Jaguar 1-1 - Ant

Is it possible Polychop has given their customers (us) two or more different versions of their product to see which is most popular before they settle on the most popular version in the near future? I am also enjoying the more realistic flight model but am struggling with many of the issues others have already stated, which make it too unreliable to use in "combat". I suggest the different versions idea because I am seeing some current youtube footage of really stable flying from other DCS Gazelle users with seemingly little effort., and other users having the same issues as I. I have an average setup of controllers which includes a floor extended warthog base with F/A-18C stick, very lightly sprung, Warthog throttle (used in reverse as collective), Pro flight rudder pedals and Delan clip head tracking and believe I am very competent with Mi-8MTV - flown since launch, flew the original Gazelle from it's launch and agree it was fun but ridiculous.

Ahh this makes sense actually, yeah

Interestingly this is how the trim centering works on the Mi-8MTV for me since forever, it's really annoying

Thanks for your reply, i will find out what the SAS is, guessing *Something* Auto Stabilisation? can it be turned off? I am thankful you are updating this aircraft and look forward to any updates in future This makes sense, yes I'm still enjoying the challenge

Can anyone state clearly wether there is any kind of auto pilot on this helo now? and if so; is it on by default? if so; how can you tell? how do you deactivate it completely? I ask because i am getting a regular side by side rocking that suggests when i turn with the cyclic that i am fighting an autopilot that is counteracting my control inputs, causing dangerous rocking. It is definitely not a pendulum-like rocking, more control input induced rocking. This happens regardless of how i setup my extended warthog stick and tune the controls. The autopilot channel switches do not seem to indicate if they are on or off and I can't tell any difference when flipping them up or down. The previous autopilot kept the helo flying level and when switched off, it was obvious you had to constantly adjust the controls to prevent drifting. This is not evident anymore. I think I have mastered the trimming controls, to the point I can already hover stable enough to sucessfully hit targets with the HOT missiles, but only with my foot pressed firmly and carefully on max right pedal, which means I can't yaw right if i drift off target. It kind of feels like the rudder is either full on or full off, as when I slightly release pressure to yaw left, the helo swings wildly as though I have fully released the pedal. Having changed saturation, etc. to various degrees, this seems unavoidable. I have been flying both the old (easy) and new FM gazelle since release and it's definitely an improvement by far, but this rocking and the required absolute full right pedal on takeoff / hover seems unlikely to be fully realistic to me. I can never be confident of being able to control the aircraft now, and fear losing the ability to yaw to the right at all when in stable hover. Also as I translate from hover to forward flight, the full right pedal quickly flips to full left sometimes as though the wind has completely changed direction rather than just flowing over the tail and reducing rudder input gradually. I fly Mi-8, harrier and M2000C mostly and am fairly confident in my understanding of aerodynamics with regards to both helos and planes. As others have stated on here, if it's realistic then I can accept everything as is, but it would suprise me that a helicopter used for elementary training would be so seemingly unstable at critical points in the flight envelope. All flying is done with the good advice from you guys on this forum, for example; with cyclic pulled slightly back and left and gradual right pedal as expected, take off seems realistic but other transisions seem dangerous. (sorry in advance for the block of text!)

Thanks! It's only frustrating if people don't know it's being worked on. Harrier will always be my favourite, great work!

Is this fixed or near to being fixed? I can't do basic TPOD based strikes 50% of the time for this reason, usually in mountainous terrain. When i extend after designating a target the usual way, and then upon running in, the target point has moved to some random point elswhere. Many frustrating flights have been had...

quite! and big ones!

sorry for my late response, seems I don't have the Illustrious, which is odd as I installed it after reinstalling everything, anyway, here is the image;

all of them haha, which is most likely to do that? Illustrious + QE, T-45, Herc, etc

Hi again, I am getting massive missiles attached to the ship with the latest version of your mod, on the Openbeta DCS version, any ideas how to remove them? I saw it mentioned before but can't find the comments to see your response

thanks, I didn't see that, just assumed it was something else

i also can't work out how the free trial works, anyone? do i need to commit to paying for it and cancel later?

I have this issue too, However my solution is; after entering the Northings, to press 'pos' a couple of times or more and then 'E' before entering the co-ordinates. It's messy...

OK, i've cleared any evidence of Hermes V1 from my copy of DCS and did a re-install od the V2 so it's working fine for me. I'll stop saying ''version'' so much now.

OK now i'm very confused, seems It is the correct version I have put in the mission.... however if i remove version 1 HMS Hermes from my DCS then It won't work for me with version 2 only installed, even though I have changed the mission version to Version 2.... So it seems my mission needs both versions...

hmm seems i thought i'd installed and swapped the Hermes model in my mission for your new version but it is still the old version, so the guy above has revealed this and i need to fix it! about 30 people have dloaded the mission since and only one has revealed this mistake and instead of messaging me he's asked you! sorry!

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303964/

My Falklands War mission using this excellent mod Hi, I have just updated my Falklands War mission (based on the Caucasus map) to use this new version of your mod. It is a sort of mission template in which clients can modify the existance, position and loadouts of all units to produce their own missions. All units are representative of real units present during the conflict, and I tried to be as accurate as possible with positioning. There are some opposition aircraft which can be triggered to spawn, they can be edited/removed if necessary. Look in mission editor to fully appreciate the layout before trying the mission. Here is the download page; https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303964/ Thanks again for your work!

Great, trying it now, Thanks for your efforts!

Version 1.03, thanks!

This carrier is great already, but with your updates you could could sell it and earn good money! Thanks for your hard work! (ANT (EGNF) UK)

I have produced a couple of Falklands war 2 missions (available on the DCS website) and have based them on the Caucasus map, around the Kerch Strait between Crimea and the Russian coast. This use of a completely different part of the world requires quite a stretch of the imagination to really allow anyone to enjoy the mission (including myself) but It still allows for a rough approximation of a more contemporary conflict as the features of the area chosen allow for positioning of key objectives semi-accurately, ie; RAF Mount Pleasant (Anapa) being not too far West of Stanley (Novorossysk) and on the same land mass, etc. I think in order to produce a 1982 scenario, it would be too much of a stretch of the users imagination to eliminate Anapa / Mount Pleasant from the map in their heads during said mission. Anapa would always be there in full view and in the centre of the best area to use. This and the need for older versions of the aircraft currently in DCS World, is why I don't try to make a 1982 Falklands war mission, in the Caucasus map. So I can imagine why people wouldn't want a massive modern airbase sitting there, populated with units or not, smack in the middle of the East Island during their 1982 scenarios on the South Atlantic map. However, unless a solution to the different periods problem can be found, it's best RAZBAM produce the modern version and I agree with your statement '...while at the same time fighting faux conflicts in 2011 Caucasus and/or Persian Gulf settings', which shows that suspending belief is actually a big part of using DCS World anyway. It looks like the majority agree too, RAZBAM correctly chose to poll it's customers and have now made the best decision.

South Atlantic Map I agree there should be two separate maps. They would be bought as one but installed as two separate map options. They would share the majority of terrain files so as to reduce download size and HDD/SSD space. The 1982 version would have the same terrain shape as the modern equivalent including the flat surface required for Mt Pleasant runway / taxiways etc, but minus the actual runway/taxiway images and buildings. Mare harbour would also be the same, as would Stanley airfield and the modern radar installations (Mt Kent, Byron Heights, Mt Alice etc). Terrain shapes being slightly unauthentic would not stand out enough on the 1982 version to spoil the illusion, whereas the colours and objects of the airbase/radar stations harbour features would stand out greatly on the small, virtually flat map. If this is not possible however, as a last resort it would be best to include all modern features to give the clients more scenario options and thus open up the map to a wider audience. It would be good for ED to produce a map maker program and allow the clients to make their own maps, whilst companies such as RAZBAM concentrate their resources and efforts on the aircraft and units. ANT (EGNF) UK

Hello to all the people of UK Navalopps! My name is Anthony and I am a fellow DCS enthusiast with at least 20 years flight simming experience, I am also equally interested in the RAF and to a lesser extent the Fleet Air Arm / Royal Navy, so having found your group on the ED forums and due to it's Harrier / RAF / Navy / British relevance, I thought you may be interested in a mission I have been steadily working on over the last 6 months or so. The mission is a simple, fictional Falklands War 2 scenario set in late 2009, the equipment / aircraft / ships / units used are carefully chosen and named to represent those in service on both sides during this period. For example, the closest comparable ship to the HMS Illustrious available in DCS is obviously the USS Tarawa, and a comparable ship to represent HMS Daring is the CG-60 Normandy, similarly the ARA Hercules of Argentina is represented by an FFG 11540 Neustrashimy. The mission is multiplayer compatible and is quite straight forward and linear, allowing a choice of mission styles and target types, with a reasonable amount of AI air and ground targets for both the Argentine and British sides. There are plenty of client slots including both helicopters, planes and combined arms options. I have also tried to include multiple JTAC / AFAC / FAC units for use on both sides. If anything, It is a ''do as you like'' kind of mission, as there are plenty of options for targets. I have included a peacetime version for training in the relevant area of operation. As with most missions, this is a work in progress and has been quite a learning curve, however I have had good feedback from the DCS community so far and hope you can make use of the mission, even if you simply adapt it to your own needs. Any questions, advice or Ideas are always welcome. This is the link for the file; https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3116233/ Kind regards, Anthony ( ANT (EGNF) UK )