311Gryphon

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I think once you start moving you'll transition into more efficient lift which is accompanied by a momentary shaking. From what I've heard the shaking is overdone in the sim but doesn't seem too bad and is mostly there to let you know that you are transitioning. But yeah, every little input changes the torque of the main rotor and the thrust of the tail rotor and those changes around the center of gravity of the chopper makes it yaw and roll and pitch in odd ways so you are constantly trying to adjust. I'm not very good at it yet but it makes it much more exciting than flying the oh so docile A-10C! Good luck!

As always, Upuaut, that's an awesome looking skin. Great job lining everything up at the seams! I've been a little slow getting my latest 2 skins complete. I have my IDF 124th skin almost done but the covers are being difficult (they were backwards, now I have them on the correct sides but they are upside down). Anyway, I made the brilliant "mistake" of buying and then starting to play Skyrim late last week thanks to the Steam summer sale so I've been "busy". I love TES. Just wanted to drop in and say that I'm technically still working on skins and that the ones you guys have been posting here lately are top notch.

Yeah if you have one running the easiest way (in my opinion) is to go into a dive, turn the Bleed Air switch off, flip the Crossfeed switch to Crossfeed, wait for the ITT to get below 150C, then set both throttles to Max and set the Engine Operate switch of the engine you're trying to light to IGN. Once it's up and running pop it back to NORM and turn the Crossfeed to off and the Bleed Air to on. That one has never failed to work for me even when I haven't done it exactly right. Once I forgot to set my throttle back (I had shut it down to kill the engine for practice) and I ran out of room to dive but the engine did start when I kicked the throttle to Idle. The APU mid-air restart is harder for me to get although I've done it. But you're correct about the single engine and both engines with the APU.

I kind of like this topic and it may be helpful. 1. I'm okay with crowdfunding and considered it. It would have to be high-fidelity and something I'm already interested in before I would consider it in the future. 2. I did not. 2b. I did not know about Beczl's. I looked at Kinney because I really like the F-35 and I love what they have done thus far. I wasn't completely on board with how the kickstarter went. I personally think that there should have been a way to get involved in some kind of mild beta testing AFTER the op eval. I don't think I would be a very good person to have in the op eval (I don't have as much real world knowledge of flight modules or planes to do KI service and I don't have the time to devote to a good op eval AND I was not going to put $50 into a product before I know if it is going to make it or not). That's just my personal preference. Had I been able to put $25 to $35 into it and been left out of the op eval but been able to do some later beta testing I would have probably done it. That's there call, no worries, but I do believe there are more people like me who know they aren't a good fit for the op eval but would pay a little toward a project to get in early. 3. It's enough for me to see some models and textures that look like they are well developed. But that's because I already view it as a risk so I don't think I need a lot of evidence. I just need something to look at and get excited about. 4. $50 tops. I know that is cheap for some people and I have no problem with other people getting more for their money. But if I can wait and get the game for $40 or less then I will unless I'm really stoked about it. If (big if) I knew more about flying or about a particular aircraft in real life I would go higher just to be involved more...but I don't so it doesn't make sense for me to throw too much money at something like that.

Nice flying.... I may get beat up for this but I must point out that I've got more than 23 hours in the chopper and seem to be fine at flying it (I love flying it in fact) and can do some decent take offs as well. But landing...ah landing. I know the people here (and a lot of people) have no problems with this and I know it gets old hearing about the flight model. However, I have to point out that the people on the other side don't like being told that they suck and need to practice more. While I agree that practice is the answer, it just sucks if you have practiced more than some others and it still isn't landing for you. I won't claim to be the best pilot, but I'm definitely able to fly low around buildings and make hard turns and things like that. I just can't land. Anyway, once again great flying.

Okay, I get you. I also should point out that I accidentally posted that on the wrong thread (I need to slow down this morning) and have deleted that post. I appreciate you trying to help everyone figure this out and I wish it would have worked for me. You had my hopes up! But I'm sure it will be fine eventually.

A crap load. I'm not giving up, don't get me wrong. But I can't count how many landings I've tried. Been at it 2 weeks. But the big kicker is that I watched a bunch of tutorials last week and had some free time one night and actually got 2 (in a row) decent landings. I felt pretty good about it. After those 2 I can't not crash. So my thoughts are that the control has to be just right for you to NOT crash (at least with my game and control setup) and I'm doing it more or less right but not EXACTLY right. If a person can get 2 landings in a row that are correct it would stand to reason that they are starting to get it, right? But apparently I'm not starting to get it. I'll keep practicing because it's fun learning, but at least with my controls it appears to be extremely finicky and just following the tutorials isn't as easy as it sounds. Thanks.

I'm just saying that it did not change anything in my game at all. At least nothing noticeably. I want people to know that while it may be worth investigating, it's not a guaranteed fix. I followed the instructions to the letter and nothing changed. That doesn't mean it won't help other people, I'm simply stating my experience.

Bummer, the uninstall/re-install didn't seem to work for me. I know some folks seem to not have issues with it and some do. I've gotten better at it but I've flown quite a bit. Flying isn't too big of a deal but taking off is sloppy (no real issues but sloppy) and landings are extremely difficult. I have done 2 decent landings but even since then I've not had any good landings. Well, I'll stick to my belief that if it isn't realistic they'll fix it and if it is realistic I'll just have to keep practicing and I don't want them to fix it.

I think what he's saying is that this is not the final product so there is a good chance that anything that needs to be changed will be (for the most part) by final release. However, I do understand that your question is more direct and I have no answer for that because I don't know the UH-1 flight characteristics in real life and don't know their intentions. But wait, there's more. I've been told (have not tried yet) that one of the updates already did update the flight model and that landing is easier if it applies. Alas it doesn't apply correctly. What I was told to do is to go download the latest UH-1H module from DCS website. Then go into DCS and uninstall just the UH-1H module completely. Then restart your computer and install the module that you just downloaded. I'm told it works much better and I hope to try tonight.

I can kind of see both sides of that issue. I was hoping that the module would be released with all three variants. However, I can also see how they might release them separately. I do hate playing games with "premium" benefits but in this case it's a bit different. When you pay full game price for a single air frame because it is highly detailed we're not talking about normal games. Also, people should be rewarded for taking a chance and putting up money early. Sooooo, while I wish the KS would have been done slightly differently I'll patiently wait for this awesome module and hope that if they do sell them as separate modules that you can somehow get a "bundle" deal or something. Maybe buy one for full price and get a discount on the others or something like that. I'd be much more likely to buy more than one that way. If it's full price for each one no matter what I'll only be purchasing one. But the bottom line is I only have one variant of the A-10 and the P-51 and the UH-1, the only difference is that most people won't really know the differences between the variants thus we only want the "latest and greatest". In the end I tend to agree with you even though I don't want to!

Bummer. Mine did it some when using FTnoIR and I thought it was the curves. I was trying to get them a little more stable by increasing dead zones and also increasing the multiplied movement once it did detect my movement. But when I bumped the amplification up it started spinning. I thought it was just a problem with that, then when I moved over to TIR it kept doing it. Deleting all the VJOY bindings did the trick for me. But, you might try bumping your curves down a bit (basically move each node toward the origin on the horizontal axis but keeping it the same level on the vertical axis). Before you do that go into the text file that has all the node points listed (don't recall where it is but it should be in your FTnoIR folder and then under a profile subfolder if I remember correctly). Just copy that file to somewhere else in case it screws up. Then you can copy it back with your original curve settings. Sorry I'm not more help and good luck.

I see your point but they do sometimes fly nearby. We have an Air National Guard base very close (close enough to look as though they are sharing runways) near our international airport. On a daily basis we see F-16's taking off and flying nearby commercial airlines. Not REALLY NEAR but near enough to be in proximity. I also landed at an airport in a nearby state that had an ANG unit right off the taxiway that we took for departure. I'm not saying that there would be too much civilian traffic in a combat zone; however. Having said all of that, while I want option in DCS and civilian aircraft could be fun...I've somewhat changed my mind and would prefer concentration on military aircraft only. Although if a 3rd party wanted to try to develop a civie I wouldn't be opposed.

WOW!

Except that the results are the same. If you look at a game with a very large, very supportive community, those communities are usually very involved with ongoing development. Here with DCS it's a bit different, but in many cases you get end users CREATING content for the game which allows them to be more invested. The games usually last longer in terms of people playing them which then turns into more developer support for those games. That is regardless of the fact that they are mods or that they are free. Like I said, DCS is a different animal but there are more endorsed mods out there than you may think, although they all are a bit different from each other. For one thing, many games try to incorporate the "free" mods that were created for earlier iterations. The Elder Scrolls franchise is an example of that. They take free 3rd party content from a previous game and make their own for the next game. Some "mods" turn into games, like Counter Strike did. Some people make little games like "Narbacular Drop" that wind up becoming main stream games like "Portal". Then there are other resources with some games that allow the end user to create items for the game with the hope that the company will pick those items up and the end user will receive royalties for those items. And finally, there are some very professional 3rd party developers that still put out free mods. This happened a lot with Operation Flashpoint where you had options of very realistic aircraft, realistic landmines, realistic artillery, etc that was created by groups for their own purposes but released to the community for free. All of this is to say that anything that gives longevity to DCS is a good thing. Anything that gives options and versatility to DCS is a good thing. I don't see any fragmentation at all. Either that or it was fragmented from the start. But at any rate, the more 3rd parties that make aircraft (any aircraft) the better in the long run for us and for DCS.

Are you using, or have you used FaceTrackNoIR? That may not be the origin of the problem but it seemed to be for me. I went into ALL of my control settings and deleted anything and everything in the "VJOY" column. I got rid of all of it and my spinning went away. Having said that....it may not work well if you are still using FTNoIR. I upgraded to TrackIR and only had the spinning in external views, but the VJOY binding deletions worked for me.

Thank you. I will try this tonight if I have time.

So I've been re-reading this post for a bit trying to decide if I want to try it or not. I've decided to....however I can't find the latest patch on any download page on the DCS website and I'm not sure how to JUST uninstall the latest patch. Do I need to re-download the UH-1 module and uninstall it? DCS is awesome and I like a lot of it but it doesn't work like many of the games I've dug into before so I get a little lost in it. Thanks.

+1 on the Saitek Combat Pros. Luckily I found mine bundled with a TM Warthog (all used) so I saved a couple hundred bucks on it all. In the end, you can probably get away without pedals for the A-10C but it won't be as fun. I rarely use rudders once in the sky. However, I'd be unable to fly the UH-1 at all without them so the pedals help increase your options for DCS.

It's already not a remake of ARMA...those aircraft aren't too realistic at all. I'd actually like a remake of ARMA but with realism and less bugs. The integration of ground, air, and sea forces would be pretty cool. Multiple time spans isn't a problem; however. That's all controlled by the editor of the mission. Having more available aircraft isn't a bad thing. I have not seen a single P-51 in any of my A-10 missions. Having said that, I don't play a lot of multiplayer so perhaps people are worried about folks jumping into a P-51 in a "modern" combat server. I can see that as an issue but can't that be controlled in the server? If not, let them and shoot them down.

Yeah I think they're working on a "slick" model for final release. I'm not positive on that but I read it on a list of future additions/changes they hope to incorporate. I think that making it a "slick" won't be too difficult since it's just a matter of creating another model without the weapon mounts. But it's probably not really high on their priority list since it won't change much in terms of game play and can be done pretty quickly. I do see some issues with the covers in terms of how they look with certain camouflage schemes though and I wish they were textured a bit differently, but it's easy enough to work around for most things, I believe.

That's awesome!

I can somewhat see your point there. Obviously a plane can't have everything. It can have a lot depending on how much you want to spend on it. I suppose that this doesn't bother me because we have a really advanced (the most advanced) air superiority fighter in the F-22 so do we need another? It's somewhat like the F-16 compared to the F-15 in some ways (not exactly but somewhat). From my understanding, the F-35 is not meant to be an air superiority fighter. Therefore it doesn't have to win in every merge. But thanks to technology it should still be able to thanks to stealth and more advanced stand off weapons. Different platforms are built for different things and the philosophy of a combat force doesn't match the philosophy of another. I suppose time will tell if decisions are good or not.

You aren't. I intended to join in on the kickstarter until I looked at it (which I normally would not even consider anyway). I still plan on purchasing the module.

I haven't had much time lately but wanted to update everyone on the skin I've been working on. I've already fixed a few of the inconsistencies and changed some things like the covers. I still need to verify that the pattern lines up (some has been changed but I haven't verified yet). And finally I need to add in a few text boxes in appropriate places. Also, just as a note, the camo pattern is a little bit "busier" than the real life models I was patterning off of. I doubt I change that although I probably should. I got a little ambitious with it. It also looks to "clean" so I'll try to dirty it up some. This is based off of an Israeli UH-1 but I also arbitrarily assigned it to the IDF 124th Rolling Swords helicopter squadron which at least at one time operated the Bell 205. So it's close.