Extranajero

Think of the electro-pneumatic system as a man holding a rifle. His finger on the trigger is the pneumatic part of the sear release and the nerve that makes his finger move is the electrical part. There is no reason why there should be a delay in firing, especially as the system was specifically designed to cure that problem. The actual cyclic rate of the cannon is set by the manufacturer via the weapons design and it's primary consideration is reliability ( all sorts of issues for them to consider there ) and there might also be a secondary consideration of the rate of ammo use. I'm fairly familiar with this stuff because I have a background in working with small arms, but if anyone is really interested in the fine details of how aircraft mounted automatic weapons work and how they evolved over the years - up until the early cold war at least, then the classic Machine Gun books by George M Chinn are a brilliant read. He wrote them for the US Navy, so they are available online.

With the cannons, the Air Ministry rejected the existing pneumatic system used in fighters because of a delay between the trigger being pressed and the cannon firing, caused by the length of the pipe runs from the air storage bottles in larger airframes. A new system was developed that had the sear system using an electro-pneumatic method instead to remove the delay. The design of the firing buttons changed to reflect the fact that they were now switches rather than operating a valve. So if the cannons do fire sequentially then there must be an electrical sequencing box involved somewhere. I have access to a comprehensive set of RAF armourers handwritten lecture notes that belonged to my friends dad, but I don't remember seeing a sequencer for cannons in there. Which doesn't mean it never existed, but my gut feeling is why would they needlessly complicate production ?

Just to complicate things further, the F-4J's that were purchased for the UK were upgraded to F-4S standard. And on top of that there were some aspects of the cockpit unique to the UK models, such as an optical telescope for the navigator that poked out of the left side of the canopy divider, to help with visual ID for it's interceptor role. I'd like a Spey engined Phantom if only for the reason that my partners dad was the MOD civil servant who organised the initial purchase of the airframes for the UK. His knowledge of aircraft is such that if you were to show him a picture of a Phantom, he'd probably identify it about 6 out of 10 times - that's actually pretty good for an MOD civil servant, and why I don't have any inside info to share with everyone on the Spey engined variants

15:2:38.614 SimShaker Sound Module | Version 2.20 15:2:39.210 This application version is out of date. Actual version is 2.26. Please download and install new version Which I did, but this message still appears

I've heard about that virtual mixer rubbish being installed in a recent Windows update - and I do have an ASUS motherboard - I'll check But when reinstalling the Simshaker sound module, it says I have the wrong version, 2.20 instead of 2.26 ? something like that

The Simshaker sound module has worked very well for about a year. Now it doesn't output any sound, not even through the test option

A few of the Mossies soldiered on post war for a relatively long time in non combat roles, such as target tugs and with the RAF meteorological flight.

I had to paraphrase something you said earlier in the thread there. Sorry about that, the threads too long to wade through. There's a piece of software called Simshaker that reads internal DCS variables and uses them to send low frequency sound files to a Buttkicker or similar. Probably I haven't explained that very well, but what it means in practice is that when the Mi-8 ( or other helos ) start approaching the flight regime where you are going to run into VRS you'll get feedback through the seat of your pants. It's way more valuable than it sounds because you can have your eyes out of the cockpit - not glued to the VSI - during landings.

DCS is a pretty good non-combat flight sim, arguably the best around. I'll fly the Hind for the same non combat tasks it's performed for 98.5% of it's existence. Later - when we get the right ground assets, with the right AI - I'll fly it in simulated combat. Make sense now ?

I'll hit Left Win-Home to start it and fly it around for an hour to see how it handles compared to the Magnificent Hippo. Life is too short for learning how to cold start aircraft. Then I'll put it back in the hangar until ED do something about their ground AI, if they ever do.... Not really, I'll still fly it, but there won't be much point in trying to actually do anything combat related with it beyond shooting trucks.

The Hind is effectively a much, much less capable and survivable KA-50. I expect that unless it's being used in missions that are specifically tailored to it then what everyone will do with it is get shot down very quickly But tailoring missions will still be difficult with ground units that don't react to suppression or splash damage and just sit there firing deadly accurate shots even with a whole pod of rockets coming back their way. Unless you enjoy shooting at trucks, it'll be good at that I've bought it though because I'll enjoy flying it. I don't have any illusions about it's capability with the current state of DCS AI however.

Well I never ran into too many issues with the Warthog grip - without an extension, and bearing in mind I mostly fly ground attack. If you fly BFM ( turn left and pull, then pull harder :D ) and prefer high stick forces then you will see the protection kicking in. The TM F-18 replica grip is lighter, but it's still made from some sort of monkey metal that manages to combine poor strength with high weight. Many people ( most ? ) don't use the base with combat flight sims - so just for flying a Cessna or an Airbus around then a TM grip will be fine, you'll never see the protection limits. The protection issue isn't exactly overstated by Brunner though. I did a lot of research before I bought the base and never got the message that it could hit the limit in normal use. I suppose theres the definition of normal to consider....

The TM Warthog grip is stupidly heavy - I have a complete cyclic assembly from a Lynx helicopter and complete with all the wiring, wiring plugs, cyclic stick and the grip itself the entire assembly still weighs significantly less than my TM grip. I am fitting the cyclic to my Brunner base, I don't have any concerns about the overload protection.

I'm not sure what the issue is, I ran the plugin installer and it just connected. I don't use vJoy though, no idea how you use that to get the built in DCS FFB effects, I just programmed force curves based on what I know about the aircraft - they are then modified in the Brunner software according to the IAS output it gets from the DCS plugin. Works very, very well but not plug and play.

So what are we seeing then ???? this is very strange....

What sort of settings in DCS can produce that behaviour from the Gazelle ? Game mode ? autorudder ? I'm using maybe 1/3rd right pedal at take off and have to use the pedals constantly when below about 100 km\h

Join the Low Level Hell Discord and find me on there, I'm working on a 3D printed NADIR too

Guess which Gazelle fan bought a real TOW controller for his pit ? ;) OK, it's from a Lynx, but it's fairly similar...

To answer your questions 1 Yes 2 Dunno, for the same reason I don't have a copy of Bus Simulator :D 3 No 4 No You can fly a version with 4 HOT wire guided AT missiles and a CCD\FLIR camera or :- A version with 20mm cannon and rockets with CCD camera only or:- A version with 4 Mistrals ( and maybe a camera ? not sure ) - laugh as you shoot down Goose Maverick in his F-22 or:- A door mounted Minigun armed version which isn't any use whatsoever

Buy the Gazelle, set up the controls as mentioned in Casmo's video and I guarantee you will have an excellent time. Really.

Only in the strange Twilight Zone of DCS could we have someone who has never flown a helicopter telling someone who really has flown a helicopter that he is completely wrong, and supporting that conclusion with a 10,000 word essay complete with videos and graphs. It's truly beautiful in its own way :)

I don't understand what you are saying. But don't bother to expand on my behalf, because I don't really care either

Are we all flying the same Gazelle here ? the one I fly will crash if left hands off for any period of time. You do realise it has SCAS don't you ?

I wasn't too excited by the Kiowa, I'm not really into glass cockpits that much. I was going to buy it, but just for completeness really. But now I think I'll buy 3 copies. One for me, and one each as tributes to the rivet counter Fri13 and Alec 'Back To The Future' Delorean for their commitment to obsession in flight simming :D

Have you flown any helicopter ? a simple yes or no will do