Jaximus Decimus

This campaign sounds pretty interesting. When can we expect it to become available on Steam?

The thing you would really have a problem with is any kind of pre-flight inspection. Unless you've done one on a Huey before and you have the cheat sheet right there you're going to miss a lot of stuff. Even if there was a problem, could you tell by looking? If you don't know what a component is supposed to look like when it's in flyable condition how are you supposed to tell if anything is amiss? It would basically come down to: Are the rotors attached? Check. Begin startup. Also, what if it's out of fuel? Dead battery?

I just spent the last 6 hours turning my G940 joystick into a Huey cyclic. This is what this sim will do to you. My pedals are next!

Penetration is relative, though. Just about anything will penetrate the body of a vehicle that doesn't have armor. Automotive sheet metal doesn't provide anything resembling ballistic protection. As far as a certified incendiary tracer NATO round I have no clue.

In my experience incendiary tracer is easy to come by. Not API, but you don't need API to kill a light vehicle and set it ablaze. I'm not sure what the US military's official loading for the M134 is, but incendiary tracer was easy to come by in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've seen 7.62 incendiary light vehicles on fire pretty easily. In fact, a quick youtube search reveals; There isn't a great deal of incendiary compound in each round, but you're not going to be hitting a target with an M134 with just one round. If it's inflammable, the M134 will light it on fire. Probably, anyway.

Nice find, Sundowner. Where's that info from?

Ok, I'm not the only one. Thanks, Bear.

I haven't got out my stopwatch and checked or anything, but the spool-up time on the M134's seems way too long. In my experience it only takes a couple tenths of a second to get wound up and start firing, but in the Huey it feels like it's at least half a second or more. I can look out the window and watch the barrels just spinning. I don't know if this was a characteristic of the older M134's, but current models definitely don't behave that way. At first I just thought there was a delay before my fire command would go into effect, like I had to hold it so long before the guns would get the command to fire, like a safety. But I can look out the window and clearly see the guns spool-up the moment I press the switch. That half second feels like an eternity when you've got your pipper locked on a moving vehicle and you need to get rounds out.

Is this a flight simulator or an engineering simulator? How is this six pages?

Hey, thanks a lot, jotaele. I'll have to give that a try. Seems worth the trouble to get this working with ToH. Thanks again.

I know I'm way late to the party here, but I've just got to chime in and say this program is amazing. My G940 has never felt better. Truly an excellent job you have done, AP. My only regret is that is doesn't seem to work with Take On Helicopters. I spent some time yesterday trying to get it working, but ToH just won't relinquish FFB control. The two programs just kind of fight each other and I never was able to figure out a way to completely kill ToH's FFB. WHat a shame, because this is really excellent. I give it an 11 out of 10.

MSI Afterburner is free, has a ton of options and you can record for as long as you want. I haven't used Bandicam, but file sizes are much smaller than FRAPS. Great video, BTW!

Short answer, no. It is not more economical for helicopters to fly at higher altitudes. Long answer; While planes and helicopters do indeed have to obey the same laws of physics, the construction and operating principals of airplanes and helicopters are very different. Airplanes have engines to generate thrust and wings that use that thrust to create lift. When a plane climbs into higher thinner air it becomes easier for the engines to push the plane. This allows the plane to go faster, which increases the lift generated by the wings. So, even though the wings technically produce less lift in thinner air the speed increase makes up for it. So the plane is now easier to push through the air, is travelling faster and has just as much lift as it would in denser air. That adds up to better fuel economy. Helicopters, on the other hand, have a spinning rotor that is responsible for generating lift and thrust. At high altitudes the loss of lift created by the thinner air forces the engines to work much harder to make the rotors spin faster. Eventually you can get to a point where the engines can't spin the blades fast enough to generate more lift. This is why helicopters can't hover at higher altitudes and tend to have a much lower service ceiling than airplanes. Helicopters get the best fuel economy when flying fast enough to generate translational lift at altitudes where the air is dense enough for the rotor blades to efficiently generate lift.

Hey, Peter, where can I get a form to place an order for one of these bad boys?