Rongor

You got it mixed up. The default option has the delay. The return to center mode has no time trigger, it's waiting for the controls to return to their center position. It's in the DSC manual as well.

I can confirm that the 0.5 seconds input pause seems to be missing in the Mi-24. Open up the controls info box with RCtrl+Enter. Notice how after releasing the trim the pitch/roll inputs from the stick almost instantly are followed. There seems to be a fraction of the usual pause, but not the ususal 0.5 seconds. In the Huey you can clearly see that 0.5 seconds freeze. Not here. If others could confirm this, it might be worth a bug report.

Port of Sevastopol needs assets urgently...

you mentioned double tapping trim for adjusting the new yaw value. What you are doing with this is a trim reset. Resetting your trim to center-neutral is not only abandoning your current perfect roll/pitch attitude, you also don't want that happen when hovering near the ground. Try it out while in slow speeds near the ground, especially while descending. Your yaw channel has a hard time to understand what you intend to do. In some cases, the yaw channel will take away enough authority to leave you with insufficient anti-torque. You don't want that seconds before landing. The yaw channel in its current state seems to work for running landings, not so much for air taxi and settling down vertically.

unfortunately it doesn't work. Try turning while transitioning to lower speeds, it will kill you.

The delay happens after releasing it, not after pushing it. Quick depression of the trim button induces this problem. Try to get used to keep the trim button pressed throughout your entire maneuver, then release it only after finding the desired attitude. This helped me a lot reducing these hiccups after trim release...

I was just looking for a thread like this, as I am wondering if this is a bug. Currently your rudder neutral point wanders along the yaw axis. You can check this with the RCtrl+Enter controls readout. The controls yaw axis had its neutral shifted to the left, the pedals in the cockpit also showed this shift, while my home cockpit rudder pedals were actually neutral. This way I couldn't apply necessary amount of right rudder while landing, as my physical rudder already was at its rightmost limit. Only pressing the trim reset brought it back to neutral. Hence rudder pedals are somehow affected by some kind of trim, even if rudder trimming is set to off in the special Mi-24 config settings. This happens when the K and T channels are active. These channels seems to have full control of your yaw axis. Switching them off stops the adjustments. Yet you then can't bring it back to neutral without doing a total trim reset. So maybe the authority of the channels is currently way too powerful. Also it's weird that you can't apply any trim command to the pedals (without switching rudder trimming on in the special config), yet the AP can do so. When we have rudder trimming set to off (as this is more realistic, as we are told), in the Ka-50 you can't trim rudders but the trim action "tells" the AP which azimuth target it should respect while applying the AP's percentage authority. In the Mi-24 your trim action seems to have no yaw affect at all, so the AP governs the rudder trim like a dictator. Maybe we should switch rudder trimming on for the Mi-24? If not, the AP trims the rudder, while we can't. Is this realistic?

I see how any wishlist'ish discussions seem to just ever want to get more, but I think there are several DCS maps which in fact would be just perfect if adding more terrain. Not because "more" is always better but because the respective theaters feel incomplete because of terrain which was left out. DCS Syria could have been DCS Levant with the southwestern edge following the Eilat - Kairo - Cyprus line... In the east, we could imagine Mosul and maybe even Baghdad. At least completing Israel and the Sinai would have given endless historical playgrounds...

You are right, I didn't mention all this and there are possibly other dozens of potential issues. In fact I didn't mention any of these because none of these factors were contributing to the described situation The left engine was put out by hostile small arms fire. After that, all external factors remained constant and had no further effect on what was happening. So it is no question why the left engine failed. I was focusing on the correct actions to continue flight with OEI. Sadly it didn't work because the healthy engine decided to lose power after putting the throttle lever to max. This last fact is the only thing I was questioning. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear with this.

Ok, so the bottom line appears to be: - hydraulics system failures have some dubious effects but aren't really simulated deeply at the moment - in critical hydraulic states, accumulators currently only get depleted by wheel braking Btw Volk, I really like your youtube Ka-50 videos...

Yesterday, my left engine shut down after suffering from complete loss after oil pressure had dropped to zero. "No problem" I thought and pulled the yellow throttle lever left of me to the upper position, for compensating the loss of left engine power by maximizing power of the healthy right engine. My rotor pitch indicator was at around 10, so in a pretty regular power regime. Yet only after a few seconds of the left engine still winding down, the right engine started to loss rpm too and soon it was following the left engine in to complete power loss, albeit it appeared to be struggling to keep power but ultimately slowly went down (within half a minute or so). I was surprised by this. I'd expected to continue with the healthy right engine. Yet it literally behaved like it was wasting all its energy to keep the left engine going to. As we know, this isn't technically possible as these turbines work free and have no direct connection. Any ideas why my right engine might have been affected in this case? Right engine parameters (oil pressure, temps) were just fine.

Hey guys, yesterday I lost hydraulics. After the Ekran told me there was a problem, I noticed both the main and the common hydraulics circuits showed zero indication. Yet besides losing the AP augmentation channels, I could continue my RTB just fine. I had to yank and keep the cyclic stick in weird positions at time, but as I was unable to trim, this was to be expected. Now I wondering how I was able to maintain control at all after the hydraulics loss. As far as I'd expect from own RL experience, there is no way to apply reasonable steering forces with the controls without the amplifying hydraulic force. I mean, that's what it's job after all. There is this hydraulics accumulator and of course we could assume, that my maintaining of control was supported by the remaining hydraulics pressure in the accumulators. The gauge showed the accumulator at around 80 %. Yet this indication never changed. However hard I did steering inputs, the indication didn't change at all. So I am still clueless what happened exactly, how I could maintain control without any hydraulics and why the accumulators didn't show any pressure change. Sadly, hydraulics aren't among the well explained features in the flight manual. Any ideas?

What about Vandenberg? The left edge of the map looks like it would just fit.

Hey there, i just noticed that while in the familiarization mission and in the docs, Belted Peak and India are announced 53 and 55 NM from TPH, the mission planner only measures 36 to 40 NM, which is quite a difference... Any idea what's going on?

I recommend to enter the mission planner from the briefing. There you can easily use the ruler function to readout radial and distance from TPH (for example), which should be usable in the GARTH area (That is where I also lost LSV reception, 90 NM seem to be a tip beyond LSV coverage) Probably it's worth to transform most of the waypoint descripting TACAN readouts to GRL, since GRL sits in the center of the whole area and should provide service at most of your corridors...

In case the painters look for some pics [ame] [/ame]

And this is a (not your!) misconception by Ranqi. I see why the relation nose-down tilt and forward-slide appears reasonable on a first glance. But the truth is, the 'built-in' tilt is not intended to produce a forward drift while picking the helicopter up. And it certainly isn't allowed to induce such movement during transfer in to hover in ground effect. In fact the nose down tilt of the rotor disc in 'neutral settings" is pretty common with helicopters. It enables the crew a more comfortable control during cruise flight. If the disc was not tilted, you would have to induce the necessary rotor disc tilt only by applying stick nose down. This would bring the whole helicopter in a more nose down attitude and therefore you would have to sit pretty straight upward with your upper body and your head would have to raise constantly to have your eyes at the horizon. Yes, you might have to counteract the initial tilt when lifting up the helicopter, still touching the ground. If controls are applied correctly and your are leaving from a level situation without slopes, your front skid ends will lift up first. Then, applying more collective pitch, the back ends (one single end) of your skids will leave the ground at last. And all this without any lateral drift. It is this maneuver which seems impossible to do right now. Hence this discussion didn't reach its end yet.

I absolutely agree with Flamin_Squirrel. Sitting light on the skids without sliding is the issue. So far nobody reportedly achieved this. If we don't find anyone capable doing exactly this (and then teaching us how to perform that), there is a problem.

exactly!

I also do it that way currently. Still this is not what it should be like. Theoretically it should be possible to lift it up that gently that you'd have a moment, when just one end of only one single of both skids barely touches the ground and hold that position stable. Not possible here.

I regard the thread title being justified. As I wrote in the Something wrong with flight dynamics thread:

Please confirm you can do that at 3 feet above the ground. And if so, please post your curves. I keep the pedals pretty stable. So if that is the only trick, it doesn't work for me.

when sitting on ground, apply collective. Notice the helo commencing forward slide. Reduce torque to 40% and don't touch it anymore. Pull the stick backwards to counter the forward slide. Notice how loooong that takes. Notice how the forward slide only comes to a stop right at that moment your tail boom tilts towards the ground and strikes it. How can this behavior be accurate? No, I never flew a Gazelle in RL. I did some hours on the Gazelle's successor though. The EC-120 also features 3 blades and a fenestron. Also a pretty light weight. Of course this doesn't mean both machines behave similar at all. What I am experiencing here is some behavior that simply doesn't make sense when you think about how you would construct a helicopter. Apparently the DCS Gazelle is quite nose-heavy. I can't tell if it matches the RL Gazelle. I only can say that it is not the way you would expect a helicopter to be.

- Can anybody confirm to have managed to keep a HIGE without adjusting the collective pitch by +-5% torque or more? I am unable to achieve that. In most cases the helo remains jumping up and down continously, relatively slowly though. - also regardless how I set curves (TM Warthog), it is impossible not to slide forward on the ground while increasing collective. I end up pulling the cyclic stick so far backwards that my tail boom bumps onto the floor.

Report your TM Warthog curves and saturation instantly! So that I have something to chew on...:joystick: Thanks!:thumbup: