dimitriov

Read my previous answer, when we answer you the truth, you don't believe. So why wasting time ? I'm done here, far too much time wasted in your company.

Why would a dev waste his time answering such insulting question ? Even if he proved you that you're wrong, you wouldn't believe him, so why ?

In fact ALAT now uses the DCS module in one of its squad. . .

Understand my intervention here. I don't negate at all the lacks on any dcs FM. I'd just like people to see that they pilot a computer, not a helicopter.

And I entirely agree with you exil. Except for the roll, if I do well remember it's fixed now. Not sure, check at 120 km/h.

Hi, EFM : External flight model, system used by all 3rd parties, but as long as a 3rd party will code his fm himslef from scratch, EFM doesn't mean anything. Every 3rd party has his way of coding, it's not generic. AFM and PFM, ED only, their way of coding, which doesn't mean more or less accurate, Professionnal flight model, it's marketing because they know you like that. Every team has its way of coding, and there are lacks everywhere, including on the ka-50.

Nope. Sorry but I know how the ED code works. That's a nope. There are tons of things which aren't modeled. I don't know if it's possible for ED to add these parts on core code (maybe is it what you mean), but the 3rd parties simply don't have any access to the core code (or at least to its modification). A very simple example (I've got many others but I would use french vocabulary so it's a bit pointless on an english forum) is the fight in mountain, which is nothing like IRL. There is simply nothing about the mountain flight in the ED code, while it has IRL many many many specificities which lead to the need of a "mountain flight license". You cannot ask 3rd parties to code in place of ED. That's as simple as this. If I came here and kicked asses a bit (happens rarely let's be honest), it's to make people realize their behavior : that's a game, with a plus plus level of accuracy, but still a game. We call it a simulator to make us think that "waw, that's not call of duty", which is true, but not so much more on many points... Last time a real Gazelle pilot came to give you his opinion (I'm talking about an ALAT pilot on the specific M version, who worked with Poly), he got answered that he was an ignorant by a wikipedia engineer... Then he told "I'll never do this again". Understand that except if you're both pilot and engineer on the Sa-342 M variant, Poly has far more informations than you will ever get, directly coming for Airbus, real pilots etc etc... Dozens of docs specially dealing with the Sa-342 M version, its FM, its systems etc etc. Google has nothing like this, like a civilian Sa-341 pilot (even if he tries to imagine, that's not the same beast). And they produced the most accurate possible sim ON DCS. With its limitations... Well, not "arrogant" or something like this, but let me quote : "You know nothing John Snow" ;) Nicolas

I'm not anymore working with any 3rd party nor speaking in the name of anyone except me ;) I'm not saying that their work is bad, really not. But they simply cannot simulate many things, because, again, of the time needed, the limits of the simulator, the cost, etc etc etc. And this is the same for all the DCS modules. And yes I'm a bit upset. I'm a bit upset because many people in the ED community say that dev work is bad, is this, is that because they suppose, after having watched a YT video or discussed with an helicopter pilot (never on the same helicopter, never on the same version but hey, he is pilot, he knows everything, he is god !), that there are issues on FM, on this on that. But again, you are piloting a computer, not a helicopter. And you cannot ask for the same level of realism for a pro sim and for DCS. That's not the same world. You cannot ask for devs to deliver you a real helicopter, because noone is able to deliver you a real helicopter on DCS. Not because devs are bad, but because the simulator architecture is bad. All you managed to get by behaving like this, and considering that devs are liars etc etc, is that well : radio silence, no devs on forums. And sometimes, a guy like me, who knows them and sees you pursuing in "your very interesting debates", simply feel the need to come and tell you the truth right in the face so you can understand... When I asked some devs from some 3rd parties "Why don't you come anymore on forums", the answer wasn't even angry, simply "They always say the same, and we don't have time to spend in repeating ourselves indefinitely". And well, that's simple, look how many post on FM were made here ! We are about 40 posts !!!! Nicolas

Dang, ok...

And to end on a fatality... Guys, you are the same people complaining about the "FM supposed issues because a pilot on a different version told me, in the comments on a YT video, that it's wrong", who then, for example, told me "Wow bravo Dimitriov, excellent Campaign this operation Dixmude, immersive, great". And well, thank you, but the ironic part is that it is far, far far far far far away from being realistic. It's as much realistic as the last Battlefield Campaign (you know this game where USA save France during WWI). I looked at the public, and I adapted my work to it, not because it's a dumb public, or any stupid feeling like this, but simply because I knew that you would have more fun playing such campaign than a fully realistic one where you wouldn't understand a s*** at radio and perhaps, if you're lucky, fire one missile on a rock with supposed insurgents hidden behind in 50 hours of flight. So if you want to be correct in your point of view, don't tell on one side that the Gazelle is unrealistic and the Campaign is great, tell me that the Campaign is a huge piece of arcade bullshit ;) But no, you won't, because you are gamers, not real pilots looking for an extremely accurate training ! <3 x2 Nicolas

Cyclic amplitude was made with a real pilot, he used a Warthog, but I don't remember if there was an extension. I think that yes, but I may not remember well if this is this pilot or another. Anyway, instead of yelling at each other with sometimes someone who tries to be constructive (not sometimes, rarely in fact), perhaps should you understand that you are piloting a computer, not an helicopter. This will never be perfect. This will never, ever even be near from perfect. You are wrong considering that any DCS module is near from perfect. I use to see a lot of people talking about the Uh-1 FM for example... Guys, you never piloted a Huey, really ! Really ! A Huey pilot would wonder if he is drunk while piloting the DCS module... And that's the same for the Gazelle. And for Mi-8. And (I suppose) for Kamov-50. DCS FM are quite accurate, but they don't simulate many, many very important things for helicopters, simply because they can't, too hard to code, too expensive, too long, and by the way too much for a public use. Only real pilots will notice issues (real issues, not those imagined by people who use YT videos to learn how a helicopter behaves...). DCS is at a high level of fidelity, which means that around 5% of the helicopter behavior is calculated, maximum, because your computer would never handle a complete professional sim. So cease asking for perfection, you will never get it. You will only get people who will take benefit of you believing it's possible, to sell you modules. But DCS is a game. DCS is made for "old children dreaming to fly in front of their screen with an IR antenna on the face". You are not pilots. You are not mechanicians on the aircraft ! You are not even students in an helicopter school, or in the Air force right ? Did you ever pilot an helicopter ? Well, No ? There is no shame guys, but you have to understand that at 40 $ a module, for a public use, they are not going to produce you a perfect copy of the original ! Because a pro sim costs a bit more you know... DCS is not made for a professional use, and doesn't, for any of its modules, fill the requirements. And even professional simulators (the kind of sim which fills an entire building for calculation) are not perfect. So cease imagining that you can get a real helo. You will never. That's sad, but if you want to pilot an helicopter, buy a license. When you'll see the price, you'll finally realize that even if DCS products are far from being perfect, it's enough for you. <3 Nicolas

Hi, I have datas for you devs. We organized tonight a 64 players Fr server (131st.net), with an OVH server which doesn't use a graphic card. We had the issue. We then tried with player host (GTX1070), we hadn't the bug. But clearly this bug is a huge issue for the community. Possessing a dedicated server is very expensive (for us around 1400 Euros/year), so we really please you to fix this as fast as possible, so we can organize other massive flights in the French community ! Please tell me if you need more datas from us, we will provide them to you ASAP. Thank you ;) Nicolas

That's a multi-crew code issue, there is nothing to do to fix it until an update is directly made by ED. And yes Poly knows that it doesn't only happen when multi-crew is enabled, that's not related to the multi-crew to be enabled by the players, simply... Multi code is a bit silly, and as long as it is part of the module, it will bring bugs whatever the situation is... Nicolas

Hi, miz 1 is fixed, will be provided on next DCS update. Sorry for the inconvenience, had to be far from my computer for a long time. For Miz-3 : hard yes, but perfectly possible to do, there won't be any gameplay changes, if you want an easy campaign, don't ask me ^^ For Miz-5 : Use your kneeboard, you don't have either the time or the autonomy to stop and enter coordinates, IRL Gazelle pilots don't necessarily fly using Nadir for each WP and sometimes even don't use it at all ;) Have a nice Saint Valentin ;) Nicolas

Messieurs, dans le cas où certains ici ne seraient pas présents sur C6, nous avons réalisé lundi dernier un vol inter-escadrons francophone PVP impliquant 38 joueurs. Nous souhaitons remettre cela pour le 12 Février. Vous trouverez ici l'organisation, ces vols ne concernant pas que les escadrilles mais tous ceux qui veulent s'essayer au multi-joueur en esprit simu : http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=410&t=196333 Quant aux inscriptions, vous trouverez le post ici : http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=410&p=1576592#p1576592 Bonne journée et à très vite en vol ;) Nicolas

Hi, as long as an update has been made by ED to correct several triggers broken by the previous one, could one of you try the miz 1 and tell me if the Chinook takes off now ? Not at home currently. Nicolas

Gonna commit suicide...

Dude if you're not able to see by yourself that a doc from 1975 dealing with Gazelle blades won't be valid for the Viviane version as long as blades were changed specially for it, then you perhaps should come back to work before saying stuff like this, you don't look like knowing anything about this helicopter... Nicolas

I couldn't let you murder all these people john :D

Hi, So sent the files to Poly, sincerely hoping that they will be part of the next update, trust me when I tell you that it's as frustrating for the missionmaker I am than for you to see all this work broken by a simple update ^^ Update includes : - Fix Meatboy-1 miz-1 landing on player. - Eliminated the possibility of having the same on other missions. - Fixed Sluggy (Chinook) not landing for some players at miz-6. - Same for miz-8 - Fixed an audio which was incorrectly played at the beginning of miz-11 and spoiled the whole mission. - Fixed Mi-24 UN not landing on soccer stadium at miz-12 Nicolas

Hi, currently working on it, should be part of the next update, with others issues like Miz-8 chinook not landing etc etc... To play miz 1, just place the landing zone of the Ah64 500 m from the FARP, waiting for me to fix that shit. Nicolas

Already informed, working on it, not the only mission impacted, update 1.5.5 has brought troubles.

Probably because of the way the sight is coded. We'll see if Poly is able to suppress this. Not sure as long as it may be part of the basic code. Nicolas

Hi, As I see that many people meet a sync issue when rearming or refueling in multi-pit (missiles don't appear for copilot or for pilot, same for fuel), I wanted to provide you this workaround : The copilot must come back to spectators, then the pilot asks for refuel/rearm. Once both are completed, the copilot can come back in the helicopter. As I said on french forums, simply imagine that you go to toilets ;) Nicolas

The ship is more important IMO, quite usual to set a little fire when landing on a building with the kamov-50 too.