ryuzu

Yes there would be someone else in this hypothetical future you talk of - but there isn't. NP aren't the only ones who could've done it, but they're the only ones that *did* do it. The reason we have 6DOF in games as it is today is due to NP. Besides which, if it's so obvious that 6DOF be implemented, why are NP still the only viable company in that area? If there's one thing we know, just as much as creating a market (like Ford) there are always plenty of people who'll jump in later and try and usurp it - why aren't there any viable competitors to NP? The best we have is FT which for some reason requires access to NP's code in order to do it - why doesn't FT provide a proper fully independent solution instead of requiring NP's code? As for Monopolies, well yes the best Capitalist minds conclude they're bad, but lack of competition is never an acceptable reason for theft. If the 6DOF market was bigger and NP was making massive amounts of cash, may be another company would take notice and produce a genuine competitor product. On your final point of low costs - FT is low cost because it uses NP's software and presence in games/sims like DCS. By way of analogy, if I plug an extension cable into someones mains electricity secretly and then let you plug into that extension for free, are you stealing electricty? I think it's clear that the household that is paying for the electricity is being robbed - NP in this case are that house, and FT is the extention cable provider. r.

1. As DTWD said - the fact remains NP did that work and provided the code to game devs for inclusion. Why doesn't FT produce such code and therefore remove any dependence on NP? That would negate this problem completely. 2. Well true, but take DirectX for example - that consistent interface is provided by MS and it's freely available for devs to use - why? Because MS gets revenue from users who buy windows. So that common interface is not "free" - it just appears so since there is no explicit price tag. The same is true of the TrackIR enabled games that FT relies on. 3. They aren't though - they're relying on work NP has done and NP relies on revenue from it. FT is leeching off that work as of now with DCS - as in 2, if FT provides a suitable interface acceptable to devs, then I'm sure it'll be used. Until then NP are the ones providing the software and they want some reimbursement. 4. N/A 5. If a user wants 6DOF support in DCS (and other games) today the only legitimate option is to use NP. Sadly there is no competition - FT is limiting the value of the 6DOF market and therefore inhibiting that competition further. I wouldn't want it to come across that I love NP or anything. I just use the product - I'm not some kind of TIR evangelist and I'd be more than happy to see a cheaper alternative and some competition. I just feel it is necessary to point out that NP isn't doing anything anti competitive - they developed the software that (in the case of DCS here) FT relies on - yet gets no revenue from FT users. Further, those same FT users, rather than being grateful (or at least quiet) that they still get away with illegitimate use of NPs software, go even further and accuse NP of being anticompetitive! FT uses that interface and therefore depends on NP providing the software to ED - but FT and their users provide nothing to NP by way of compensation - that is wrong and the onus is on FT to do something about it, not NaturalPoint. r.

Well this raises a good point - what have you paid for exactly vs what did you get? To get 6DOF head tracking you need the hardware and software to make that happen. Importantly in the game/sim itself you need the relevant software (the newinput.dll) to get it working. NP provide libraries and code to devs so that they can easily get 6DOF head tracking support in their game. When someone buys a TrackIR they're getting the hardware and user software and also implicitly paying for the libraries which have been incorporated into the games themselves. When you use FreeTrack you get the client software for free, buy a webcam but.... what software is getting used in the game itself? Well it's NPs software - and you're not paying for that. So ultimately using FreeTrack is leeching off of NP and their legitimate customers who are subsidising your use. If those others hadn't paid, FreeTrack in its current form wouldn't work. FreeTrack should not be using NP code and instead develop and market their own (or pay a royalty to NP for using their code) - if they'll do that and provide it to devs and still not charge, then that would be great and I bet ED would be all over it and NP would be in trouble. In the meantime, FreeTrack is denying revenue to NP which has created a market - if it weren't for NP we wouldn't be where we are today in terms of support for 6DOF. So, the cost of TrackIR is high, but I think probably half of that charge can be put down as software licensing for the code already integrated into games/sims and in that context, the costs are not so bad (just look at the list of supported games - all of those use NPs software). So, if we really want to talk about competition, it's up to FreeTrack (or someone else) to do *all* the work, not piggy back on the legitimate work of NaturalPoint as is currently the case. r.

What about for the Western Release (and maybe a future patch for the Russian release) that will put the NP dll in the SF protected library? As it stands I guess that will make FT inoperative unless/until you circumvent StarForce which is of course outside the terms of BS purchase.... Is there a plan for this eventuality? r.

Well in a few commercial fixed wing airlines I know of, the AP+Coupler must be engaged before 200ft height after takeoff and then remain engaged until landing is complete (for normal line flights). If the AP is disengaged in this period the pilots have to submit reports explaining why (basically it better have been an emergency of some description). Helicopters (and pilots of those) are a bit different in that they operate in places and ways where an autopilot cannot always be used effectively - but where the AP can be used it probably should, because helicopters are trickier to keep under control, particularly when you are "head down" getting targeting done and various other combat tasks. So getting the AP to do the things you want will ultimately make you a more effective combat pilot. Having said that, hand-flying is still fun and luckily something that hasn't been completely removed from the hands of helicopter pilots in comparison to their fixed wing brethren... r.

What does that mean - "working with shkval"? What specifically are you doing with the shkval that is stopping you pressing the trim button? r.

Well I watched the trk and took control while the shkval was dancing. It kept "dancing" once I had control, until I made a single shkval slew input (joystick or key) - then it stopped. What does that mean? I'm not sure. I think to get to the bottom you'll need to tell us how your stick is set up to control the shkval. If you have axis based controls (rather than keypresses) then the movement would be consistent with spiking on the potentiometers in the stick - could be that. r.

Prophet - Exactly. Program the center hat position to be the *release* of each of the slew keys (I think you program them as a macro and then delete the key presses and leave only the key releases). Got rid of my problem with this and haven't had it reappear. I can't remember now where I found that but I think it was in the Saitek programmer help - probably an FAQ question. .

What stick are you using and how have you programmed it? If it's Saitek, then you are experiencing a known problem with the programming software. Unplugging the stick has no effect since the driver software is running on your computer and sending the key stroke to BS.... It is also possible that you're activating the ground tracking mode of the shkval - but personally I'd guess at joystick programming first. r.

I just put the setup.exe and the .cab file in the same directory and ran setup - everything fine from there. You don't need to do anything other than that (don't extract the .cab/winrar file). Looking at the error it appears your files are in Administrator\Documents & Settings. Some things to check 1) Move those files out of Docs & Settings and put them somewhere else and re-try the install 2) Make sure you have admin privileges for that directory (i.e. are you logged in as Administrator) Those would be the first things I'd look at... r.

Saitek X52? (or Pro?)... Anyway, Saitek say that to stop the sticky button problem you need to add a key release stroke to the central position of the hat - this makes the problem go away. Guess it may be a similar issue for other sticks. In the meantime, this is our first cautionary tale - try and keep the bugs accurate and not throw the term bug around unless you're 100% certain. Helicopters don't fly like fixedwings and this sim is clearly deeper than most - all adds up to plenty of "wtf?!" moments which means the sim is working as intended :) r.

Yeah - it's fine for me too on BS. Guesses - what keys have you assigned for enable/disable in the BS profile - try changing them to something else. Is the TIR BS profile recognising that BS has started - are the executable renamed or is the profile not detecting your BS for some reason? I guess you could try a reinstall and a clean MP start from there - got to be a TIR detection/enabling problem on your end... r.

No good asking the Russians - you need an English language version! Best to write to the relevant Armed Force of an English speaking country that is using the KA-50... :music_whistling: r.

I am imagining it - that's why when I fly a mission with precip I run both the Cockpit and the Shkval wiper. Shame about the lack of proper raindrops though and modelled visibility impairment. Still not a major thing to be missing given everything else that is present and working. r.

So is it correct to say that the Kh25 is currently not supported in the Russian release? Only want to know if I should bother trying to work it out - if it's not supported yet I'll just ignore it... r.

Really - a sprague clutch is modelled and working in the main transmission! Wow those crazy Russians! :lol: r.

I think the auto hover button engages the Pitch, Bank and Height holds (which can be Rad Alt or Baro alt based - rad alt changes with terrain below you, baro alt doesn't) by default. You can add the Heading hold in as well to get stable yaw. Remember though that the heading will point you to your selected steerpoint by default unless you engage the heading to target mode (on the left side panel near the collective). Finally remember that you have to help the height hold by setting the collective - check your vsi in the hover and add or remove pitch to allow the helicopter to hold it's altitude - like any autopilot modes too much collective (or pedals or cyclic) will mean you simply override the AP and this effect often leads to weird behaviour as you and the AP alternate control... r.

Answers above are almost there but bear this in mind - Civilian spec'd helicopters have 2 engines for safety (if one fails you fly on the other assuming you fly the profile correctly). Military helicopters have 2 engines to carry the required payload and do the job. Basically in a Civil helicopter the maximum loads are determined to allow single engine flight, in military helicopters the max loads are determined based on what can possibly be carried with all engines operating. So, in a military helicopter, if an engine fails and you're loaded with stuff : 1) Ditch some weight - there's the jettison function for that (perhaps even fire off your cannon rounds) 2) Check your fuel - you probably have full tank which weighs a lot anyway. Can't jettison that but it will matter when you try and land. 3) The KA50 has a free turbine - no need for clutches or disengaging it. 4) The helicopter has a power curve just like anything else with a minimum drag speed - I don't know if it is in the manual somewhere, but at a guess probably around 75 Knots (around 140KPH). This is your reference speed - at 140KPH you're going to get your best Climb Rate. If you cannot maintain altitude at that speed on single engine, you will descend. How you land depends on weight at landing (fuel, assuming you jettisoned everything). You can attempt to hover if you're light, the temperature is low and the baro altitude is low - but the safest approach is to make a running landing - just like a fixed wing keep some speed on - this reduces the power required compared to landing from a hover and the extra speed will allow you to fly away again if the approach looks bad. r.

No - as you go faster in a medium/large helicopter the forces felt through the cyclic don't change. The reason you felt those things in a C152 (real life or sim) is because there is a direct mechanical link between your stick and the control surface. That method works on aircraft with light aerodynamic loads. The Shark uses hydraulics - you don't directly feel the aerodynamic loads under any normal condition what you feel is the Trim-feel system. Essentially you get something to "feel" and push against and that is a constant force - it doesn't change with flight condition. r.

Or to put it better, People fly aeroplanes, Pilots fly helicopters :thumbup: r.

Never flown a 206 but in this (KA-50) helicopter the control movements are transmitted via hydraulics. That means that with the power off, sitting on the ground, the cyclic cannot be moved and in the air you don't feel aerodynamic forces directly - only what is fed to you by the trim system (and in some types this can be disabled to provide a "floppy" stick)... At the moment I don't have a FF stick but I'd be interested to hear whether it will trim realistically - it would be the first sim I've found that did... r.

Yes I found it in the end. I fired it/them ok - tried various laser settings etc and found 2 things 1) Once you fire one the shark is quite badly unbalanced! :) 2) They miss (mine always seem to impact long) - that could be operator error but if someone said they're not working yet then I guess that may also be why. Probably just not fully implemented yet... r.

Well I did a bit more digging and found a lead. This is in the Russian manual : "Before normal - LD. ЛДП is used with the laser illumination of target for the aviation tактических rockets of the type X-25ML, X-29L or guided bombs with the la zeby рными self-homing heads." X-25ML being the Kh25-ML of course. So this bit of text might explain what is necessary to get it working - the problem is I can find no way of loading that missile onto my aircraft.... r.

Hmmm - looking through the loadouts in the mission editor I can't see any Kh25-ML or any other guided missiles - just the Vikhr. How are you loading it on and what is it's designation? r.

I've been wondering about these "big white missiles" - as far as I can tell from the game, the bits of the manual I could translate/read and playing around there are no big white missiles. The only guided missile is the Vikhr - the other things that look like missiles are either 1) Cluster bombs 2) Extra gun pods 3) FABs 4) Fuel tanks. When I first saw these various things I thought each was some missile but could never select or deploy them so I conclude they are in fact other stuff. BUT if someone knows different let us know! r.