitch/roll rate when I move the stick. Turn off the AP channel, and this behaviour stops. Enter FD mode, and it stops. The way I see it, theres only one conclusion. This post: ..is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think it's really meant to be that way. It's counter intuitive. Even Airbus (knocked by Boeing pilots for years for it's FBW despite it being perfectly good) doesn't do it this way - a certain stick force or deflection produces a certain roll/pitch rate, not a certain attitude. Sure, the FCC moderates the amount of aileron input as airspeed varies to keep that roll/pitch rate the same across various conditions - but the point is, it doesn't try to change the fundamentals of how a pilot learned to control his aircraft. I can think of no aircraft that intentionally does this (not to say the Ka50 doesn't, but that's my point - I don't think it does.)

Well...what else is doing it then? I'm not interested in which component is fighting me, merely that when the switch is on, I have to fight surely? I believe it does. And yes,it's fighting me. It's exactly that AP applied force that keeps the aircraft from pitching at a constant pitch rate with the AP channel engaged in the test example I gave above. It's balancing my small control deflection in an attempt to regain it's trimmed attitude. Nope, I'm referring to the force applied when I apply a constant force, ie constant pedal deflection will result in a constant AP input in the opposite direction - it's fighting me! That's the thing - it produces that input in the PRESENCE of pilot input. THAT'S my problem with it. (And Alpha's too, again if we're on the same wavelength.)

Yes, it quite clearly does. Or perhaps we are completely misunderstanding one another. To test: - Start on runway, no wind, lightly loaded helo (or whatever, but no gusts will help) - Take off, get into a stable cruise at (say) 150 km/h - All three AP channels default to on for a runway start, so let's test that condition to start with. With the helo trimmed, ball in the middle, apply back stick pressure. In my case, I could exert a CONSTANT back stick deflection that would cause a pitch up to 10 degress nose up, and then STAY there, despite the constant back stick deflection. - Return to original conditions, or close enough (stable cruise, same speed etc) - Turn off the AP pitch channel. - Apply the same amount of back stick deflection. You will be rewarded with a constant pitch rate, not stopping at 10 degrees (or whatever value the initial test got you). Logically then, the AP pitch channel was providing some other input that FOUGHT (ie went counter to) your input when it was engaged. It was attempting to return to a trimmed pitch attitude. That is what I (and AlphaOneSix I believe, if I understood his point correctly) am talking about when I mention 'fighting'. The Ka50 AP seems to be intended as an aid to stable flight, NOT as a 'pitch hold', 'roll hold' autopilot mode (and I know what these are, having used them daily) - HOWEVER DCS:BS presents them as such. Without the proof I have no leg to stand on - I fully concede that, so it remains a gut feel that it's not quite right in DCS:BS. But the AP does fight back - maybe it's like that in the real Ka50 too.

I agree completely. Again, like you I don't have anything to back it up though unfortunately. It's just an intuitive guess, but stab augmentation systems are generally not designed to fight pilot input. Like you, I also don't find it utterly unflyable, but comparing FD mode (stab aug, but not fighting back) to normal modes (fighting back), the difference is clear. Also, watching those cockpit videos of the real deal makes it seem even more obvious to me. Oh well. Without proof, it's just a hunch.

Note to ED: Refer to the (now ancient) DI Tornado for some tips on mission planning software. We'll also need access to the ABRIS during this phase, thanks!

And, once again: - Turn off heading channel. - Point helo where you'd like it to go. - Trim if needed. The end. :) P.S. Deal with Kamov rep complaining about doing naughty things with AP channels when you get home, receive Order of Lenin (or whatever they get nowdays), get movie/book deal for blowing up 3000 Abram's because you didn't end up being killed by your autopilot etc etc.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1160633 A steal really... :) But then we could have somebody do a comparison at least, check those numbers in the LO flight model you know...

Although I see Sikorsky is now attempting to break the helicopter speed record with...a coaxial rotor helo (and a prop in the tail!). And those rotors seem mighty close together to me, so I guess there are ways and means. http://blog.jameslist.com/2009/sikorsky-readies-the-world%E2%80%99s-fastest-heli/

I wish we could liven up the game world somehow, and how we interact with it. I've been playing a lot of ARMA II, and Combat Mission: Shock Force, and even though it would entail a lot of work, there's a lot of complexity that needs to be added to break up the 'sterile' feel of the DCS world. This is something that ARMA has (despite it's flaws) and the simple systems that CM has (for example, damage to vehicles, vehicles popping smoke and evading, troops thinking, moving, taking up positions in buildings) are really nice examples of what could be done. I like starting the helo up, taking it around the circuit, but then.....? I want troop interaction, JTAC controlling from the ground type of stuff. Reading Ed Macy's book again reminded me of how utterly incapable DCS is of simulating a lot of the fighting that a helo would do, triggers or not. I don't see this improving with the A-10 module. A2A is one thing, you're up in the sky, and all the platforms are there and are simulated - but the ground needs PEOPLE. A-10's are CAS platforms, not bombers striking fixed targets. It'll be tank plinking again, just from different ranges and angles. I'm certainly looking forward to a hi-fi sim of the A-10 though. I just wish we could have it all....a bit impossible I suppose though. So this is by no means a criticism of ED - they're doing a stellar job, and all out realism is exceptionally hard to do, probably one of the most challenging and niche (read: small customer base) thing to do in the pc world.

IS this an A10? Looks like it might be....birdstrike - will FC 2.0 simulate the pilots yelp? :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1biiHieD8I