sc_neo

apparently you found a ghost :) Some people were complaining that they were not remotely able to induce VRS in the Gazelle. Sure let us know whether its really VRS or whether it turns out to be something buggy or such.

@dimitriov May i suggest the following: as you stated earlier in this thread, the 2,3,4 man coop missions in the multiplayer folder are old, non working test versions that we don't need. I have looked at them as well and you cannot not even slot up when hosting those in multiplayer. Additionally, these missions are pre 2.5 era and thus do not contain any of the adjustments you made when the reworked caucasus map dropped. Essentially, these missions are 97,4 mbs of wasted space on our harddrives, which get redownloaded each time we do an repair or update. Thus if i may; delete those obsolete mission files from the module and replace them with a straight copy of the current single player campaign files, albeit with the 'player' to 'client' tweak. Maybe add a txt stating that correct multiplayer performance has not been tested and is not guaranteed, but two man coop in a single Gazelle should at least work out of the box. If you don't have the time to do it yourself, i can send you the tweaked missions i you like.

Ah, that sounds great. Did you do that just now or is this a pending issue?

So, whats the best to way in 2018 to play the campaign in 2 man coop? The 2,3,4 man coop versions in the mutiplayer folder are very if i recall correctly. Simply open the single player campaign missions one by one in the editor and exchange 'player' for 'client? We would be playing 2 man coop only, so we wouldn't need a second Gazelle. Thus there shouldn't be any trigger/script problems right? Cause if one player dies, the other one goes down as well.

So i have noticed for a while, that for some of my installed aircrafts campaigns' i do not see an english description in the DCS 2.5.2 campaign menu. In my case that is for the SU-25T Georgian Oil War, the SU-27 Fortress Mozdok and the A-10C Georgian Hammer (no CA). The CA version has the englich description. I have opend these campaigns in the campaign builder, there is a lot of other languages missing also. I am only concernd with the english ones, but i guess it should be fixed for all language versions.

''One other thing I'd like to see implemented is a little more translating tendency and right skid hanging low'' But thats the issue. You say you would like to see this implemented. And i gather you say that because of your background in RL helicopter aviation, with different helos. But how do you know that the Gazelle does have this more pronounced than we see in the DCS module? Isn't this the point of DCS; to simulate specific aircraft as close to RL as the developers can possibly make them?

I am in the lucky position that my brother is also into DCS (actually he's got a 5 year headstart on me). So a coop campaign would be highly welcomed!

@borchi Thank you for that detailed post! Now my interest in the Gazelle's flight mechanics has really been piqued :) So this is out of pure curiosity and by means meant as ''i can't believe thats how she acts in real life''. What i have noticed when flying with AP/Gyro (and thus SAS) on or off is the following; With AP/Gyro on, she always returns to level flight (or trim settings) when rolling/pitching once you let go of the stick, with a tendency to climb once back in level flight (unless you have her trimmed to bank or decend). This makes sense to me since the SAS is intended to ease and increase transitory flight savety. Give the pilots a bit of slack while on route. I take it, that the SAS operates via actuators that constantantly adjust the swashplate to maintain that level flight or altitude/speed hold if you additionally engage that. So far, so good. Coming back the observation in the OP, when you disable the AP (disengaging the gyro did not make any difference according to my obersation in game) the SAS is disengaged also and thus the Gazelle does not show the automatic stabilization to level flight that i described above. What i see happening is the following. With AP disengaged, when you put her into a bank, the Gazelle holds that bank angle but starts to slowly pitch down, which needs to actively countered by adding pitch. Same as in fixed wing aircraft, which is to be expected. Now, with AP still off (thus trim not functioning), straight and level flight and no bank at all, the Gazelle can fly perfectly straight ahead for an extensive period, without any cyclic corrections needed by the pilot. I have tried that for various speeds. For instance, i can increase collective so that she reaches 210kmh, keeps that speed, and flys perfectly level (no ascend/descend whatsoever) for a really long time. All by minute joystick inputs before i finally let go of throttle and stick. I actually increased the game speed to see how long she can fly like that. QUESTION: assuming this is intended and correct behaviour, is this due to its rotor and aerodynamic design (streamlined fuselage and big tail section etc.), OR do those actuators (also used by the AP and SAS) still operate and constantly correct the swashplate albeit with differing flightpath behaviour than with AP/SAS engaged? BTW; the MI-8 has an auto-pilot described in detail in the manual on page 215-223. I am not really proficient or knowledgeable about hte MI-8, but i have disabled that system mid flight, and you pretty much instantly loose control if you don't actively steer via cyclic. The MI-8 instantly starts pitching up, eventually stalling pointing up into the sky :) But it really is a totally different design, big and heavy, way more blades, no big tail section etc.

So the behaviour described in the OP is happening at my end also. If AP is engaged, she returns to a stable flighpath (albeit slower than the MI-8 for instance) when one lets go of the stick. With AP off or idividual channels disabled she holds that bank angle, not sure about ptich though. I guess to judge that issue, we needed to know how exactly the Gazelle is designed and what exactly the AP does. Questions concerning helicopter control and flight dynamics design: 1.) Provided a helicopter has a selfcentering cyclic (and force trim or such needed to be engaged separately), would said helicopter generally be designed in such a way, that the swash-plate returns to its neutral (or trimmed) position after you deflect the cyclic and let go off it? Or are there designs where only 'positiv' deflections alter the swash-plate angle? Like to bank left you have to deflect the cyclic to the left but there is no input registered on the way back to neutral position, and to counter that bank you actually have to deflect 'positiv' to the right, just to bring back the helo into level flight? 2.) Generally; if a helicopter is banking to one side, and the cyclic is returned to neutral (and thus the swash-plate is in its neutral (or trimmed) position), will the helicopter return to level flight (no bank) on its own? Again, if the devs would take the time to enlighten us in detail how the Gazelle's control and flight dynamics are designed, and why we see certain behaviour with AP on and off, that would sure help a lot and leave us not guessing withou haveing all the facts.

Just finished the second mission (on first try, no idea how my bouncy flying went past the instructor :) ) and i gotta say, its a lot of fun doing all this stuff visually! Question is of course; where do we get proper missions where we actually needed to employ the techniques learned in the training campaign? Hope we see more campaigns for the L-39 that rely on those procedures. Persian Golf map should provide for a good backdrop. Wikipedia lists Syria and Lybia as 'primary' users of the L-39. As i understand there is a Syria map in development that will eventually be connected to the Persian Golf maps.

Yes, A-10C getting updated was ''THE'' news for me this newsletter. Thats why putting money down on ED products is worthwhile...because even years later the product you have payed for gets improved!

Looks like a great process to get a lot of variety in responses for Jester! I just hope those joyeous ejeculations ''Ohh Splash bandit, NICE'' don't make the cut or just happen really, really seldomly. I know, its just a tiny moment from many hours of recording, still this particular vibe of expressing an air-to-air kill sounds too bloodthirsty for my taste. Not trying to belittle your hard work, just giving feedback about what i would feel fits or what might get annoying pretty quickly. Will we have like a 3 options checkbox letting us choose ''our'' particular type of Jester? Like option 1.) only proffesional and down to earth tone of speaking, 2.) a bit of fun put in the mix, 3.) joyous, crazy, exited 16year old Jester? :)

Title says it all, i reckon it should read TAKE OFF on the throttle for the maximum power take off label right?

The first mission is fun indeed, but i am a bit unsure how to reconcile the pattern we do in this mission and the pattern described in the L-39 manual. I reckon most of the degree values given in the intro to the mission are specific to this style of low and tight pattern and are not applicable to the standard pattern. I of course would like to learn a pattern that i can use at any airfield i land at and preferably depends at least on outer/inner ndbs as degree references for initiating turns 3 and 4. So the pattern we learn in the first mission is a pure visual one (no reliance on the outer/inner ndbs nor rsbn) and if one uses the ndbs as reference values for initiating turns one would need to fly a bigger pattern so that those values of 120/240° to the outer ndb as reference point for initiating turn 3 make sense, sound about right?

Es ist natürlich verlockend jetzt während des summer sales sich das Teil zu holen. Und eigentlich kann ich mir auch nicht vorstellen, dass ED das Ding nicht auch für alle alten Flieger implementiert und b kann ich mir auch kaum vorstellen, dass sie uns dies dann jeweils extra in Rechnung stellten. Aber irgendwie hab ich grad keine Lust darauf zu spekulieren und dann geschieht da Jahre lang nichts mit. Die hatten ja nun weit über 1 Jahr Zeit wenigstens mal kein klitzekleines statemnet diesbezüglich abzugeben :)

OK, thanks for the quick answer.

I think the training and PO rides have gotten separated out in a patch not tooling ago. Check the DLC campaign section here on the forum specific to your campaign. I reckon there might be official info already on where those training missions went.

I see, so this list reads more like not promised but a big maybe. Anyway, i posed that question there again, lets see what borchi_2b says. EDIT: the devs confirmed; no official english cockpit in the works or planned since they modeled the french version. So i guess its all on your shoulders Devrim :)

@borchi_2b So i kindly would like to know whether any of the things from the OP list is still on the implementation list, specifically the following four items: 1. cockpit: UK or English version 2. Auto-Hover: Add ability to use rudders 3. Auto-Hover: Indicate when it's on with a lamp 4. model: add cargo hook and hoist option

+1...dying to know!

Btw; i am still not really clear about flying a correct pattern. Are turns 1 and 2 and then 3 and 4 supposed to be flown in a continous 180° half circle or should we roll out after the first turn (after 90°), fly like 5-10 sec. straight, and then initiate turn 2 for another 90° to get roughly 5-6km distance to the airfield on the downwind leg? And the same then for turns 3 and 4? Because, i feel if i do turns 1 and 2 in one continous 45° bank turn, i am rather close to the airfield. The manual and training mission advise way less than 45° bank, the manual says 20° for instance, which increases the radius and puts one 5ish km away from the airfield when downwind. Just curious what the correct way to do it in the campaign. EDIT: disregard the above question, i have a better idea what the pattern should look like by going back to the manual. I still got a question about the exit degree values for the third and fourth turns. So i gather that one generally should exit the third turn at an angle of +20° to the runway heading (in this mission thus 60° for a runway heading of 39°). So far, so good. It then says one should start the fourth turn when the runway is at 10-15°. Is this meant to be a visual estimate looking out of the cockpit or is this meant as a readout from the ndb and rsbn signals on the hsi and adf indicators? I just want to learn it properly this time so it sticks :)

you are absolutely correct, apologies. This got out of hand pretty fast :)

Alright, so i see what you are talking about. I have tried it again and i can see what you mean. So ground stabilize really looks the seeker to a specific position on the ground that it will find again from a totally different position as long as you regain gimbal limits. Space stabilize on the other hand seems to as you say remember azimuth and elevation but moves along or is offset by your planes change in position. So if you space stabilize looking 360°, turn right to 90° and fly for 10km and turn north again, you seeker would still look 360° but what you see is totally different because the seekers position has been offset by 10km to the east. Sounds about right?

Thx a lot Devrim.....you really gotta wonder, where the hell is the official version? Its quite hard to understand why community gems like you have to keep fixing and polishing what was promised by the developers who got paid a long time ago! Btw; did Polychop just cancel the engish cockpit, was that really ever promised to be officially implemented? I have searched a bit but can't find the official statement. Can anyone point to where Polychop said anything about the english cockpit?

''I have yet to try DCS either with Ethernet disconnected, or with the network adapter itself completely disabled in Device Manager.'' Why don't you do this first so you can be sure and not leave us all guessing that an active inet connection is actually responsible for those lags and stutters? And while you're at it; try the new offline mode as well. If it indeed is happening only when there is an inet connection, you still need to find out whether it is actually DCS that causes this network spike and not some other program or service.