King_Hrothgar

It isn't just you, in a dive I'll chop collective to nothing and use cyclic only as well.

By model, I meant the end result, of course the code running it is different. In any case, this feature just isn't ready yet. Its day will come, just have to be patient. On the bright side, the Gazelle looks like it should be fairly easy to operate solo with a decent HOTAS. The workload doesn't look any higher than with the Ka-50.

That's all I'm asking for too. I want 2 mainstay attack choppers, one western, one eastern and then they can go back to making whatever else. The only reason I'm so forgiving on the F-5E is because it just happens to be #1 on my fixed wing wishlist, since it's the perfect opponent for the MiG-21Bis. As for jet fighters in general, we're fast approaching the point where I'm going to stop buying them. I want a certain level of variety in my aircraft purchases and between the F-5E, Mirage 2000C, F-18C and AV-8B (mostly due to uniqueness of the airframe), that variety will be filled on the western side. I'd still be open to a few eastern fighters to go with them, but only 2-3.

The L-39 has it as said, but it's state isn't exactly what I'd call functional. There are a few game breaking issues that need to be resolved. They are: 1) Inability for the player to change seats if no other player is present (imagine being unable to fire the Gazelle's weapons at all if you don't have a second human with you, that's a problem). 2) Lag, so much lag. The game doesn't handle even the tiniest amount of lag elegantly, thus there are all sorts of problems ranging from jittering and teleportation to self destructing due to over G (even while stationary on the ground with the engine off). 3) No ability to boot someone out of your aircraft if they become a problem, though at least you can deny them entry in the first place. MP multicrew has been done well in other flight sims over the years, so it can certainly be done. This isn't a new thing at all, just new to DCS. RoF/BoS/BoM have it flawlessly implemented at this time and should be considered a model of how to do it right. Of course, it wasn't always so, they had the same types of problems when RoF first came out too. Back on topic, I'd actually really like to see the air assault COOP missions brought back. Those were a blast and the Gazelle fits those perfectly as they were designed for the more lightly armed UH-1 and Mi-8. A light scout with a few beefy AT missiles would fit into those far better than the Ka-50 and it's one man airforce ground attack power.

Thanks for your thoughts dimitriov. I've been thinking that the Gazelle's main usage in MP will be as a scout for Ka-50's and what you wrote seems to confirm that. On 104th for instance, I think it will work best as a commander for a flight of 4+ Ka-50's, spotting and assigning targets thanks to it's seemingly better sensors. It should also be handy in night missions where it can give a precise range/bearing to a target, thus making it far easier for the Ka-50's to locate stuff. My main concern about the Gazelle offensively is the missile range. The T-72 and better fire missiles back at choppers at about 5km. The Vikhr shoots 7km+, so it's a non issue for the Ka-50 but it's my understanding the HOT3 can only reach a meager 3.5km. I noticed in the video some shots out to 4km, but even that is well inside the range of the typical T-90 seen in MP. Those missiles are easy to defeat with sideslipping, but that seems problematic for a wire guided missile. Additionally, does the targeting system have autotracking ability or do you have to manually keep it on target? If the latter, that's an additional problem when trying to evade.

And still only 1 attack helicopter, the Ka-50 from 2008! And before someone claims the Gazelle is an attack chopper, if you claim that then I'm going to claim the Hawk T.1A, L-39C and L-39ZA are 4th generation multi-role fighters. It's no less silly of a claim.

The twist knobs, absolutely. I use them all the time on my X-55. With all aircraft, I have the lower rotary as my zoom and generally leave the top one for wheel brakes on Russian aircraft (more of a BoS/BoM thing since it doesn't allow assignments by individual aircraft). The two rotaries on the throttle serve assorted purposes, generally prop pitch and radiators on prop planes and gunsight range/lighting on jets. Now if you mean the mouse nipples replacing buttons, yeah, probably not too useful. The mouse nipple on my X-55 has yet to be used in game because it's really only usable as a 4 way hat and isn't comfortable to reach anyways. It also didn't work in game last time I tried it, but that was a year ago. From what I've seen, the X-56 isn't an upgrade over the X-55, it's a minor revision to make it better for Elite Dangerous while likely making it worse for flight sims. But we'll have to see. If the new mouse nipples are true analog controls, and they don't jitter everywhere, it might be ok.

Cool, thanks for staying so on top of this and letting us know too. :)

My experience with Saitek: 1) X-45, lasted 2-3 years and broke (keep in mind this was around 2005) 2) X-52 Pro, used heavily for 8+ years, sitting in closet and still works as far as I know 3) X-55, heavy use for over a year, works well so far I also had a Cyborg for a while when my X-45's stick broke, it worked fine with the still working throttle. I gave it away when I got the X-52 Pro. In terms of functionality, the X-55 is great. It has enough buttons for even the A-10C and is reasonably comfortable after getting used to it. The stick isn't as nice as the X-52 Pro's, but it does have more buttons (the main reason I bought it). Accuracy is good on the stick thanks to hall sensors while the other axis' all have about a 1% jitter due to pots, but that doesn't hurt anything. The 4 rotaries on it are particularly useful and were the main reason I bought it over a CH setup or a TM WH. I do not regret that decision and fully recommend it.

Nothing that fancy is needed, we just need the ability to swap seats in MP if the other seats aren't taken by another human. The L-39 doesn't currently allow this and although not important for it, that ability will be critical for the true multicrewed aircraft being made such as the A-6. That issue is a ways off for the A-6 though, given that it's coming after the Harrier, Tucano and F-15E I think. Not sure if the F-15E offers any backseat functionality that isn't also present in the front, so it may not matter like with the L-39.

Indeed, when the F-14 was first announced, it was clearly stated that they planned to have 2 other modules before it. They simply haven't formally announced them yet, though they did confirm the steam leak to be correct. Back on topic, thanks for the update. Lots of good info and nice pics. I really hope you can get your carrier into the base game as that will ensure it is compatible with multiplayer (for everyone). I don't think it will be an issue, but you never know.

Your right, it's the British army that operates them. A minor distinction imho. I'm surprised they have so few though, I'd think the UK would have a sizable attack chopper force but it's very nearly non-existent. Edit: Oh yeah, goes without saying but thanks for the fresh pics Dimitriov :).

The better question is when would it actually be released. The best answer I can give is sometime between not this year and never. It's being developed by Aviodev, you can check their forum for info. They recently posted a few screenshots but that doesn't mean much, 3d models represent somewhere around 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the work required to make a DCS module.;)

A 1980's F-15C would be the most sensible choice if doing a 1980's Su-27S. I don't think either are going to happen anytime soon though. Those statements were made ages ago and they've clearly chosen to do other things instead given all the aircraft they've released or are officially working on that aren't an F-15 or Su-27.

^Not interested in flying it but would love to fight it (human, not AI). Oh, and I'm betting DCS: Tie fighter since the X-Wing was last year.

I didn't see any changes there listed on their website. The X-55 uses hall sensors for pitch/roll axis and pots for the rest. The only mention of hall sensors I saw for the X-56 are for the pitch/roll axis, just like the X-55.

None of them, the F-5E and Mirage F.1 are the most direct opponents, both of which are already in development. The F-5E is expected to be released sometime in the next few months.

Too early, also too obviously false. 0/10

I didn't mean anything by my comment, just found it to be an odd setup is all. But then I also consider the A-10C's real world setup to be completely bonkers. So maybe it's just me.

That setup seems really, really random to me. I can't imagine how you keep it straight. Generally I group like functions together. Thus I have all 4 radar slew controls on a 4 way hat on the throttle, I also have the 4 stores buttons on another 4 way hat and I use the buttons for the top/bottom rotaries as my chaff and flares. The rest of my setups for aircraft in DCS and other sims all follow similar conventions and are often identical or nearly identical.

The X-55 is basically an X-52 Pro with more buttons and not as good ergonomics (on the stick, everyone loves the throttle). I find accuracy on it to be just fine, the hall sensors are top notch. The throttle uses pots though, so they tend to have a 1% jitter straight out of the box. But they haven't gotten any worse in they year I've had it and a 1% jitter on the throttle axis' doesn't hurt anything from a practical standpoint. So I consider that a non-issue.The X-55 also has 3 additional axis' over the WH, if ignoring the twist grip. Those are pretty handy for things like zoom, gunsight ranging, lights, prop pitch and so on. I've had mine about a year and a half now, works fine. The X-52 Pro I had before (and still sits in the closet) I bought around 9-10 years ago when the X-52 Pro was first released (replaced an X-45 that wore out). It still works as far as I know. I've never had an issue with Saitek, though the X-55 is the first item I've bought from them since they were bought out by Mad Catz. CH Products also makes solid gear. Everything they have uses pots, but the pots are of good quality. The devices themselves have a reputation for being virtually indestructible. My CH pedals are about a year old and work good as new. Only had to open them up and clean them once so far, and my pet rabbit was the reason (electronics on the floor and rabbit fur don't go well together). The TM WH is fine of course, but it does have a very heavy stick making it terribly ill suited to flying choppers. I mostly fly choppers, and so that combined with the lack of supporting axis' is the reason I went with the X-55 instead. A full CH HOTAS setup got eliminated for the lack of axis' (I will never go back to keys for zoom, a rotary or slider is just too good).

Wipe DCS completely (absolutely everything, folders and regestries included) and contact customer support. They will refresh your keys.

Either way, the screenshot by Aviodev is super zoomed out, thus distorting the view heavily. I recommend future screenshots be done in a more standard 75-90 degree FoV. That should avoid distortion and give us a good idea of what it actually looks like. :)

AFM has nothing to do with them not popping up to 60k+ ft for the cruise portion, that's a guidance issue. It's always been like that and is unlikely to change prior to LNS's F-14 release. Even then, it may only apply to player launched missiles. We'll have to see.

Upgraded from 8.1, no measurable performance difference in any program.