pbishop

Asymmetric loading is a good example.

They are probably more productive in a minute :lol:

I feel pretty informed. I have the latest beta version, they have already announced everything they are working on. What is it you guys want, for them to waste time on the forums telling you they are still working on those things they already announced? They obviously aren't done, and as threads like this prove, I doubt they will announce anything they have planned after for fear of being hounded by the impatient (thanks by the way, because I do like news, especially the kind that gives me something to look forward to). paulrkiii put my thoughts forward best. But to be honest, you guys asking for info all the time are the minority, not the other way around. Why not try and find something else to do (like actually play dcs) while you wait for more news?

I did read it, but its all with the NEVER and its emphasis. The UNTIL has been discussed here and that work is being done on that. I'm not sure who didn't read what. Whadda ya know, i can bold underline stuff too! :doh: My tone was jokingly of course above as well, not meant in a serious tone.

You are probably very young, because I remember many many years back they would say "You will NEVER see an online multiplayer game with hundreds of people"

Ah, indeed. Lol.

Your post is a good explanation. However, in red is not exactly accurate. To be 100% on this, its not the relative wind, its moving out of turbulent air caused by the rotors. The transition between the state of being in turbulent air to undisturbed air is the transitional part of the effective transitional lift. Relative wind has nothing to do with it. The less turbulent air, the greater the lift.

I think the aerodynamics are right in the game, but I also think your explanation is wrong. I would just like to mention, that because of the reasons it happens, is the reason it doesn't happen when moving forward. The "cushion" is no longer under the rotors as you are moving too fast for it to accumulate under the helicopter. Hence why it goes away. At least that's how the real aerodynamics work. Basically your rotors are always in cleaner air. I agree that its pretty close, I'm not sure of the speeds though, they seem like they need a bit of adjustment. It also seems that with an empty payload it will stick regardless. We had an issue the other day where the helicopter would not takeoff unless speed was given. There are bugs still with the flight model I think, and they are very difficult to reproduce. The helicopter that could not takeoff had the same load out and weight as the others but could not get off the ground. Definitely a bug, eventually it shot up like a rocket, but like I said, there do seem to be some quirks that need to be worked out still and its not always the same experience, when it should be. I'm going to try and get the actual flight test data and compare. Probably have some thing to post next week.

Is this included if you did not previously have FC3 and were to purchase it now?

I agree with you, but you need to remember one important thing. If a developer chooses to make a civilian aircraft, I would much rather he develop it for DCS than another flight sim. I would also hope the developer would feel welcome to the community, because essentially they will produce what they want where they feel the most welcome. These conversations keep popping up in 3rd party or about 3rd party developers. They can just continue working on fsx if that's what you want, but I don't see how that will ever help the DCS community, especially with all the talent out there. Some people are good at 747's because that's what they know. Everybody keeps discussing it as if it were ED themselves deciding, I don't see how any of these debates will ever allow this community grow, or even how its related to what ED are doing with what they bring us. It's 3rd party stuff, like free falcon where the debate has moved to bms now and its between its an f16 game and we don't want more planes. So guess why I am here..... Let me give you a hint, its not only a ____ game. So I think we all need to step back and evaluate what kind of message we are sending to the people who would like to bring us more content, whether its something we would fly or not.

Honestly the best place to start is the manual. If you read it, you will be helping yourself get a very strong foundation to build with either the in game tutorials or youtube videos. Chose what you want to learn, read, then do the tutorial or watch a video lesson. Logical order would be: 1. Startup 2. Takoff/Landing/Basic flight characteristics/Emergency Procedures/etc... 3. Navigation 4. SPI/UFC/CDU/FCC/etc.... 5. Guns/Rockets 6. Missles/Mavericks 7. Bombs 8. Everything else This game takes a long time to learn and be proficient in using the a10. #0 on that list is read the manual.

I have found that for newer players padlocking seems to keep them involved, especially when learning the actual aircraft is overwhelming from the start. Those that are still learning situational awareness and how sams and missiles work in the game or real life, without trackir, appreciate the padlock, and I seem to be able to keep them interested longer if they can do so. DCS titles (A10, BS, etc..) are hard to fly, let alone go into combat with. So I understand the circumstances under which it would be used. If you are a more advanced user, then you may not want to use it as it provides you with an added challenge. As ENO said, if the multiplayer server you are on has it enabled, then you are basically playing by their rules. It is a question of preference, not cheating. This conversation is kind of a moot point considering that DCS allows you play any which way you want, its up to you to decide. Determining whether it is cheating or not in any opinionated view can only lead to another degenerative thread that splits the community further. If you think its appropriate for you and you enjoy it as it makes your experience in game better, use it by all means. If it doesn't then don't. I don't see where cheating comes into play here.

Far from being mad. I'm just straight forward with what I think, I don't have the patience to make it sound nice. Take care bud, and no ill meaning was ever intended, I apologize if it sounded like that.

Ok, you are missing the point. These are not cars. And I said I assume if you flew around in a 206 it was a B model, so we will compare apples with apples and a 205B. Much more than a paintjob went into the upgrade to a 205B. And to think that it flies the same as an A model is incorrect. Stability is something that is being constantly worked on at bell. And the huey II is an even further upgrade with much more stability. Comparing the two is more like comparing a 1970's chevy pickup to a 2013 pickup. They are built on pretty much the same frames, but their handling, suspension, engine, transmission, etc... is not the same. They are very far apart generation wise, unlike your ridiculous audi analogy. I have driven both, and I know what the difference is. Much like the huey II and the uh-1h, i have been in both. They are worlds apart. Now if you don't agree with me, that is fine. Like I said similarities are there, the original 205 was a painted UH-1H, but those have all mostly long been upgraded and don't fly quite the same anymore. Similar, but not identical. Now, to say the model in game is unflyable is laughable at best. There are a few quirks, when I was informed they will be still further adjusting it, I will wait and then post my opinion on the changes. Nothing is wrong with you having an opinion, but don't ever compare a r22 or r44 to a bell again, lol.

I wouldn't expect a whole lot more instability from a 205B either. But....! THE 205B is not a UH-1H. Its a similar (almost identical <-almost) airframe, but certainly not the same aircraft. So your comparisons are still wrong. I am assuming you are referring to the B model here, sorry. But even so, the 206 and 205B are far from the huey we have in game. I would also like to point out that you have probably flow in the much more advanced (technologically speaking) versions. The avionics, controls, and much more are far more advanced even though the outside has not shown too much change.

You realize you are comparing a 300 hp gas powered helicopter to something carrying a roughly 1800 hp jet engine on it right? I would never have thought I would see the day someone compares a r22 or r44 to a bell helicopter other than the old and faithful bell 47. Not saying its 100% in game yet, but its pretty close, with a few minor annoyances that have been confirmed to be fixed in up coming patches I don't see what your issue is. The thing is flyable even with those annoyances, to a pretty realistic degree (for a toy).

Although I agree its useful as a visual cue, it makes it nearly impossible to fly in fog or poor visibility. And, even though most people here have use for it when flying visually, it makes more advanced missions in poor weather very difficult. What a lot of people don't think of on these forums is that just because the conditions you fly in (bright sunshine and rainbows) works for you, applying the same thing in different conditions such as rough weather or low vis night does not work so well when instruments are an essential part of flying. Because you are not alone, and not everyone flies in the same way, it is important that it caters to everyone, and also having the dcs brand be a believable sim. As all of you seem to be saying the same thing I have, its excessive, at no point did I say remove it, just tone it down to a point that is more believable and to a point that works for all regimes of flight so that we can actually use the instruments and have something a bit more believable; less of a dramatic effect and more of a sim product capable of living up to the dcs name.

Couldn't agree with you more, they did a good job there. Also glad to hear they are adjusting the instability in flight, thanks for all the info.

No problem, for the first part, its mostly in flight i was referring to, although i couldn't find a topic else where that discussed the shake. (IFR) As for takeoff i know, but the version in game currently lifts off the ground, which is odd. and for the the exaggerated bit but being fixed, thats what I was looking for, thanks. And have fun:thumbup:

I am going to start off by saying that I need no explanation on helicopter flight, aerodynamics, control systems, etc...., and I'm going to leave it at that. I am referring to the fact that no matter what phenomena someone here wants to put a label on, the panel shakes to point of being ridiculous (especially when you notice it does not seem to be attached to the rest of the helicopter when it does so). And I could imagine they were trying to simulate retreating blade stall, ground effect, starting the engine, opening the doors, or sneezing the wrong way by simulating how someone who has a seizure feels. The helicopter shakes off the ground when you start it..... there is a problem. I don't think the game should look like you are playing it through a camera being held by someone in the helicopter, and if the source of info was from an actual pilot, they would tell you the same thing I have said here, it is excessive. On another note, the helicopter does fly pretty well in real life, hence why it has survived so many generations. The thing is a mess right now by trying too hard to simulate all these things to a point where you are no longer flying the helicopter, you are simply getting some artistic impression of whats going on. Agree or disagree, I could careless. Comparing with the real thing, I can tell someone was trying too hard here to show the flight sim community what was going on. Don't get me wrong, the real thing shakes, but not this bad and after a while you don't notice it, so why simulate it at all? The impression something is happening? Give it with a toned down version, ie. when an aircraft stalls in cliffs of dover style is ample in magnitude compared to this, and for the love of ... attach the instrument panel to the rest of the helicopter. EDIT: This is what it feels like right now (between 5 and 10 sec)

Why should we?

Right........ I still don't understand why the shudders are so exaggerated throughout the full flight envelope. There are limits, and that is what I was referring to. I can live with the effect at takeoff, even if its more of a cosmetic feature, but why is it still present while cruising along. If the dev team feel limited by the hardware/interface of the PC, they should still be open to constructive feed back on their design choices. I also think they can do better. Also, I'll decide what is relevant to me for myself. Thanks.

I know, just throwing it out there. If nobody ever said a word it would long be out of beta.

Perfect, thanks. They should address this though.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, I am fairly late to join the huey party. So far, pretty good impressions, a few things are bugging me about the flight model, but I am pretty sure they will get fixed. However, something else started bugging me, although pretty minor in scope it is still somewhat annoying. The default position of the pilot's head is too far back and far too high it feels like. If you pan around and up and down, you will notice you are sitting in the back of the seat. It also feels like you are way too high up in the seat, I am tall, just not that tall. Although zooming in and out works to give a visual effect of being further forward, it does not correct the pivot point of your head. Not too sure how to fix this, its probably hidden in the config file somewhere like the A-10. Another problem I am having is when you switch seats up front. The view is distorted as if the view was just moved to the left by x amount, similar to zooming out from the default position, but to the side. The awkward view is not game stopping, but can become annoying with time, I'm not sure if its just me, so any discussion is welcome. Thanks guys, good work so far, and to everyone else hope you are enjoying this product as much as me. When finished it should be pretty outstanding.