sirrah

Because everything (including the interactive training missions) is EA and work in progress. You can report missing highlighted switches in the CH-47 bug section of this forum. (talking about missing items: your thread title is missing any form of sense )

Sorry to tag you @BIGNEWY, but please make sure to inform the team about this issue (if you haven't already). It should be an easy fix (at least for the co-/pilot seats), yet quite a big QOL improvement.

I don't necessarily want the "wokka wokka" (or "whoppa whoppa" ) volume to be louder, I'd like it to be more in proportion with the super loud turbine sound. Right now one can hardly hear the wokka wokka sound, but the turbines are super loud.

Just chiming in to say I experience the same (HP Reverb G1) Also, this thread should be moved to the "bugs and problems" section, as this is not a controller related issue. Like others mentioned; How is it possible that these kind of basic issues are not tackled before EA release? Yes, I know it's EA and I'm not an IT guy, but surely the default pilot head position should be an easy thing to get right. I mean, everyone putting on a VR headset will see the default position is not centred*. It's literally the first thing you notice. *or is there anyone here using a VR headset that does not have this issue? We had this exact same issue in the Apache CPG seat at EA release and imho it took ED too long to acknowledge/fix that. Hopefully this report gets noticed sooner.

I wonder if anyone here agrees with me (I even considered posting this as a bug) The beautiful low pitch sound of the flapping Chinook blades is already implemented (you can somewhat hear it if you zoom out far enough). In my opinion, it needs to be quite a lot louder though. In real life you can hear/feel this sound loudly from a very long distance and it's so distinct, that even the untrained ear can hear that a Chinook is approaching. When it gets closer, the high pitch turbine sound level eventually exceeds the low pitch sound of the blades slapping through the air and this is currently implemented quite well. Though from my experience seeing/hearing our Dutch Chinooks, I just think the distant "wokka wokka" sound needs to be louder. (simply turning up the main volume wouldn't be the same, as then the turbine and in cockpit sound would become deafening. I'm trying to say; either the turbine sound volume needs to be decreased, or the distant "wokka wokka" volume needs to be increased)

Ah ok, yes, that would work Perhaps I misunderstood the OP

Although I wholeheartedly agree that such a campaign would be really cool, from commercial perspective this wouldn't be smart (or even feasible). As in your example such a campaign would require players to own the Huey, NTTR map, Chinook and Afghanistan. This would substantially reduce the amount of purchases. But yes, it would be awesome

Hehe indeed "loopings in all directions" is the way to describe it But please don't get me wrong, I'm not worried, nor dissatisfied and I'm sure ED will iron out these shenanigans at some point

Fwiw: My first impressions after 30mins in the Chinook. Although I'm very aware that it is EA and WIP, current flight characteristics got me chuckling a bit. I started with binding my collective axis and (as usual) it was initially inverted, resulting in my Chinook rocketing into the sky (now I'm not an SME, so pehaps this is normal, but I'd expect something to fail/break if you try this irl, or at least some cautions or warnings). Given the funny skyrocket start, I used a few minutes to see if the aircraft could be overstressed, to which I didn't succeed. Not sure how I mamaged, but at somepoint I even did a nose down (forward) looping It really got me into them early day Gazelle vibes. Quite fun actually, but yeah, some work to be done there, as some of my "moves" beat the laws of physics. My second flight (beginning with properly adjusted axis) was more normal. I practiced some hovering, which was way more challenging than I would have thought. Maybe there's some setting or system I don't know of yet and didn't enable, but I had a lot of trouble to keep myself at one altitude. Even the slightest collective input got me ascending/depending. Will take some time getting used to (which I don't mind at all )

Can't help you with a simple answer, but you might also want to check out the dedicated home cockpit building sub forum. Some true artists over there. This guy made his own CH-47 mfd's for instance:

*sigh* Who said anything about landing on a boat (did you even read the OP)? You do realize the Hornet can also land on airfields? Just in case you really don't understand what I meant, I was merely pointing out that the Hornet's landing gear is much more forgiving than the Viper's But you know what, just forget about my attempt to contribute to the OP's question, as apparently to some it's too complicated to understand what I meant.. or my attempt to adept to the English language is just too incomprehensible.

On holiday, so not able to try for myself atm. Can you have Bob fly (in orbit) while you man one of the gunner positions?

You obviously missed my point I said landing the Hornet is easier. Nobody said one can't land the Viper. Please don't twist my words...

This reaction from BN looks promising:

...

I would have liked both to be challenging But again, not complaining, I just find it so rewarding to at some point master the flight controls. The employment challenge would rest heavily on proper user made missions. I hope this transport helo will be popular enough to see many missions (I know I can easily make my own, but ED's mission editor is not famous for adding random events, so it'll be difficult to create missions with "surprises") Anyone know how prone the Hook is to VRS?

I can't suppress the feeling of being slightly disappointed that this beast seems so easy to fly (or at least very forgiving at take-off/hover) "Taking off in the Chinook is about the easiest you can do right now in DCS" No rant, but given the age of the Hook, I was kinda expecting somewhat more of a challenge to tame it. I sure hope landing and slingloading will be more challenging.

Yeah I've seen that and sure, parts of the map seem to be early WIP, but there's also a lot of nice small details, especially at the airfields and personally I'm surprised on overall decent performance over the huge city of Cairo, even on my old rig. Admittedly, I mainly fly helo modules, so not much blowing up bridges on my side.

Very curious about the Sinai update. This map is already quite detailed and I don't understand why it's so underappreciated (or at least, it's my feeling that it's underappreciated). Also, can't wait to get my hands on The Hook

I'd rather first see the smoke columns change to the type that doesn't rotate when you tilt your head in vr... (You remember those cotton cloud balls in DCS' pre 2.5 era. Those clouds also rotated in vr. Current smoke columns still do) Rotorwash effecting smoke would of course be very nice too, at some point. But solving the "rotating" smoke is currently a far more pressing matter imho

The one in the trailer was driven in and out of the Chinook by a human player using Combined Arms. It's safe to assume this won't be an AI feature (at least I wouldn't expect it at EA release if I were you). Make sure to manage your expectations

My first bike: GSX-R 750 K3 (2003) (it had a killer sound ) 2nd bike: Ducati 848 (2009) I swapped it to Corse colors after I decided to drop it: (The 848 gave me a massive amount of electrical issues.. Replaced about everything on the electric system, including the alternator, all cables and about 4 voltage regulators.. never managed to solve it and traded in for my current bike) 3rd (current) bike: Triumph Street Triple 675RX (2015) It's not that I feel too old for a racer, but I just wanted to try something different this time (I'll never go back to non-quickshifter though )

"Being able to see troops in the back": 100% agreed Why we still have to use a mod for this, while the Huey is over a decade old, is beyond me. Even some simplified static infantry 3D models would be better than nothing. Moving ground crew and proper ground crew handling/procedures though, is a different story and will be much more challenging.

Well, all land based ops deserve these features. As someone who at this point mainly flies helos, I'd love to see your wish come true, but in all honesty, it'd be quite weird if ground crew were to only be implemented for helo ops. In fact, I expect it to be much more simple to implement ground crew for land based fixed wing (airfields), rather than rotary. As us rotorheads also tend to randomly decide to land in the middle of urban or rural areas.

Holiday = more time for DCS I don't see the issue