Woogey

Probably one of the most prolific helicopters ever made. You will find this air frame in every corner of the Earth. This helicopter has been used for every role you can think of, but especially important in any aspiring helicopter pilots military career. In the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps it is known as the TH-57, and is the primary training helicopter before moving on to any of the combat choppers that we employ. In Vietnam, the Original OH-58A was employed as a scout and Liaison platform, and of course the civilian version the B-206 Should be instantly recognizable to just about every one. If fixed wing trainers get so much attention, and now Eagle Dynamics are giving the green light for Civilian Aircraft, The Bell 206 series has to be up there on the priority list. Just my two cents. -Woog

Hey Bull, I have no flight time in the AH-6 which should be fairly obvious. After researching it a little more, it is apparent that We stuffed some Apache Electronics in it, and gave it some Link 16 capabilities for data share and drone connectivity. The 6 bladed rotor and Apache style X-pattern tailrotor I was aware of. This is part of the Drivetrain upgrade I referred to. The Little bird, or "Killer Egg" had been around for a long time. While the details and systems of the latest variant make it a NoGo, the standard MD-500 Defender, or even an old OH-6 Cayuse is absolutely able to be modeled. Being a Boeing product, I can tell you that there is no issue with IP licensing. Boeing will license any and all of it's products for game use, even the AH-64D. It is simply a matter of negotiating out the Royalty contract. This does not mean that Boeing is giving out classified info or even performance charts. It simply mean a developer can make a model, and use the Boeing name. -Woog

There is nothing classified about the Little Bird. It is an MD-500 with a couple of of off the shelf components bolted on. Even the New MH-6/AH-6 is not anything special. Boeing Upgraded the drivetrain, and gave it a glass panel, with standard off the shelf components. It is a cheap entry level attack chopper that could easily be reproduced in DCS. The Gazelle and BO are more technical, and they have already been done. -Woog

I know it has been 7 months since the last reply, but I wanted to check up on this project. Is the intention to have a US Navy variant as well? I hope to see this mod completed, the progress looks promising. - Woog

Overlooks Although I agree with you, I couldn’t resist, I made the purchase. The two biggest Adjustments that need to be made in my mind are in regards to the physical model. 1): landing gear and Oleo strut travel and rebound. 2): The two fins On the drop tanks. (There should be only one) Ron assured us months ago that these would be addressed, yet every new video shows that the landing gear still has not been adjusted, and the 2 fins are still there. Starting to get worried! -Woog

Haha, Just curious whatever came from this model after "discovering" it today. As previously posted, Google dug up the image from the O.P. today, and I think the model looks great! -Woog

Edge, I know this is a very old thread, but a Google search revealed this model to me. It looks absolutely wonderful! Was this the basis for the newer "Community A-4?" I much prefer the clean looks of the "Humpless" variant that you have modeled. -Woog

Good Day Friends, It has been said that DCS is always in a perpetual beta state. I had an idea that I would like to propose to EAGLE DYNAMICS: a once yearly stable update. Every year you could release the newly updated engine to the public around the beginning of December, and we can feel comfortable knowing that nothing will change or break for one full year. This doesn't mean that we won't get new content, just that the base game engine won't change. You could still offer up early access betas for those who want to be parts of the experimental side, of the platform. This system would probably be most efficient after the 2.5 merge. A good simple formula could look something like this: August 1st -Internal ED cutoff for new engine features. October 1st -3rd party cutoff for existing Module updates and patches October 2nd thru Nov. 30th stability testing Dec 1st -release new year stable version to the public. Meanwhile behind the scenes, the following years stable version feature list has already been in work from Aug. 2nd on. Am I the only one who would like to see a little more stability come to the platform? It seams like every time I Launch DCS, I have to wait for half an hour while new updates are installed, which may or may not work very good. Yes I run the alpha/Beta so I can get the new maps. This is part of the current process I get it. However, I hope in the future that new maps won't require new engine features, and they can just be added as a finished feature complete project. Essentially instead of getting a 1.5.2 version on the "stable" side it would just be DCS 2018. On the Alpha/Beta side, the version count can evolve just as it does currently. When those cutoff dates come around. The count stops, and only minor hotfixes should be introduced until stable release day comes. Does this make sense to anybody but me? Just a thought, Thanks for your time, -Woog

Sorry that this was replied to before, With 51 pages of forum posts, it is hard to find those replies sometimes. Anyway I don't recall getting a notification of response from the forum. Thank you for taking the time to respond again. I understand about the SFM having nose steering standard. With what you guys have been able to accomplish, I just assumed you had progressed passed an SFM. As far as the spoilers go, I have had exactly the opposite experience as you. I have not found any info that A-4E were retrofitted. I do not feel any of your team to be rude. I am the type of person who likes to be corrected if I have the wrong info, it means I learned something new. I understand how these ED forums can be, and I try to stay away from them for the most part. There is a lot of passion here, unfortunately Backed by opinion most of the time, and not hard facts. I think a lot of the reason for peoples (including myself) hope for the Humpless, and bent probe options, is to bring continuity to DCS. This is a sim that at times has lacked any sort of direction. With the F-14, F-5, F/A-18, and AV-8B on the way, it seems natural to have that mid 1980's configured Scooter in game. Don't get me wrong, If I were YOU, reading this post right now, I would be frustrated by yet another person who doesn't get it. I DO get it, we all get it, you are the developers of a sweet little module, and you're going to do it the way you want to. Thank You. I appreciate and respect the abilities your team posses to be able to create such a functional piece of artwork. -Woog

Good day Gentlemen, I am really looking forward to the mod, but did notice another discrepancy. The A-4E does not have the "Lift Spoilers" that the A-4F had. Also no nose wheel steering. For all intents and purposes, you guys are basically building an A-4F. As far as the features go, physical modeling there aren't a lot of differences, from your model either. Basically just the bent probe, and a couple antennae. I really love the extent to which you guys are modeling this, but you might want to just call her an A-4F, and then people might leave you alone asking for the proper A-4E configurations......... just a thought. -Woog

I wonder why it is that ED uses a solid as its backround for maps? Wouldn't it make more sense to start from a water base, then add landmass to it? Two prime examples: NTTR and Normandy. On NTTR, a very large portion of the California coastline is accessible, but instead of Sea, there is just an endless tiled land texture pattern. If it was a WaterBased world, then we would get much more use from NTTR, as we could actually spawn Carriers and Enemy fleets there. Normandy, has an enclosed land border around its entire periphery. In essence turning the Island nation of Great Britain into NOT an island. Instead we now have a really big lake! How did those ships get in there? What are your guys thoughts? Without ED actually spending time on a SoCal map, they could have left us with just a simple vector coastline with the pacific ocean intact. No extra detail, in fact less detail as the engine would not have to draw the land texture over and over. When the "drop an airport in place" tech matures, the community could add detail in the form of Coastal airports and buildings as we see fit. Cough cough, Miramar, Cough........ -Woog

Love the Progress on the Harrier, and Super Tucan is a great alteration. I am however sad to not see an A-7 or T-6 on this list. Is there any hope for the future on these airframes that you guys put so much work into already, or will they be shelved forever and parked in the boneyard with the T-2C? Maybe, they could be marketed as a group pack of less capable models like FLAMING CLIFFS were? A "Naval Legends" pack maybe? -Woog

That -111 looks hilarious with modern weapons hung under the wings! Great looking model though. I really hope these continue to work once the new map/merge are available. Beautiful work guys! -Woog

Good day Gentlemen, As most of us know the A-4E does not have a steerable nose wheel, does the SFM allow for differential braking? I am sorry if this was under discusion already, I must have missed it somewhere. I can't wait to get this beauty in the air! I know the typical aggressor configuration is not planned, but will we have the option to mount or dismount the weapons pylons? (Clean wings). -Woog

Hey Pete, Welcome to the DCS forums! The A-7 has been pushed back a little bit, maybe some time in 2017. For sure expect it after the F/A-18C is released and the newness has worn off. A good guesstimate might be around six months after the Hornet or so. The good news is there is a freeware version available, although it uses an A-10A cockpit if I remember correctly. I'll look for the link for you. -Woogey

Ironically your wife's description of trains is amusing. I used to live directly across the street from a busy set of train tracks. They were noisy, my house would vibrate. But when I moved away, It took me the longest time to get used to the silence. It was hard to go to sleep without. I have lived in the Seattle area most of my life, and never got to see Tomcats in their natural state. Whidbey Island is not too far away, and Prowlers were a common site here. We also had 318th FIS F-15's, and later on the "Bulldogs" A-10A's of the 354th FS were stationed at McChord AFB about 15 miles from my home. None of these match the presence of a Tomcat or an entire Tomcat base for that matter. Your wife should consider herself lucky to have been inconvenienced by the noisy Tomcats! Lol -Woog

These photos illustrate a memory most won't recall. Maverick and Ice participated in the San Francisco Fleet Week during 1985, a year before the movie was to become the Summer blockbuster of 1986! -Woog

LMAO! For those that don't know, The members of Coretex have dissolved, and gone on to form different groups, which are all activley developing Quality addons for DCS as we speak. SuperBugs are bad for marketing, and won't be approved for DCS FOR another 5 years or so. Please let it rest. This is a LNS Viggen thread! -Woog

Nick, A fellow artist over at Groomlake Simulations was watching a cheesy movie called "The Thing Below". He brought it to my attention. The opening sequence uses stock footage that must have been filmed for Top Gun originally. As you can clearly see both the Iceman an Maverick jets on deck along with NH615 the Seaking that brought the boys back to the boat in the final Flight scenes of the movie. -Woog

Not that these are the highest quality photos, but I found them interesting. Nick I think you will recognize one of your birds here. These were all taken on board the "Big E" during the SoCal local training in 1984. I am not sure what scenes from the Ranger made it into the movie, as all the scenes I can find all lead back to CVW-11 and USS Enterprise. -Woog

Although Eagle Dynamics have unquestionably created the most detailed set of rural residential buildings ever placed in a flight simulator, every town looks the same. I wonder if the existing set of Houses and Buildings might benefit from some additional color palettes? Does anyone have any input as to whether it would be possible to add additional colors for Roofs, and also the walls themselves? Also, I have noticed that objects can be imported as libraries. Would it be possible to create a new additional building library that could help add a little individual character to each town? Objects like Grocery Stores, Recognizable Fast Food Restaurants, and University/college buildings, etc. Just a thought....... -Woog

I haven't read through all seven pages of responses yet, I will just add my two cents here. The CH-46 frog and the CH-53 would be great. The frog above and beyond the CH-53 for two simple resasons: 1) We don't have any form of frog in the Sim at this point in time, we do have an Ai -53. 2) Not only would the frog be a natural fit on the deck of an LHA or LHD, but it is the primary Vertrep platform for ship to ship transfers. Speaking of LHD, it is my opinion that RAZBAM should do a Wasp class, instead of a Tarawa Class. The reason being, Markindel just released a really nice LHA-1. We already have a LHA in sim. It would be really nice to have a Phrog model to go do insertions with similar positions as the BST Huey, Door gunners, pilot, and co-pilot. -Woog

Where are you posting your mod at? I'm sure I missed it here somewhere.

As beautiful as your renders are, We have yet to see a working ship-able example of your work. I love your enthusiasm and business model, it caters very well to our needs and desires as Flight sim enthusiasts. Obviously very popular considering the length this thread has grown to. May I suggest you focus on the Hornet Grips for now, and get an actual product out the door? I am less concerned on bringing the price down by mass producing a huge variety of products, if no products are ever made. Get me a working plug and play Hornet grip for my Warthog base, for under $300 USD, and I will be a happy man. I'm not even worried about the throttles at all. I do however want the same quality of switches that Thrustmaster uses, otherwise you haven't done anything more than re-create the old Suncom stick (Of which I own 4). I am afraid that this thread is starting to go the direction of "Vaporwear." I hate to say it (because it means I am losing hope :( ) but I am almost at the point of I'll believe it when I see it. Respectfully, Preston "Woogey" Martin

Chances are BST will not make the skin since BRAZIL does not fly this model of F-5 and you just created a reason for them not to. BST does not owe you anything, and did not promise ANY features, let alone supply a list of liveries that would or would not be included. I guarantee nobody will help you with an attitude like that. Maybe our replies will hit home and teach you a lesson, however unlikely that might be.