Holton181

Yes, works for me too. Strafe Pit at Groom Lake, elevation 1349m. minAlt = 1360m maxAlt = 1370m Russian helicopter (Ka-50) to get a metric altitude scale. Hovered at the target up and down through the upper and lower limits and got a text message every pass.

Changes shall be done in the script, the variables Captain Orso mentioned, 'maxAlt'. In the script you posted they are 'maxAlt = 1500', meaning 1500m or 4921ft. Decide what altitude you want, if in ft transfer it to meters and change the '1500' to that value. There are one for the left and one for the right. You also have a 'minAlt' for...well, the minimum altitude. Treated as 'maxAlt'. If this is what you have done I apologize, but since the 1500m in the script you posted do represent the ~4800ft (4921ft) you mentioned I figured to clarify the process a bit.

And you have reloaded the script into the mission after each edit? You know you need to remove the old and add the new each time.

I actually have 2 of my buttons as modifiers, giving me 40 button combinations with the rest 6 buttons + 4-way hat. I don't know about that button you mention, but it's most likely for the cargo slinging. Search for "cargo" in the button assignments.

Sounds good to me. I have defined one of my 8 buttons as a shift key and use that together with the same button as "pilot radio trigger radio" to utilize the ICS. The intercom can also be selected with the radio selector and the "pilot radio trigger radio".

ICS is the intercom for talking directly to ground crew without touching the radio selector with the engines running. Also I believe it's used in real life to talk to the people in the back. IRL the radio button on the cyclic has two active positions, first detent not fully pushed and the second pushed all the way in. I don't remember if the ICS is on the first or second detent.

There are variables in the script somewhere setting the altitudes, if I'm not mistaken for both upper and lower limits. Not at my computer and I don't remember exactly where in the script they are or what they are called, but I think they have rather self-explanatory names.

I did the same mistake when I had bought my Lynx, tried with to much friction. If you are carefully when adjusting the friction you can have the best of two worlds. Have it just enough snug so you can leave it staying, but loose enough so it won't affect the controllability. That's how I have it now. Loosen the nuts so the stick is free, then tighten them in very small steps until you have a good compromise. But maybe while practicing hovering, a good idea might be to have them all losse until you feel proficient enough.

I don't have the Gazelle, nor fly with a FFB stick, but I remember reading in another thread (I believe the first one posted by FragBum) that the special FFB options made by PC was a rather simplified thing, and that they basically given up on it due to being more complex than motivated businesswise. They kept the implementation already present for anyone finding it helpful. But I might have misread the meassage though.

Have you tried to repair your DCS install? Do you use any mods? I had some issues with the throttle when using a mod for crew status indication on the center console. It turned out the mod was based on older versions of some files, making the throttle inoperable. Adopting those files according to the newer versions solved that issue. Also have you tried to delete your Huey inputs folder in the saved games DCS location and let it recreate? These things are just some standard procedures that you might have tried already, just wanted to mention them anyhow.

The Hall sensors I have are from the 6120 series made by TT Electronics/BI Technologies, more specifically the 6124, with different angles for different axis. But I have been in contact with PFT in the process and apparently the PCBs used today on their products are 3.3V and the 6120 series need 5V. My unit is from 2012 and then the PCB was 5V. So I don't believe you can use the same ones I'm using. But also as I said earlier, I hovered just fine all these years with the original potentiometers. I don't know for how long you have been flying helicopter simulations, but It's never easy in the beginning, demands a lot of practice. Actually harder in a sim than in real life due to lack of physical feedback and field of view (I carry a R44 rating IRL) Deadzones while flying helicopters are seldom a good idea. It will most likely make it even harder. As long as your Puma work as it should, practice, and a lot of it, is basically the only thing you need. Small, calm movements of the controls with basically your fingers only, and try to anticipate the reactions of the helicopter, there's always a small lag between imput and reaction.

I don't have the Puma but the Lynx, it's predecessor. It's basically the same controls axis vice if I'm not mistaken. Flies and hover really well, no curves or saturation. My unit is getting old, first generation Lynx with no inernal calibration and not as good noise filtering as newer units got. I need to keep it calibrated using third parties software. Even so I'm very satisfied with it. Due to the age and other reasons I just (actually earlier today!) switched the potentiometers to Hall sensors. That increased resolution and reduced notice, and for me it made a big difference in controllability. I'm not sure it would have the same impact on newer versions/models thanks to PFT seem to constantly making improvements to their products. But as I said, even with the original potentiometers I hovered the Huey without problems. Have you tested your Puma with any third parties calibration software? Just to see if its internal calibration works as it should? And also to determine its real resolution on its axis.

Oh, come on! You got the official statement regarding its intended use and now this? Oh well... 1) sitting in the co-pilot seat, operating the flexible sight, you can still fly her simultaneously, but it will be hard. Then you have this "fellow pilot" to help you out. Do you plan to constantly operate the flexible sight for 2-3h straight, while he is flying in a perfect straight line at absolutely constant heading and altitude the entire time? On what are you aiming at all that time? If you don't use the flexible sight, then you can fly her... 2) sitting in one of the side gunners seats, you can't fly her simultaneously, so your "fellow pilot" has to do it for you. Are you going to sit there for 2-3h straight? If FLYING her for 2-3h yourself is boring, what is this then? But we all have different opinions about entertainment. And I assume (yes, I'm officially guessing here) you are one of very few wanting to do that, most likely not enough for ED to put resources on it. 3) the majority of situations where enemies are engaged with the "fellow pilot" flying straight and level can be considered brief. Letting him go on will make you fly away from the battle. 4) if you are NOT going to operate any guns or radios or navigate, but still want her to follow that perfectly straight line while you sit there without doing anything (or have dinner, picking up groceries, have a nap...), you are using it in a way not intended. OBSERVE! I DID NOT say it's wrong or cheating! do as you like, but your "fellow pilot" wasn't trained good enough by the devs and they (most likely) won't send him back to the academy. 5) IFR NDB let downs are indeed out of scope for him, he is not IFR rated. But nothing wrong in letting him try some IFR routines from time to time, but you have already observed some of his shortcomings. 6) I most likely miss out on other arguments why "briefly" is a word suitable with respect to the intended use, but I'm perfectly confident you are intelligent enough to see my point. And to the end I want to again make clear it's nothing wrong with the request, and if they (ED) do fulfill your request, then congratulations!

From the manual, section 6.5, page 79, first paragraph:

I perfectly understand what you have clearly explained, but...see my post above.

I'm not defending the behavior, if they ever implement a real AP behavior I will feel totally indifferent about it, I don't use it this way but if anyone wants to I'm perfectly fine with it. What I'm saying is that: 1) it's most likely a very simplified implementation of it, with a not so perfect behaviour, actively chosen by the devs because INTENDED use (briefly jump to another seat like the back seat gunners, concentrate on the flexible sight or fiddle with the radio, then go back to flying her) didn't require more, and they probably didn't want to spend more resources on it than necessary. Implementing a REAL AP might not be that simple due to the complexity of the model. Perfectly doable (other has it) but I guess not motivated by the devs at the time of implementation. 2) since it works perfectly fine as it was INTENDED to work, this bug report is more to be considered as a request, because you ask for more than was intended. Nothing wrong about the request, if ED find it motivated enough to put resources on it then fine. But I highly doubt they will.

Indeed, but, in the name of wild speculations, it might be that they at that time was close enough to have a promotion sample (or whatever it's called in English) ready to be used in future negotiations with ED, and that they now have come to the testing phase before bringing it to Wags. Maybe due to previous criticism on the FM of the Gazelle they need to show proof of being capable of getting a sufficiently good FM from start? Or they just simply got the contract eventually. Yes, speculations, speculations and more speculations.

Ah, yes, I saw it now! Says "OH58D by Polychop-Simulations" under "Required". Then indeed nice catch wildari!

And you are sure it's not this or similar (post #10)?: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3135263

See Chic's post above. And remember the Huey doesn't have an AP IRL, and modules in DCS is ment to be as close to reality as possible, so no (real) AP in the Huey.

It does already, as I mentioned, it's intended to be used for briefly taking on other tasks than flying. It's not an AP per se, this for long, boring flights, wasn't the intention when developed so I guess they used some simplified, not 100% accurate implementation of AP-like functionality. I'm not arguing about realism, nor about the usefulness of proper AP, but I think from the developers point of view it works perfectly well for what it is supposed to do. Therefore I doubt they will put any resources on implement this feature request (since it's not a bug, you effectively asking for a new feature).

I pretty sure it never was ment to be used that way. It's intended use is, for what I know, only to allow the player to temporarily jump into other seats to have some fun with the side guns or flexible sight, like handing the controls to the co-pilot (you can in your imagination consider him to not be proficient enough to hold a steady course for any length of time). The AP implementation is for that matter pretty simplified and not a precision tool. For long flights, or play with IFR stuff, you are simply intendent to fly it yourself. So in that respect it's no bug really.

A suggestion: please add a little comment beside the changes done for the mod, just to simply for users to transfer the changes to updated file.

I get the impression from you last post you did not touch these in your mod? in that case they are changed by ED. I've done no manual changes, only comparison between the files so far. What changes did you do to the file exactly?

Then I hold my changes and see what changes you bring in the update. Since it's presumably a small update, will you increment the version number?