Bearfoot

Have yet to read it. Still working through the Mi-8 book!

I cannot answer your question, but I can concur that I have the exact same experience. The Spit, for me, was by far the most difficult warbird to learn to take off in. More than the Dora and Messers, both of which I got down pretty quickly. And, indeed, this is the reverse of what you would expect given the historical accounts/records, which just talk about how easy the Spit is to fly. Have said that, once you "get it" in the Spit, you "get it". For me, the trick was to have a gradual steady yet rather quick increase in throttle from start of roll to air, no holding at any particular boost, etc. So maybe the historical folks had better teachers than us, better intuition than us, better manual/documentation/reading than us, in addition to (probably) just being better?

I have the Huey, the Mi-8, the Gazelle, the A-10C, the F-86 etc. The best campaign with a built-in learning curve is the Mi-8. Each mission usually introduces you to one new element. You start off with basic easy flights and then ... well, things get a little more tough

I use the pinky throttle switch for zoom. The default mapping for lights, while very common on most western a/c, I find it's fine just to use the keyboard for because it is relatively rare. Whereas I typically would like to keep HOTAS when zooming, while for lights on/off it is less critical. On helo's, I use the gray slider for throttle. I don't believe I have it mapped to anything else on most a/c I fly. But then, I typically fly helos most of the time anyway now, and most of the remaining time it's WW2 ...

+1

Rant on. But here is no reason for TMWH to set the standard. As opposed to CH Pro, Logitech, Saitek, Microsoft, or any other gazillion controllers that people might have, or even the TM TWCS?? Except that this happens to be a historical baggage that some might want to see personally supported because? Which is great, but, honestly, who cares? And as we are all expressing personal idiosyncratic needs as industry standards demands ... (a) I don't give a rat's butt about meeting some arbitrary (from my POV) criteria as contrived universal standard . (b) Standards are great, but in places where they are not needed they become a stupid constraint. And I don't give a crap about controller base dimension standards any more than we care about having standardized keyboard dimensions or standardized cereal bowl size or standardized beer label colors or standardized thickness of butter on toast in the morning. © I think VKB should let form follow function in the design/dimensions (d) The TMWH (which, incidentally, I own, use, and love, and is my current throttle) can be relegated to the quaint historical curiosity pile and never more considered as a useful guide for any other future throttles (frankly. the Saitek X-55/56, which I also used to have, is a much better design, just a poor/cheap/crappy implementation). And now this: obligatory XKCD on standards ...

+1. I agree. 1000%. The TMWH was decent (not great, though better than what used to be there before). There is absolutely no reason that all future products by all other companies should be shackled to this form/plan. It is absurd that designers/developers/engineers from around the world should want to build every control according to a A-10C design/dimensions as seen by a particular company a decade ago. Start from scratch, and give us the best for what we fly today without compromise, and let form follow function.

I agree it could be better ... but in this case, I am of the philosophy, "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and if you think it is broke now, you have not seen broke yet. What am I talking about? Have you got the Spitfire? It's rotor animation is amazing. But it ruins the entire game in VR, because it messes up Oculus Rift's ASW due to the high frame rates. Everything in your forward view goes all squiggly-wiggly, and you have to shut off ASW which brings its own penalities. It's a horrible situation, made worse because some aesthetic effect is impacting gameplay. Other prop modules don't have as nice an animation, but they work out-of-the-box with ASW and that's so much more important. So, I would be happy to keep the current animation which is a let down, but not a game-breaker, rather than break the (VR) game just for some pointless razzle-dazzle.

I'm sure you are joking. But, you know, if there was going to be a full, high-fidelity crew chief simulator with all the engine parts etc. working and connecting together and you have complete and authentic access and manipulation to everything ... you know what? I'd get it in a heartbeat. No matter what the airframe. As for bird conditions --- I've always thought that "persistent airframes" would be a nice feature in a server/MP environment. Take it one step further: no two airframes are identical in performance. Every parameter value has some normally-distrbuted +/- associated with its typical/ideal value. So some airframes might have slightly better performance overall while others might have slightly worse (due to, e.g., engine output, blade lift capacity etc). Yeah, too much, I know. But since we are passing around the day-dream wishful thinking pipe, why not?

Lots of things in real life suck compared to the sim world, e.g., pulling G's or taking an R-77 in the patouchi or a 23 mike-mike in the face or ... dysentery or other plumbing issues ("Sting 3"), hemorrhoids, lack of sleep, etc. Funny how we want to simulate the first set as authentically as possible but really would not want to simulate the latter, though both contribute to, let us say, the "challenges"! But I get your point. There is a line to be drawn, and the question is, where to draw the line! I'm thinking that if we could incorporate hydraulic failure into the mission, which the player can either discover pre-take off by going through the checklist properly (or after take-off if they skip it), this would be an nice touch. But yes, something that the player has no way of discovering/fixing/avoiding that will only pounce on them much later in the mission will suck and kill the game if it happens frequently and/or randomly (it's different if it is, e.g., a planned engine failure that is the core of the mission design, as in the Mi-8 campaign mission).

So, we usually spawn with perfect, factory-fresh machines. Which makes a lot of the real checklist procedures busywork. You know it, I know it, and, most importantly, the player knows it. So, at some point or another, people stop doing it because it wastes times or they feel silly or, at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. How do we make it matter? I guess there probably is a way to script parts failures? Either randomly or otherwise. But then, what does a player a do in that case? Quit and try again? And again? What would be nice is if we could create a radio menu option where the player can request a new airframe, and then gets spawned in that. I guess in MP, we could just create 20 slots, with each slot airframe have some independent probability of part failure? Would that work? What about in SP (as in, e.g., a campaign mission)?

I would take an Apache, Cobra, Black Hawk, or Mi-28 over any modern jet a/c. In fact, I would take any ONE of these helo's over the full stable of modern fighter, fighter-bomber, and strike jets. In fact, if tomorrow every single modern jet sim from DCS were to stop being playable, I do not think I would notice for weeks if not months! From my perspective, those are the "odds and ends" fetish :) I, of course, recognize --- like I am sure you do --- that other perspectives are both valid and supported in the DCS framework, including the jet jockey one. So I am not going to dismiss your fetish as a fetish. But I do want to say that if you think the only module transport/utility helos would be useful in is Combined Arms, then you have not been doing helos correctly! I've been flying transport helos in DCS and have clocked in countless hours of exhilarating and fulfilling time, and guess what? Do not have Combined Arms, and never felt the need for it!! The SP campaigns are amazing, and there are some fantastic SP missions that have incredible replay value. I think the number of times I've run "Huey Drop" (and my home-brewed variants of same, with gunships, different classes of opponents/weaponry, challenges in the form of weather, etc.) must be in the 3 digit figures. And, in MP, Blue Flag or Open Conflict and the like have utility helos in very high demand. In contrast, I think I got bored with the A-10C after learning its systems. I like the F-5 for its old-skool stick-and-rudder-ish BFM/ACM, but if I really want the latter, I get in the Spit/Pony/Kurfurst (or, in the "other" sim, the Yak). I've also got the M2000, the Su-27, the F-15, etc., but none of that appeals to me very much for long term. You are right, that a LOT of people come to DCS for the jets. It certainly is a very strong appeal of DCS. But that is not its only appeal. DCS currently also offers the best helo simulation in town (yes, better than X-Plane IMHO), and the only realistic helo simulation in "harm's way" conditions. I know a lot of people who came to DCS to fly helos, and a lot of people who, like me, while "tinkering" with other platforms, fly mainly helos. What's more, I will buy without thinking twice ANY helo that comes to DCS. In a heartbeat. Whether the Mi-28 or Apache or the BO or, yes, some B-list lightweight buzzyfly "what-the-hell-is-that-helo". And so would many people I know. With the fighter/strike jets? Not so ready. Depends on a number of things, and it has to inherently appeal to me. E.g., while I might change my mind, I am probably not going to get the Harrier right now (maybe later; I would if I hadn't already tried the A-10C to realize the mission profiles don't light my fires that much). So, I appreciate your assessment of what appeals to you and why you think DCS pursuing those goals will be healthy for everyone in the long run on the assumption that most people like what you like. At the same time, however, I am pointing out that there are lot of people out there who preferentially like other toys in the playground and those toys are the primary appeal of DCS for them. In terms of sustaining the company and ecosystem, it comes down to numbers, and neither of us have sufficient real data to claim anything, but I accept that the virtual jet-jockey niche is probably larger than the helo-driver niche. But I think not only is there room for both, but it is not a zero-sum game, and the two niches are not competing with each other: the more revenue each niche brings in, the more everyone benefits. It does not help to dismiss one as the bastard step-child. TL;DR: Helo's are my DCS's raison d'etre. If it were not for helos, I would have left DCS a long time ago. I am not alone. Just my 2c ...

Excellent! Thanks! All going onto my list too! Would you happen to have a table of contents for "KA-50 & KA52 werewolf, Black shark, Erdogan, Alligator"? I cannot seem to find a preview on line anywhere.

I've ordered the Red Star Mi-8 Workshorse book. Do you have links to any of these other books you mention specifically?

Interesting! This makes sense of the scenes in "Afghan Breakdown". Do you know where one could read up more on the Mi-8 + Mi-24 teams and how they operated? EDIT: Just saw your post on the thread asking for the Mi 8/17 books!

Thanks! Appreciate it.

Once the screen fills with waypoints on the first active flightplan page, there seems to be no way to add any more. I cannot scroll past the bottom waypoint. Am I missing anything? Thanks!

Do you fly, and only plan to fly, for now and forever, modern jets? Then, sure, TMWH is an OK (as in mediocre) choice. If you have any interest, now or in the future, of flying helos or WW2, then I, too, would agree with others who say that you should just get a VKB over the Warthog. Seriously. It might seem a little pricier in the short run, but throw in the extension which you will eventually find yourself wanting, then it works out. To answer your question, the WH buttons work. They really felt mushy and low-quality compared to even my (old) X-55, which had nice clicks. However, you eventually will get used to them. And they will almost certainly last a lot longer than any crap from Saitek. As for stiction, possibly. The gimbal after all is rough plastic dreck. If you invest in an extension, you will not feel it. Even if you have no stiction because you are lucky or you disassemble the base and polish out the plastic and reassemble it, you might find yourself wanting an extension anyway because the stiff springs make you work hard for the precision you want for helos and WW2. But the gimbals in the base themselves are plastic dreck, and there is no getting around it, extension or not. They'll work, and they'll work for a long time unless you are unlucky, and they'll give you good enough precision for everything you want while they work (assuming you have an extension). But they will remain plastic dreck on the inside with complete mixing of x- and y-axes. Honestly, do both your current and future wiser self a favor and get a VKB.

Can confirm, this has been fixed for a while now. I think folks who think it has not should try it before knocking it. Tried with Huey, Mi-8 etc. on destroyers, carriers, what-have-you. Land, and no movement. Sorry for the side-track. Please let us return to our regularly scheduled topic ...

Thanks! That clears it up.

The startup checklist given in "AFSOCI 11-219 Volume 3 ADDENDA B, CL-1" references "NTK" as a parameter to be monitored, e.g.: 10. Stopcock – “OPEN” (FE) a. NTK rise within 3 seconds b. Rotor engaged: 20-25% NTK c. Rise of PTIT Max 780 C . etc. while the document "TM 1-1520-Mi-17-10" references "N1" in the same location. I am familiar with "N1" from, e.g., the Huey, but this is the first time I have seen "NTK". Are they the same?

+1(0000000). I get the some --- maybe many --- might like to blow things up / shoot things down. But I think there are also many like myself, who actually like flying transports, medevacs, rescue, CSAR, etc. I will take the challenge of navigating mountains in poor visibility using doppler to fly legs and take-off landing in difficult situations --- uneven ground, high winds, small clearing or mountain precipice, or peopple shooting at you. It's about the flying. My all-time favorite single mission, that still has not got old after years, is "Huey Drop", where you work really hard under really difficult conditions to "reducing enemy combat capability with extreme prejudice" by dropping ground troops in the correct locations. The insurgents shoot accurately, and you have to find drop zones that allow you to land and egress close enough so that the AI troops engage, yet still under cover and/or far enough so you do not get shredded. I've modified the mission to fly Mi-8's (which I now LOVE), and also thrown in some gunships just for variation. I get a kick out of flying in the Hip with 6x20 rockets obliterating the resistance pockets ... but the long-term appeal is always the transport mission. The mission that DCS does not support in any truly satisfying way is the scouting mission. You can get something out of a MP/co-op play, maybe, but it is difficult to feel like it is not just busy work. And SP, you cannot even fool yourself into thinking it is not busy work. All made worse by the lack of ground unit visibility in VR. So, yep, by all means lets get a heavy armored Western attack helo (the US philosophy) to complement the light attack helo (the European philosophy) --- the Cobra if not the Apache. But, honestly, if it turns out to be a Black Hawk or a Chinook of a CH-53, that would be A-OK with me, and, I suspect, a lot of other people! Of course, we know we are all just biding time hoping to still be alive and in control of both our minds and bodily functions when the dream arrives, i.e. DCS sky (helos, a/c) + ARMA ground (troops, vehicles)

Interesting. Are you talking about 1.x or 2.x or both? So far, I have only tried this in 1.x. And just to be sure, I am talking about the switches here: Without touching them from a start, I can fire off rockets in 1.x .

Hi Weta, I am not actually objecting the toggling between the 7.62 and 12.7 as such. I was just wondering why you would want them both in the same pod. Speculating on the reason one might want both calibers in a single pod, and, from e.g., WW2 a/c with mg's and cannons, I thought it might be to use the lighter caliber to get an aiming solution and the heavier one for effect. But this is not feasible with a toggle either/or situation, so that is why I brought that up. Of course, as I have now learned thanks to you, the trajectories of the two classes of weapons are different so that would not work even if you could fire them together. What you say about soft/hard targets as justification for each of the respective calibers makes sense to have the need for two, and what you say about the the limitations of the pylon configs makes sense why you would want both calibers in a single pod. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Thanks. So you think the reason for packing two calibers in the same pod was to be able to attack soft vs. semi-hard targets? Wouldn't it have been simpler and more flexible just to have two dedicated pods that you could load up as needed? Mix-and-match at pod-level?