Blackeye

Yes. See 25:55 in this video:

Make sure you're not in "game mode". The flight model is not yet implemented for it - just for simulation mode.

The power demand is compensated by the governor which keeps the RPM constant - however the RPM is measured relative to the fuselage, that means the helicopter's rotation is added to the rotor RPM relative to the surrounding air. Since the rotor is rotating clockwise turning right will increase RPM of the rotor relative to the air slightly and thus increasing the lift.

Indeed. See also FWIIW it's marked as "investigating" - no idea what exactly that means though.

Unfortunately the video doesn't show how the helicopter would behave if it was in flight. The problem for me is that the Hind changes its attitude after you press and release the trim button - it seems to be related to the AP channels adding input after trim and not trying to keep the current attitude (no, it's not my trim setting). ED is "investigating" this behavior so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

What trimmer mode are you using? If it is set to "central" the trimmer will lock the controls until you return the stick to center. If you have a stick that is not reliably returning to its 0/0 position consider adding a dead-zone or use the default trimmer mode.

FFB is disabled and "central position" trimming option but last time I tried it behaved the same with the default option.

Are you using one of the pre-defined loadouts? Custom loadouts can contain "illegal" combinations of ordnance that prevents them from firing.

Try this: 1) Trim for forward flight with a significant nose down attitude and the AP channels on (pitch, bank and heading) - you should end up somewhat stable with 250-ish kph. 2) Then use the cyclic to pull the nose up until it is pointing on the horizon in a somewhat stable flight without trimming (you will need to hold the stick aft a bit). 3) Then press and release the trim button and quickly return the stick to the center and watch what happens. I would expect the helicopter to maintain the nose on horizon attitude in this case, however what happens is that it pulls up further and stabilizes with a nose up attitude of a few degrees forcing you to trim again if you want to achieve a stable nose-on-horizon trim. You can also try the reverse or any larger change of attitude (banked for orbit, etc) and observe the same "over-correction" of the stick input you made on trim press and release. This is with the "center trimming option" to avoid any stick input after setting the trim.

This is about trim not trim reset.

Yes. Locking targets is intended for ATGM use only and as said before to protect the optics from the gun smoke, powder residue and vibrations the sights have to remain closed when operating the cannon. When you're using the cannon Pertrovich is out of the loop and the cross in the HUD should show you the impact point of your bullets (once close enough) - you cannot have locked targets while firing the gun and the messages is just telling you that.

When changing the attitude of the Hind and cycling the trim button on the new attitude/stick position the AP channels do change attitude after that. For example when trimmed for forward flight (nose down) then pulling the nose on the horizon with the cyclic and then trimming, the Hind pulls the nose up even more, despite the cyclic being in the same position (center trim option). This effect isn't always as pronounced as at the end of the clip but still unexpected when comparing it to the Mi-8 for example. OB patch 2.7.4.9632 demo3.trk

You cannot have the shutters open with the cannon selected (rotary dial) to protect the optics. When firing the cannon the observer cannot use the sights (the HUD cross is used for CCIP anyway) and if you want to use the sights you'll have to switch the rotary dial to missiles.

Not on my end - it still changes attitude after button release, perhaps less than before but it's definitely still there.

You can say anything you want but I'm afraid most people will want at least some reproducible evidence before considering your statements about FM deficiencies credible or even taking any form of action.

So you haven't done any modeling and/or comparison to DCS? I'm genuinely curious what makes you say the model is off then. I mean if you want people to verify your findings and change the model in DCS you'd need to provide more than just "it's off" - a format that is often used is 1) The data you based your conclusions on (beware of the posting rules) 2) How you'd expect the aircraft to behave in DCS based on that data 3) How the aircraft actually behaves in DCS, i.e. what is wrong 4) (Optional) Suggestions why this might be the case or what to change

And what lead you to the conclusion that it is not modeled correctly? The maximum wet VTO weight is listed as ~20400 for the -408 engine and from what I tested you can takeoff at that weight.

That's my gripe with this. Comparing how well the AI does compared to a human playing DCS isn't really the point, at least from the perspective of a pilot. I did a quick test with an M113 and it hit a Mi-8 consistently at 500m - while driving on rough terrain. Now I've manned the gun in one of these way back when (albeit with a different mount) and I'm convinced that while it's good enough to intimidate infantry at 300m it can certainly not consistently hit a helicopter at 500m while driving. Same goes for infantry hip firing in auto at incredible ranges. Add the almost perfect SA with no suppression and those units become a bigger threat than they should be - right now it feels like the guy standing on a pickup is more dangerous than AAA encampments. For CA players ED probably would need to add extra dispersion or random sight movements for units that do not have fully automated and stabilized sights to tone them down where they should be.

One reason for power loss is the rotor RPM dropping below the point where it can drive the generators. This usually happens if you demand too much power too quickly and the engines cannot keep up. Once the rotor RPM drop a bit you lose a lot of lift and often the reaction to that is more collective which will draw more power from the rotor lowering the RPM further until the generators fall offline or even to the point where you fall out of the sky. That said I don't think this should happen in a stable hover once it has been established, since power demands don't change in that case - so it could be damage/failure/bug. I once had the yaw AP going haywire on me ultimately crashing the bird but since I was on a MP server and had Tacview disabled I can't be sure it wasn't battle damage.

Well technically your retreating blades are stalling in a mush - it's just that the other areas of the rotor are stalling as well, so the experience is a bit different This happens when you pull up really hard and fast and the momentum keeps you going along you original flight path effectively pushing the AoA of all blades into the stall region quickly (with a very tiny, unnoticeable window of RBS). However if you apply the cyclic more gradually like during a fast steep turn I'd think you'd experience RBS without stalling the entire rotor - but excessive speed with high collective is certainly the exemplary case.

It's also worth noting that RBS isn't tied to speed but rather the AoA of the blades. That means while excessive speed in dives will cause it it can also happen at lower speeds during maneuvering, for example steep turns may cause RBS well below Vne.

Good thing too, you certainly don't want to mess with an enraged Gepard.

Yeah, didn't expect them to implement this since it's probably quite a bit of work only to have people complain how the Hind blows up on the ground, hence the "(IRL)" addendum.

You can but you need to have some collective pulled otherwise the main rotor blades might drop too low with aft stick possibly striking the tail boom. And once you've slowed down brakes should be used to come to a full stop with a neutral cyclic - I suspect to avoid issues with tipping over backwards as rearward taxiing is prohibited as well - although with failed brakes cyclic braking to full stop is allowed but only with a minimum of 3 degrees of collective pitch. Source is "that" Mi-35 flight manual p 2-63: WARNINGS: 1. CONTROL STICK DEFLECTION TOWARDS ONESELF BEYOND THE NEUTRAL POSITION AT THE MINIMUM COLLECTIVE PITCH VALUE DURING RUNNING IS PROHIBITED TO PREVENT MAIN ROTOR BLADES STRIKING AGAINST TAIL BOOM Also p 2-7 To stop the helicopter during taxiing: set the control stick to a position close to neutral one; reduce the collective's pitch down to the minimum and apply wheel brakes. In case of failure of the wheel brakes, it is allowed to brake the helicopter by deflecting the control stick towards oneself by a value not greater than 50 mm from the neutral position, with the collective pitch value not less than 3 degrees by the rotor pitch indicator RPI I think that would apply to the Mi-24P as well - not sure if this is modeled in DCS though.

What speed are you landing at? Should be around 50-80 kph AFAIK. Make sure the brakes are disengaged (brake light off). Once touched down slowly bring back the collective a bit and compensate the torque changes with the pedals. Keep a good bit of collective in and pull slightly back cyclic to slow down - don't apply back cyclic with no collective as the the blades may strike the tail (IRL). Then center the cyclic and apply brakes for a full stop and lower the collective. If you're still having problems a track might help to find out what the problem is (Press the save track button on the mission exit screen)