Kinkkujuustovoileipä

Read the sentence again "Each provides roughly 50% of the control authority exercised by the system".

No, that was not written by me. And what is written there is not an accurate representation of the current state of Polychop Simulations at this time.

Door gunner performance should be fixed, still waiting on feedback from any server owners.

It is largely correct behaviour as the locking simulates a contrast lock so the image would remain locked onto the brightness of the burning target or hulk. To exit point track in general you should use the MANUAL/SLAVE button to go back to MANUAL mode IIRC.

Because not a single day goes by when I don't get messaged on Discord by someone who can't read basic instructions and they fail to install it properly. It's really annoying and the installer ensures it is put in the correct location. It also places the script for the door gunners in the correct location too. Lastly, it checks and shows you the update changelog so you can just run the installer and know if there is a new version and update. And I can just keep uploading regular small fixes when I can, without having to publish and announce lots of new versions. I think it is much simpler for everyone involved. I know it maybe conflicts with people who use mod managers, but I think on the whole that is a minority of players and the benefits are worth it.

Hello everyone, The 2.0 update for the UH-60L Black Hawk mod is now available on Patreon to all: https://www.patreon.com/posts/uh60l-mod-2-0-138859868 Please read the instructions in the post carefully! I will be updating the Discord server to include a bug tracking section for any issues encountered. Please note the ED forums are not a helpful place to report issues regarding the mod; issues tend to get lost in the noise. I hope you all enjoy the update.

Good catch, thanks for sharing! Will see what I can do...

No gunsight. Movable crosshair on screen. If anyone has evidence of a sight on a DAP I'll consider it but I'm yet to see it.

Correct, this is realistic as it is physically attached to the end of the NVGs and at the time this aircraft is simulated there was no day HUD.

Hi all, I hope you're doing well! As development on the 2.0 build of the UH-60L mod is wrapping up I'd like to give an overview of the changes coming to the mod and some thoughts on the future. I was planning to do this in video form (and may still do so later) but I'm recovering from a nasty cold and currently can't stop coughing long enough to talk sensibly. Hence this post will have to do in the meantime One question I know will be on people's minds is "what about the submods?". The answer is simple - it's entirely up to the respective developers. I will be cleaning up the Discord server and rearranging the channels a little, but development and maintenance of the submods remains, as ever, the domain of the respective owners. The first area I want to discuss is art. I'm well aware the artwork of the UH-60L mod has it's limitations and issues. However there are no major art changes in this update. I'd love to do a complete overhaul of the model from scratch but I lack the capacity and capability to do it myself and I'm yet to find someone both talented and dedicated enough to commit to that endeavour. It would require a significant amount of work and time and I see this as being almost the entirety of a possible v3.0 update in the future, if possible. The positive side of this is that liveries _should be_ largely unaffected by this update. With that out of the way let's get into what is coming. The first big change is the flight model. While the engine and transmission simulation remains relatively basic (and will continue to do so) the flight modelling and physics have been completely rewritten. It's difficult to convey a change that is largely a subjective experience but I believe the result is far more accurate and dynamic than the previous version. From a technical point of view the new simulation is now mostly physics based instead of using tabulated data. The stability systems have also been updated and while the Flight Path Stabilization will remain a work in progress for now, I'm happy with the SAS and trim implementations. Speaking of trim, Force Feedback is now supported! You will need to enable this in the mod's Special Options menu. One art change that did come in is the use of the rotor blur system. Aside from a great visual update this also allows for flapping and coning animations which really improves the rotor disc effect. A new feature that many have asked for is the door gunner AI. The UH-60L now comes with the possibility of adding M60 and M3M door guns that are controlled by AI gunners. These gunners can be controlled with an ROE toggle key and a simple UI is also available to show their status. The M3M is a little fictional liability I included but I think it fits nicely. Another big change coming in 2.0 is the new 'DAP' variant. This is loosely based on the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator. Since many of the capabilities that make up the MH-60L are not possible to implement in a mod (e.g. FLIR, laser designation, terrain radar...) I've compromised by taking the UH-60L and giving a ridiculous (but realistic) amount of dakka. The door gunners are replaced by M134 miniguns that can also be toggle to fix forward for pilot fire control, and the ESSS pylons can take the following weapon options: * 2x M230 30mm chain guns * 2x GAU-19 .50 rotary machine guns * 2x M134 miniguns * 4x FN HMP-500 .50 machine guns * 4x M260 7-shot rocket launchers * 4x LWL-12 12-shot rocket launchers * 4x M261 19-shot rocket launchers * 16x AGM-114K Hellfire laser guided missiles * 8x Air To Air Stinger missiles Custom cockpit panels have been added to the DAP variant for both the pylon weapons and door gunners. The DAP variant also has the fuel probe enabled by default for air to air refueling. Both aircraft now also have more options for fuel bags. The older 230 and 450 gallon tanks are now in stock. For the cargo haulers I'm pleased to announce that this version supports the new cargo system for loading and unloading crates and troops onto your aircraft. It's also now possible to release your slingloaded cargo, although it continues to have no effect on the flight model at this time. A number of other quality of life and bug fix changes have been added, and so I'll wrap up by listing some of them below: * Various DGNS bug fixes * Added FLY TO course support for DGNS * Various CIS, HSI and VSD fixes * Added sunglass/visor * AVS-7 now only visible when NVGs are on * Moveable crosshairs on the DAP variant * Overhauled damage model with new collision geometry and damage values * Doors can be removed or added from the Ground Crew menu * Added crew models (visibility can be toggle from interior as usual) * Interior geometry updated for proper enclosure and better lighting effects * Added working windscreen wipers * Various fixes to radios and ground crew calling * Fixed RWR displaying symbology outside of RWR * Fixes for fuel tank mass calculations and AFMS display * New documentation * New installer I'm sure I've missed some things but I'll leave them for you to find them out! --Kinkku

I haven't touched the KW code since leaving PC so I'm a little rusty, but from memory of implementing this it's correct behaviour. I believe the reason you aren't seeing the WP names in the screenshots from the manual is because I turned off the display of the WP names for LINE and AREA graphics when I took those screenshots, specifically because the screen becomes quite cluttered. This can be done in the RMS->SETUP page IIRC. I think this setting affects all pages that display BF graphics, i.e. it's a 'global' setting, not specific to the RMS or HSD pages. Again, I believe that is correct behaviour for the CDS we modelled. As Vakarian mentioned, all BF GRAPHICS are in fact created from WPs and CPs (can't remember if TPs?) and so when importing the drawings from the mission editor, the points of the drawing are constructed as new WPs and added to your WP list. I believe this is discussed in the manual, including the priorities of constructing the WPs from the various possible ME sources.

My point was that when we chose to leave Polychop due to our disputes with Sven, we obviously could no longer continue working on the Kiowa or Gazelle. Both projects meant - and continue to mean - a lot to us personally. We felt that we had lost them. It's hard for us to see the issues being reported and know we can't do anything - especially for Rober and I who keep reacting like "hey I know how to fix that!" and Dan really has a strong connection to the Gazelle, after all he was instrumental in organizing and making the 2024 updates happen with all the new liveries and features for it. That really was all his leadership and management and work with the community contributors making that happen. It's hard to see all of that just stop and a now disaffected community when you know you have the experience and capability to change or fix it.

No, I understood what you said. I'd like to try and explain myself with some contextual points: 1) Every other third party developer I've interacted with has cared about their modules. However they work within the capacities they have available and sometimes that just means they don't have the resources to maintain older modules at the expense of working on new projects 2) Adding to the above, I don't think you understand the 'drop off' in sales after a release and just how severe that can be. DCS for developers is like a dog - it's not just for Christmas, it's for life. A DCS module has no finite end. It goes on forever, yet the money it is making later on is just not enough to justify the investment required to renovate it. You'd have to most likely pay tens of thousands of dollars for a full art overhaul, for example - which is one of the most obvious and common issues with older modules - and it simply will not make that money back. There are ways to do this e.g. BS3 or A-10C2, but in order to justify selling an update you end up having to invest even more because you need developer time to design and create marketable features on top of QOL or art updates - or risk the wrath of the community. It's not easy. 3) There are legal methods in place that guarantee modules do not simply disappear. I realise the irony of saying this after Razbam's modules have been removed from sale, but again, that situation is not comparable to what happened with PC. 4) I'm grateful for your thanks regarding the quality, professionalism and communication that people like Dan, Rober, Joose and I brought to Polychop. We worked very hard on that. Especially Dan. It was not easy. 5) I think that most of your ire is directed at Razbam, and I get it. But that's an extreme situation and I think it's fair to say both parties have learnt a lot from it. I don't think it's fair to point to that situation and declare that PC is special - rather I think you should recognise that the RB situation is what is special, or unique, or more extreme, whatever comparison you want to make. And the reactions of the people involved reflect that. I certainly can't hold a moral high ground on those developers who spoke out, because I haven't been through what they went though. But given what we ex-developers of Polychop went through, I can absolutely understand the emotional distress and difficulties experienced having put so much of themselves into their work. Losing the Kiowa and Gazelle wasn't easy for us, especially after all the work we did to fix the reputation of Polychop, but at least it was our choice to do so. They didn't have that choice. Anyway, I hope this helps clarify my position a bit. I do understand your feeling, but I feel directing it at Razbam is pointless and possibly unfair given that situation, and aiming at any other developer (including ED) would similarly be unfair.

This is complete rubbish. The Polychop situation has nothing to do with ED.

Thanks, this is probably the most unhelpful bug report so far! Want to try again and see if you can do a little better? Hint - try including a track file.

Simple explanation is that the pitch, roll and yaw switches control SCAS. Autopilot is separate system that requires all SCAS channels enabled to function. If one of the SCAS channels is disabled, autopilot will also disable.

Sorry, I'm not aware of what you're referring to? Perhaps some screenshots showing comparison could help?

ED.

...I wasn't talking to you...I was talking to the person with the ED Translator status who AFAIK has access to internal testing builds. ED decided not to add the KW changes to this hotfix. I am not very happy with them, to be quite honest.

Well thank you for noticing my 'smart' code As for your issue, it's actually already fixed internally. You're correct that 'pressed' was causing problems, it's been updated and waiting for the next patch. Regarding the general state - we're going through all of the issues as they arise and fixing them. I can't promise there won't continue to be some bugs in the next patch but we've definitely smashed the most important/most reported input issues this cycle. Once you get the next update, please keep reporting issues

Understood, this is expected behaviour

Please upload a track and we can take a look

Correct as is, thank you for your passion and support.

Please upload a track file of this occurring when you can, thanks.