sirrah

When in cruise mode the horizon and pitch angle lines are fixed on the IHADSS, as in the horizon line is not actually fixed on the horizon, but it moves up and down where ever the PLT or CPG is looking. I've been searching for an explanation as to why this is, but I couldn't find it. I would expect the horizon line to actually indicate the position of the horizon (like it does for JHMCS). Same can be said about the flight path vector. Could someone please explain to me why they chose to design it this way? There's probably a very logical reason for this, but I really need to get used to it after so much hours using JHMCS

Ever considered that there might not be anything meaningful to report? Why do so many people here seem to feel that ED owes them any news? I get it, it's all coming from enthusiasm and love for this great sim, but as Rudel said, try and enjoy what we have instead of constantly trying to focus on what's to come.

Just flew the fam flight mission and the 2nd mission (got shot down by a T-72 on second one due to my own stupidity ). Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here, or it is VA VAICOM acting up again (as always ), but my wingman doesn't response to my orders. I made 100% sure I'm on the correct frequencies, as stated in the mission briefing, and I can hear and interact with the other flights (JTAC, AWACS), but my wingman does not respond. I'm fairly sure he's on some other freq, but I don't know which one. Anyone else having this issue? Some other small feedback: On mission 1; at least one enemy Su-25 got shot down. Not sure if this is intended (Mission one being a fam flight) On mission 2; the initial radio calls from the assisting flights (CAP, CAS and SEAD), are extremely loud

They have a weekly newsletter They release patch notes with every update. Additionally, when there is something new to share with us, they do so. And you want even more? You do realize that every time ED shares news or work in progress, angry mobs are ready to attack them when plans turn out a little different.. I totally understand why ED is restraint when it comes to sharing news. The imminent torches and pitchforks by some community members must be frustrating for the dev team while they are working hard and doing their very best. Also, what's so hard to understand about: "we will share news when there is news to share"

hehe that's a lot of stops! I was wondering the same thing. Wouldn't flying them in have been cheaper? (it would have been a lot easier and faster at least )

With some proper thick sticky tape, you know, the foamy kind (forgive my lack of knowing the right name , you should be fine. Also, you can use some cheap polymorph plastic, to fill the gaps and create a better fit for the HMS. I used this several months when I switched from my Rift cv1 to my Reverb. (Later Miles sent me a new HMS for the Reverb because my old HMS was acting up a bit)

Awesome work @Eight Ball! Many thanks!

Started the hotfix update and to my surprise it's now downloading over 4GB Seems rather large for a hotfix (also I wouldn't have guessed this, looking at the patch notes)

All three are good reasons

People are already modifying the TCS base with counter weights and dampeners to compensate the weight of current grips. I assume a huge Apache grip will be even heavier than current grips, and if so, that won't help.

Well, note that I'm sharing my personal experience here. Perhaps mine is just "bad" (although responses in this thread probably proof that I'm not the only one) Also, apart from the friction issue, I must say that I really love using the collective. The Alpha-L grip I use on it, is perfect for the Apache. So it's not all bad

I assume you're referring to the M777 Howitzer? Happy to be corrected, but with the Mi8 having a max load capacity of ~4000kg, I think the M777 is too heavy to slingload. It certainly is too heavy for the Huey. But I wholeheartedly agree with you that we're in dire need of something actually useful to slingload to the front!

My initial thought would be exactly this. In DCS you're not centered in the CPG seat which (although ED apparently considers it "correct as is" ), which I think can only result in bad HMD alignment

Probably related to this: (patch notes)

It's actually quite easy to make yourself, as @YoYo shows (and a lot cheaper than buying some mod, if there even is one) After ±7months use, unfortunately I now can confirm that the friction adjustment on the Virpil collectives really are a serious weak point in design... I have had to increase tension on the hex bolts several times now. Last weekend I had to fasten 'em again and yesterday, during my DCS session when I had my hand off the collective for a moment, the collective dropped yet again! I'm getting at the point that I too realize that a counterweight or dampener is a must.. Really sad, for such an expensive product!

As a TCS plus user for a few months now, I can confirm, the "twist throttle" is not worth the extra bucks. At least, that's my opinion.

Track files can be wonky sometimes. I doubt if it's an ARGO issue. I, and I think most people here, experienced corrupted track files on other missions as well. As said, track files can be dodgy sometimes. But perhaps someone can chime in with a more scientific reason why your track file doesn't work. (Also I can imagine that some mission triggers will not work properly when loading/jumping into a mission from a track file)

hehe yeah, I was just about to edit my previous post: I tried to reproduce your "2 BRU's" idea, but failed. Well, I can deliberately stare somewhere in the distance and see 2 BRU's and 2 sets of rings, but it doesn't make the alignment any better if I do it this way. Perhaps I'm just not capable of deliberately staring at the HMB reticle (is it even possible to stare with just one eye?) The only way I'm able to get the IHADSS boresighted pretty accurate, is to just completely ignore the yellow rings and point my HMD reticle exactly in the center of the BRU (at that point the yellow rings are not at all concentric). Let's wait and see if ED find out what's wrong

I think I catch your drift now. I'll give it a shot. Thought I still wonder if this is indeed what real Apache pilots do when they boresight the IHADSS.

Really doing my best to understand what you're saying here, but I'm afraid I'm not completely with you on this one Two BRU sights? As in looking forward cross-eyed? Although I trust you that your method works in DCS, I can't imagine the boresight alignment procedure is supposed to be performed this way. And if it does, it could use some additional explaining in the manual

Well, it should work regardless to which eye the IHADSS is rendered. That said, given that irl it's right eye only, it should at least work properly with IHADSS set to right eye. Personally I don't care if it works properly when rendered left eye, or both eye

Yes, we all know that's the "official" right way to perform the procedure. This thread has been started because doing the alignment this this way (by the book) in VR, doesn't work properly (or at least has mixed results)

But he's probably using TrackIR Apparently results are different in VR (and perhaps even different between the various uses VR headsets)

I agree This thread got tagged "correct as is", but we're not quite there yet "Correct" would mean: sitting in the center of the CP/G seat, and right now, we don't. Right now we are (more or less) centered on the TADS display

Rearm/refuel ground crew not responding in this instant action mission. See track file. IA range Marianas - cant rearm.trk