Wrcknbckr

Unless you are hovering I see no need to have dust protection at low level flight; you are flying away from possible dust build-up. And most generator fails recover if you ask less power, in my experience.

I find the DCS contrails in your examples more like it is in RL than your RL footage. Your RL footage looks oversaturated and does not really represent a contrail. I'd say leave as is. Nothing wrong with 'blockiness'.

Check if the name you specify in the first lines of the .lua file, is the same as the filename. Think I had something similar. Files are also ignored it there's a typo.

Hard: your landing zone is virtually guaranteed to be obstructed from at least one side, and usually there are obstacles (trees, buildings, vehicles, power lines) close by that may even extend into your LZ. Size of the LZ is what you would expect in real-life extraction missions. Time limit is harsh, and breaking the limit will reduce the entire score to zero. Could it be that you exceeded the time limit?

Omg, I still have this one in the box. Always remembering me that I should find some time to actually build it. Such a precious one that I don't want to rush it... It even included pictures how someone else build a fantastic diorama with it. I also remember a Revell F-14 box with Wolfpack livery, one of those that's also available for DCS...

Apaches would normally operate from more or less prepared terrain, whereas transports would be required to land everywhere on unprepared terrain to deliver the goods/troupes).

You won't get a good impression of a helicopter in half an hour, only frustration. As mentioned try a longer period for an hour a day or so. A helicopter is the most complex machine on earth to be controlled. For its 6 degrees of freedom it has 4 control inputs that, on top of it, have coupling effects on its dynamics. No, you will not be able to handle that in half an hour. But that is part of the fun (or challenge). Take your time! You don't need expensive hardware either. A cheap joystick with yaw control should be sufficient to start.

If you put those values into an atmospheric boundary layer formula (google one or check your meteorological sources), you may find these numbers seem perfectly reasonable. It all depends on the type of ground that determines surface friction https://www.simscale.com/knowledge-base/atmospheric-boundary-layer-abl/. I suppose the DCS model is based on height above the airfield, since (afaik) there is no meteorology modelled, nor terrain height influence on wind.

One sided? I'd expect tabs on both sides, or none at all...

Just found out that the Mosquito has one-sided aileron trim; left only!

Remains why OP isn't experiencing any cross-coupling on take-off. -On the ground if you rev-up I'd expect to see a rolling tendency to the left (due to engine torque) -During rolling and speedup there should be a tendency to yaw left due to (little) more pression on left gear (suppose that's in the gear model). -lifting the tail (pitch down) causes a momentary yaw to the left (gyroscopic effect) -Pitch up causes yaw to the right (the gyroscopic effect) -Once you're off the ground the aircraft wants to roll left, counteracted by aileron. I would expect these effects to be present in a flight model. P-factor I'm not so sure. It's complex physics and I doubt there's data available. I would expect input from SME's and some hand waving/tuning (WIP?). I'm not even addressing prop-wake issues. I'm curious to know how engine torque is counteracted in cruise flight; differential aileron as base? structural asymmetry? tabs? continuous roll trim? P-factor's main contribution is an off-set of the thrust vector which luckily is only a fraction of the prop radius (or did I misunderstand).

I googled 'atmospheric boundary layer formula' and put your data in the equation that was presented. I actually found 46.7 kts for 1600ft for your reference height of 22kts @ 5ft height (assumed ground level). so pretty much the same as your finding. Mind you, the value is highly dependent on the surface conditions. The 46.7 kts is for open land with grass. For surfaces described by 'farms, small obstacles' (airport like?) the windspeed at 1600ft is even higher; 54.1kts. For cities it's 117.4kts. I don't think ED has specified the surface conditions for all terrains, but it sure would be possible. I think you (and myself at first) underestimate the wind speeds at height. It's not ground level that is decisive. It's the friction of ground and obstacles that slows down the high speed undisturbed air above you.

The windspeed in the atmospheric boundary layer is not constant. If you have experienced equal windspeeds at ground and at 1600ft you've experienced an exceptional event. Wind speeds should increase with higher altitude. I cannot judge if the model used in DCS is accurate though.

I was aiming for a 3090 but settled for a 3080+3monitors+3TbHD for the same price.

The actual flying in almost all modern aircraft (fixed wing, helicopter) is relatively 'easy'. What makes it complicated is the (weapons- and information-)system management on top of that. For the Apache in addition it is combining the two different visual inputs (outside view and through the eyepiece) that makes it a challenge and requires quite some training to make your brain cope with that.

Basically these numbers correct for a 45deg angle for the side monitors. Otherwise you have 0 or 1 for a flat setup or a setup with perpendicular position of the monitors. Both not ideal or with distortion at edges. I've been trying to find out how to achieve these numbers (with solid knowledge of trigonometry) but to no avail, I just accept these figures...) Now with different (physical) size monitor/TV you see that they don't really match to one image. You can tweak the numbers (painstakingly) yourself and try to get a better match. With a ratio of 27" monitor and a 32" TV, I set my left FOV to 1.13. Then I tweaked the x and height values to get a similar size view on the bigger screen. I also lined up the top edges of the screens. Unfortunately this tweaking results in a graphical issues with 2.7 which were not there in 2.5.6! In 2.5.6 this worked flawlessly. The left screen is on the bigger monitor, you should stretch it down/left to get an idea of the match. With 2.7 and tweaks of the .lua you get strange offsets in the image (sea, clouds, mirror), so I mainly fly without clouds and overland... I'm now waiting for my new rig. I was aiming for a 3090 but I settle with a 3080 (actually a 3090 = 3080 + 3 monitors + 3Tb HD). Coming from 1050 I am happy with a 3080 + 3 equal monitors :).

There is a torque balance yes, but no force balance. The helicopter can compensate by a small bank angle to compensate drift. This changes the complete force/moment balance that may also include a sideslip. I'm not sure how a 'normal flight' is conducted; accepting a sideslip or bank angle, probably both...

Without ridiculing the subject I suggest to put this topic at the very last item on the to-do list, together with requests for accurate modelling of the landing gear operation after belly landing, or any other request outside a realistic operating procedure/envelope.

Given that the weapon selector is a rotary one and are not multiple push buttons, the 'Select Weapon Pilot Next' and 'Select Weapon Pilot Prev' seems more appropriate...

Translational lift is normally associated with the rotor only. With increasing forward speed from hover to bucket speed, the required power is decreasing, resulting in more lift/speed for the same power setting. The wing serves for off-loading the rotor at higher speeds. I can imagine the winglets are added to the wing as an additional wing segment with appropriate lift/drag characteristics. On second thought, the Hind's wings are primarily meant to carry the weapons...

Have a look here. A solution is presented for multiple resolution/width screens. Since 2.7 this has become troublesome. Basically configure all 3 screens with the highest resolution.

Davis Monthan would be a bit heavy on the number of objects though! I can recommend going there IRL!

Though I'm very skeptical on adding helpers for the actual flying, I think the idea of the two-sized, offset rings (or two rectangles) is spot-on for getting acquainted with the sweet spot. Both simple to add in a training session and, also important, easy to implement.

My impression is that they are claiming there is more information in 2D aids (rectangle or even a dot), then the actual 3D representation.

Buy the Tomcat and experience how utterly useless the RIO's instructions are. You are in control and you should know where to go.