Shein

+1

Yup. Turn it off! other then that i'm not sure.. I was going to post a thread on simply making it smaller; it used to be a much more managable size in DCS black shark one. So not to high jack the thread, but is there a way to change its size in the no cockpit view as well?!

Very well said :smartass:

Oh no, don't get me wrong I completely agree with you; Coax's are way better if you ask me, I was just trying to present arguments to the contrary because thats what I was told... gotta be fair ;) ...well, try to be fair... I think we all know the KA-50 is the most badass helicopter around...

If you say so, this is really beyond me now; I just posted what he said... I don't mean this insultingly, but are you an engineer?

Okay, Call me wrong if you like but this is from an actual helicopter engineer... and the one who was the lead test engineer for the comanche to boot! [/url] Hey, why didn't we ever make a coaxial helicopter? Him: Simple - the design never met anyone's mission requirements. Watch this space, though - Sikorsky's X-2 is going to try it again.June 2 at 5:59pm · Me: I can understand that, but requirements aside it seems to me like its just a better design than a main/anti torque design...June 2 at 6:43pm · Him: Define "better." Give examples. Yes, this is a test.June 2 at 8:17pm · Me: Well I'm not helicopter engineer, but with a conventional system you have power from the engine that goes to the anti torque rotor, one way or another. That power is used ONLY to maintain heading and combat the torque effect of the main rotor. With a coaxial design, 2 main rotors moving in opposite directions, torque is canceled out as you have two rotors moving at the same speed in opposite directions. But since they both produce lift, and work together, no engine power is "wasted" on maintaining heading. You also dont have issues with things like cross coupling and whatnot. So where am I wrong? why aren't all helicopters coaxial?June 2 at 8:35pm · Him: Generally speaking, what would the difference in rotor system weight be for the coaxial vs main rotor/tail rotor, given identical cruise speed and payload requirements?June 2 at 10:12pm · Me: ...ah. So the coaxial system would weigh a crapton more, because you now have two main rotor disks instead of one, thus reducing the usable payload and giving it a slower speed due to the increased overall weight. so by "requirements" you mean more payload is needed more than the efficiency of a coaxial system, and a traditional main/anti torque system fits the bill better... am I warm?June 2 at 10:17pm · Him:You're getting there. Why would the coax weigh more? I'll give you one fact to play with - Lift is proportional to total disk area. With two disks, the total area of both disks for a coax will equal the area of the single disk of a conventional for a given amount of lift.June 2 at 10:21pm · Me: Because you have twice as many rotors? usually? I mean two rotor disks, even if they're smaller, is going to weigh more than a traditional one. But if lift is proportional to disk area, shouldn't the coax have twice as much lift? making the increased weight worth it? I can't think of another reason why the coax would weigh more... I mean traditional and coax both use two engines...June 2 at 10:24pm · Him: One step further. For a given lift (=aircraft weight), the area of the two rotors (coax) = the area of the single rotor (conventional), meaning smaller blades for the coax. Totatl rotor blade weight is thus roughly comparable. What's left to be different between the two?June 2 at 10:27pm · Me: Jeeze. the collective system? I really can't think of anything else!June 2 at 10:39pm · Him: That's part of it - controls. The other part is driveshafts and mounting structure. The lower rotor of the coax will be roughly the height of the single. The upper will be much further up, to keep the rotors from "shaking hands" as the disks tilt (forward blade up, retreating blade down). That means a long drive shaft. Then you've got the double swashplate and pitch rods, plus gearing to drive two rotors in opposite directions. Finally, that upper rotor is way up there, increasing moments and thus loads at the point the transmission mounts to the airframe, meaning much heavier mounts. So, for a given amount of lift, and an equal airspeed requirement, the coax has a heavier rotor system weight, therefore a lower payload.June 2 at 10:46pm · Me: And all of that really weighs that much? even with the newer alloys and whatnot we use these days?June 2 at 10:48pm · Him: Both systems get exactly the same benefit from advanced materials in terms of percentage weight reduction, so that's a wash. Even if you're just an airplane driver, you should learn to think like an engineer - there WILL come a time when the airplane isn't doing what you expect it to, and that ability to figure out why things are happening will save your sorry ass.June 2 at 10:50pm · Me: Believe me I know it. They drill it into us at school, and i've had it happen to me in EFMS class. I've also taken systems and components, turbines, and jet transport systems but I haven't studied helicopters at all. anything I know about them is due to my own interest, not due to my schoolJune 2 at 10:57pm · Him:Sounds like you got it.

I'm friends with the test engineer for the canceled comanche program, I asked him why america never designed a coaxial bladed helicopter. His answer was simply "because the mission requirements never needed it." I went on to state why not, when a coaxial system seems to be so much better than a conventional, and he explained to me the aerodynamics of it. Basically, a coaxial system, while better performing, has less of a maximum payload than a conventional system. The rotordisk of the conventional and the *combined* rotordisks of the coaxial produce the *same* amount of lift, and since the upper disk has a longer moment arm much stronger and more robust couplings and mountings are required so it doesnt rip itself apart. Those are heavy, and the added weight is why the coax can't carry as much as a conventional. Least this is all if I'm remembering it correctly... If you guys want, I can try and dig up the conversation and post what he said...

Yeah that's what I'm currently doing, having 2 monitors REALLY helps too, but a static camera would make me weep tears of joy... ;)

I'm sure, but I'm not asking for a full blown "live" editor merely a 3d camera, even static would do. Or hell, even some topographic info on the 2d map! Trying to make a campaign now, I find it difficult to find areas that work well for battles (not already used by other campaigns and such) and when I do, its a pain loading and reloading to set precise locations... doesn't help that I'm OCD I guess ;)

Where is the RAH-66 Comanche Tick box?! Most of it is declassified by now and that thing is SO COOL. ...ah who am I kidding. Well a man can dream ;)

Good idea... It'll work for what I'm trying to do... thanks!

If you can run the sim, I can't see the ME taking more processing power... and it still would be preferable to constantly reloading the map...

Is there a way to set the altitude of a trigger zone? Like a zone that starts at 500 meters? so units below it aren't considered in it?

More importantly, I think it would add tons of replayability and would open the world of mission creating to a much broader range of people. The ME is intimidating, no 2 ways about it but I feel there are a lot of people who would love to create missions but don't because of the difficulty of not being able to see things in 3d real time. Not to mention how much more QUICKLY editing would go, no more loading up maps to check positions, crap like that. It could all be done on the fly, missions would be so much easier to make. In summary: 3d editor means more people make missions and quicker. It really is surprising this hasn't been implemented already... Not that I'm insulting all the hard work they've done already, I just REALLY want a 3D editor. I'm working on my own campaign right now and its daunting...

It's probably been said before, but simply a way to view the topography in the mission editor would be WONDERFUL. Ideally, a static 3d camera would be best but even terrain data would be nice!

Damn. well looks like I'll wait for the updated installer then. I have too much work to be doing to be flying Werewolves right now anyway ;)

I'm having this problem as well... before I go uninstalling and reinstalling everything, let me ask you this: I have a CD Key for the black shark 2 patch, and the black shark original. If I were to download the necessary files for a clean black shark 2 install, would either of the 2 CD Keys work for that? or does the patch CD key only work for the patch?