pbishop

Seeing how we are correcting things. A knot is actually 1 nautical mile per hour which is abbreviated in the ICAO standard as kt or kts, this is equal to 1.15 miles per hour which is abbreviated mph.:D. Kn for knots is also technically correct under ISO standards.

https://www.diyphotography.net/create-entire-new-keyboard-shortcodes-hack/ I use this to have another keyboard that every key is ctrl+alt+key, but is customizable to have whatever you want/need.

UH-1H: MGW 9500 lbs UH-1N(212): MGW 11200 lbs Bell 412EPX: MGW 12200 lbs Source: Bell FMS Even with your equipment (all of it optional), the above is not true. 1700 lbs is a lot of lift capability for a medium helicopter. You assume a 212 (which is a civilian helicopter) comes standard with that equipment...... Just a bit of history, the 212 was originally being developed for the RCAF which never carried any of that nonsense. With the increased gross weight, extra engine, and increased performance, there was an interest from other countries.... USA.... and it was re branded the UH-1N for military versions. The Bell 212 (civilian designation) is a favorite and heavily used by helicopter companies for medium lift and long line operations for a reason. Also, the CH-146 is a modified civilian Bell 412EP. There is nothing spectacular about them when compared to other 412s, except that 412s are amazing. The new avionics upgrade should be interesting though...... :shifty: ........

Thanks for the response NineLine, I hope we get both as well. Let us know when/if you get any info as development progresses.

Hi Nineline, This got me thinking, is there going to be a way for owners to have a choice which block they fly? If I own the old and new, can I elect to fly the older version ? Or once I purchase the new one, the old is done and I wont ever see it again? Might seem like an odd question, but I haven't bothered yet to see what the differences are going to be. The reason I ask is if I fly with friends and they have the older version, it would be nice have the possibility to help them out with controls/issues if I can fly the same aircraft.... Thanks

Either you are talking about something completely different or you don't know what you are talking about at all. Either way.... good luck! Cheers

My job is to test and fly the imaginative or "a situation happening in RL seldomly and unlikely", as you put it, all day long IRL. And I will just say this, the results you state here in your "rule" are just that, imaginative and unreal. The only difference in strong steady winds and low speed are when you care about your location/attitude in relation to the ground. This is when wind does become a problem and certain limitations are put on max allowable crosswind component, take-off performance, landings, fuel consumption, ETA, etc, etc... Otherwise neither you or the aircraft cares about any direction or speed of steady wind. So IRL flight test data confirms what bbrz is saying and does not support your suggestion or theoretical results. Again, bbrz is talking about any flight condition WITHOUT reference to the ground <- this is important.

I agree, and I think the majority of people here have understood that and can live with it. The majority of the complaints I have read here don't seem to be related to the current delay. The complaints all seem to be related to the early access definition, and the worries about the time frame in which the remaining features will be completed after it is out of early access. It's the delay after early access people are worried about, and rightfully so.

The delay is disappointing news to say the least, but fully understandable with the current situation and ED's reputation of delivering quality. However, the hornet will be in early access whether or not ED continue to acknowledge it with it's EA title. Personally, ED can and will continue to have my support, as long as ED leaves the early access title and all the features are hashed out in whatever order they decide. But, selling me with early access on something like this: and not delivering for 8 years and counting is starting to bother me. I have been tempted and sitting at the checkout page for the super carrier countless times, but this whole idea is why I have not pulled the trigger yet. I can no longer support paying for features that are all of a sudden Edit: WAGS.... Of course you had to post while I was typing this out.... Thank you for your explanation, and although my personal opinion remains almost the same, I really hope you guys pull it off. I enjoy the work you guys are doing and I have no complaints about the effort and quality of your work. I also know it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of decision. This was just my 2 cents, and cents aren't even in circulation around here anymore.....

.... I thought it was on my end. Noticed the same thing yesterday/today.

Collective brake can be considered force trim, and not the same. I don't know much about Russian helicopters, but the Mil-17 does have a collective friction wheel on the pilot side.

Don't believe everything you read. Collective friction adjustment exists in all UH-1, 212, 412 models to exactly prevent this from happening. There is a built in collective friction 8-12 lbs, and a pilot controlled collective friction adjustment knob.

So sensitivity training taught me I can't tell someone they are stupid, so I ask people now instead. At what point when you were paraphrasing page 11-10 of the FAA's Helicopter Flying Handbook, in the most out of context way, did you think this was an accurate way of modeling VRS? Yes, even RL helicopter pilots and flight test engineers get sensitivity training. :poster_oops: I needed to edit this, something was missing...... Although NASA has been known for not using common knowledge, here is how they apparently don't model it correctly for anyone interested: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060024029.pdf

So call me crazy, but someone from ED can maybe chime in if nobody knows?

Not sure what is a bigger disappointment, waiting for multi-crew for 6 years or missing the patch where you get an opportunity to try it? :lol:

Not sure why it works for some and not others, but I constantly get this after long flights (with the laser only being on for maybe 4 min total). But, if you want to follow it more closely, I assume they will update this thread when they have found more info. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252515

If you are trying this after re-arming, there seems to be a bug where your laser won't stay armed after taking off again.

I assume the air force is similar, but from army regulation 95-1 (March 11th 2014)

Newfoundland taxi

It should not, but trust me it does.

I did this not long ago and it was a pain. Multiple tries at all kinds of random things led to success so I don't know exactly what I did. To add insult to injury, the activation servers were down for a day when I did this. But, here is what I think made it work. I deactivated the module in the window that pops up. I think it needs to be deactivated before you can reactivate. You don't have to worry about re-installing, I can tell you that much for sure. But, remember none of this works if the servers are down on starforce side of things.

Unfortunately money can't buy patience, but I understand what you mean because I wish some of their products were here already.... (hornet......) :music_whistling:

This would seem the logical thing to do, but I don't think many people will follow you. I know for myself I have been paying and not even getting what I paid for (Edge cough cough..., nevada..., etc...) so I doubt "they will work on it faster" is convincing anyone. To be honest, I don't support the sentiment, nor do I plan on it anytime soon. They have repackaged FC series over 3 iterations with few improvements to the actual aircraft. This is why we need lomac, its the same work being used over and over. I would find it repulsive for them to release fc3 and then only months after produce the improvements we all expected for an additional cost. TBH I found it kind of infuriating when there was talks to charge fc3 owners for the upgrades, even though I didnt own the series. Their decision to do it this way is not only convenient to those that don't own fc3, but also to those that have bought the series. This is the way it should be. Throwing money at companies with the "hope" to get what they want only produces whinny forum trolls that complain when their "hope" is not satisfied. I will support dcs because of decisions like this, not because its something new. I was not going to buy fc3 (hence not support dcs), when they said they were adding stuff to it that I thought should have been there in the first place, it was now deserving of my money... I decided to support them. This is the way it should work.

I'm really not sure if this will help you, but I run it in 3840 x 1024 with a 6850, so I don't think you will have any issues with 1 monitor (mid to high settings). I hope someone with the exact setup will show up to help you. As for just running the two monitors, I don't see any problems. It can support the monitors, its only in game you may have issues, or even with the type of work you are doing. Here is a link which you may be able to deduce what kind of fps drop you will experience in game with the change in display. Although dcs is not on the list, it should help give you a rough idea. Make sure to flip through the pages to compare. http://www.techspot.com/review/550-best-gaming-graphics-cards/page2.html Best of luck.

Thanks for the info. I was worried it was not included with the current version and only beta players. Appreciated.