gospadin

The presence of our HoggitDev A-4 module triggers the "impure client" and won't let me join protected servers. I have no way to generate the protected manifest file. =\ I have to uninstall it every time I want to take a break from development. Annoying...

Their textures are split into 200+ files, a template will be a bit of a pain to create. A :beer: to whoever makes one.

100% agree. I am glad I bought the module. I am excited for its future. Out-of-the-gate, for an "early access" model, it's extremely functional. I hope everyone who reads my suggestions for improvement in the flight model sees in those suggestions my (and others') passion and interest in the module and its future. If the module sucked and we weren't having fun, we would just wash our hands of it and move on.

50% cyclic saturation, 0% curves 70% rudder saturation, 0% curves

If you have a specific piece of feedback regarding a shape issue in the pictures we've shown, please PM archimaede or one of the rest of us and we'll see what we can do. If you have a photo as data, even better. --gos

I'm sure the nosegear can collapse. I don't know how or if we can model a failed nose gear lock. In most of those landings, they're properly landing on the mains but the nose gear simply folds back up into the nose of the plane. In one, it went backwards due to an apparent on-nose landing at night, but it's hard to tell.

This is an interesting observation about the nose pitch and the forces of the rotor disc appearing symmetric. It would explain the lack of blowback felt, and a few other things. When I apply more collective, and speed increases, I expect to have to push the stick more forward. RE: collective, abrupt changes in collective don't seem to affect engine output, as if there's no back torque applied to the engine by the additional blade drag/force. Additionally, in all other helos, when you hover, you need to apply some side cyclic, to counter the lateral thrust of the tail rotor. The amount of side cyclic input that the gazelle needs is almost zero, which is odd because of both the weight of the helo and the amount of rudder input needed to hover. With that much rudder countering the rotation force, I'd expect to need more side cyclic.

I have the saitek combat pedals, and 70% saturation gives me plenty of rudder authority. The point of highest deflection will be a right-rotation while hovering. Most everything else you do will require less deflection. 70% saturation means I hover with about half pedal deflection to the right, which is still more-or-less comfortable, without being too twitchy. As to the "real" thing, real helicopter pedals don't auto-center, so you'd simply need to take out your centering spring.

RAZBAM's texture artist is much better than me, i'm just a hack, frankly. It was mostly a learning experience, as I got to create some new font characters and play with some new photoshop techniques. Once they get the time to do their own official English cockpit, I plan on pulling mine. Thanks for the compliment though! --gos

A-4E NATOPS, Section III, Part 3, Shore-based procedures. LANDING ... 3. After touchdown apply full forward stick deflected into the wind as necessary to maintain a wings level attitude. Apply rudder as required to maintain directional control. --gos

FYI, version 0.87 of my english cockpit fixes the "Integrity Check Failure" in the latest NTTR release, by removing the modification to entry.lua (it's no longer needed with RAZBAM's latest structure). Thread with a link to the download site is in my signature below. Thanks, and sorry for any frustration this may have caused. --gos

FYI, download location has been updated: 0.87: Removed the change to entry.lua, it's no longer needed and was causing an "Integrity Check Failure" in multiplayer. Cockpit dropdown now says "EN by gospadin" to fit within the box. Tested on current Stable and this week's NTTR build (version 2.0.2.52658.72).

Why do people keep saying the gazelle is underpowered? It has no problem taking off at 107% MTOW on a summer day without overtorquing, overtemp, or any other bad thing other than a POH violation.

Instead of curves, try reducing the saturation in the Y axis for both pitch and roll. That way, you're effectively giving yourself a stick extension, without any of the non-linearity of curves. 50% saturation on the cyclic works well for me, and gives me plenty of authority, just with 2x the stick movement as default (warthog). There's still some twitchiness when I try to coordinate a turn, but i'm working on it.

50% cyclic saturation, 70% rudder saturation, and it flies great. just need rudder trim, because my pedals have springs in them

try decreasing your saturation at 70% saturation, the helo is now very easy to control (for me, anyway) I'd love to see rudder trim too, for those of us with spring-loaded pedals.

I have been using 50% cyclic saturation and 70% rudder saturation with good effect. (Warthog + Saitek Combat pedals) Curves at 0.

seems like the warthog should be used with less saturation then

The front console and the side panels also respond differently to lighting.

What controllers is your team using to develop and test? If a warthog, what length extension if any? I too feel like the CG is too high relative to the rotors, given how it behaves. It doesn't want to hang on its blades, but feels like it's going to tip over.

Is the MiG-21 back to working in all versions again? I know it had issues a few weeks ago, but I cannot remember which version was affected.

Given that Iran still has some AGM-54s, I doubt the US will ever release any "hard" technical information to the public. The risk is too high. That being said, I'm personally okay with accepting this is a simulation, and the fidelity will be variable by functional area.

Only in the A-10C, which is why I think something is hard coded to get that plane to work properly. If you go through beacons.lua for ground stations, you'll see everything assumes X TACANs for ground navigation, which is also not true in real life. I just think the existing "radio signal simulation" is a bit too simplified. It's a good start, but needs more capability.

I'm specifically referring to a new behavior/feel unique to 2.0.2 that wasn't present in 2.0.1. I'll get video + tracks tonight after work.

So just playing around this morning with a few landings, it felt like the nose was falling all on its own at much higher airspeeds than it used to. (when aerodynamic braking on landing) Similarly, my rotation doesn't seem to hold nose up without control input until significantly higher speeds than I was expecting. Anyone else seeing this too, or just me?