Jester986

Dated 2015. While I hope it still happens I wouldn't bank on a four year old leak.

Just wanted to say thanks for the campaign and for including it with the module. I'm on mission five and enjoying it so far!

Oh god.... Just what we need. Another boring gen4 blufor. Please, no. I try to support ED because I have the disposable income and I love this game. I didn't want the F-16 and I bought it any way because I thought the F-4 would be the next jet. I will NOT be buying another gen4 blufor for the foreseeable future.

Well I'll throw in my 2 cents, sense we're probably never getting an A-4 module I'd love to see it added in a way that it didn't break multiplayer IC.

Just wanted to chime in that I really enjoyed the first mission. I only tried the second mission once because I didn't have much time and I hate sling loading in dcs. Not a complaint about the mission though. I look forwarrd to playing the rest though and look forward to seeing more from you. maybe in the future a campaign for some of the under served modules? F-5, gazelle, F-86, etc. Thanks!

No disrespect intended but it's not alive simply because he keeps updating the textures. Without a coder its dead in the water. Maybe some day?

There's an AI Tornado in the game and thats probably what you saw. No offense, but it's probably just wishful thinking on your part as no one has even hinted at doing a Tornado. If heatblur does another module, and thats a big if, they've implied it would be the A-6. I know you Tornado guys are passionate about it and I hope you get it someday. But convincing yourself its in development is on setting yourself up for disappointment.

100% must own

Agreed, I spent the money for the puma cyclic and collective. You need some good disposable income to afford it but its the best way to do helicopters in the sim.

Well the original point of my poll was two fold. User made liveries are great but if your trying to play multiplayer its nice to have them in the game so you don't have to convince a dozen people to go download it. Also I generally like every aircraft to have a Bluefor and Redfor livery. Given the under representation of clicky cockpit Redfor it's nice to be able to throw a traditionally Blue aircraft over to the other side.

It's an artistic liberty I would gladly accept for the sake of multiplayer and not having access to the mission editor.

I think I saw it in there facebook post or in a comment. Know I read it somewhere, sorry I'm not more helpful than that

Some aircraft do have charts that account for wind. I fly a UH-1H with a T53-L-703 engine with the BLR fast fin and strake kit and a van horn tail rotor. My performance charts have an Area A and an Area B where A is with a wind of up to 17 knots from any direction and B is with calm wind or a head wind and B gives you significantly more performance. Generally we can always make our approach and departure into the wind so we can assume area B in most cases. there are one way in one way out situations though where you have to go by area A. And wind is reasonably predictable and checking weather is part of any flight planning. But that doesn't mean it won't be different on the ground due to some geography or just a bad forecast. Also in the military world I'm sure there are other reasons you wouldn't be able to approach or depart into the wind, namely what the enemy is doing.For example though at 6000 feet pressure altitude and 30 degrees C i could out of ground effect hover at 7550 lbs in Area A and about 9250lbs in Area B. That being said ED has modeled The UH-1H with the T53-L-13B engine and none of those after market mods. What I'm seeing in those performance charts says all figures are for a calm wind and they don't offer any adjustments to capacity based on the heading of the wind. They do have a chart for determining controlability based on cross winds and tail winds and available pedal and cyclic authority but nothing about the corresponding reduction in available power if you have the left pedal at the stop. TL/DR Quadg is right in that the charts don't take into account a wind helping you but wrong in that you absolutely plan for an adverse wind and many helicopters have charts that adjust for it.

Except that they got ED's permission before making their statement.

Take from it what you will. I doubt they said the latest one can be agreed to without discussing its content with ED.

They said in their first brief on the kiowa that they have a draft of a contract everyone has agreed they can sign. That doesn't mean there won't be more horse trading or a break down in negotiations if someone changes their mind on one aspect or another. Seems to translate to them having a handshake agreement but not a legal one yet.

I would take any speculation about future modules with a grain of salt. Heatblur got bought by a company that does real world aviation and government contracting. I'm glad they got a payday and hopefully it gives them more resources to bring us quality modules with. Unfortunately it's equally likely that they will be working on non DCS projects and the promised assets (ai J-35, ai A-6, Forrestal, campaigns, A model) are the last we will see from them.

I'm happy for the OPS story and am happy he got to have a great time flying a real helicopter. I would caution people about thinking the sim could translate to a real life ability though. I fly helicopters for a living and occasionally I fly a Huey. The Huey flight model is OK but not what I would call realistic. The real helicopter has more tailrotor authority and is a bit more responsive although as far as helicopters go hueys are fairly sluggish. The MI-8 has the most real feeling flight model in my humble opinion. I think the KA-50 is probably pretty good but I've never flown a coaxial helicopter I have a tandem though for whatever that is worth. To Ebabil though, with respect the stallion action of the helicopter is probably due to pilot induced osculations on your part and the lack of being able to feel the beginning of an oscillation in the seat of your pants. When I was a flight instructor we called teaching people to hover breaking a horse so your description of a stallion is both amusing and accurate :)

The way the article read it sounded like they are trying to leave the framework to backport multicrew into it but they're not confident enough of being able to do it to call it a feature. So its not promised so it can be complete without it. I'm just curious if theres an ai gunner who will shoot at targets and mark targets as an afac or if you have to let the ai fly to do that or if you're talented enough be capable of flying marking and shooting all at the same time?

Ok, so this isn't a pitchfork post but my impressions so far are pretty meh... I was going to wait awhile to pick this one up and hear from the squad about it but I said what the hell and grabbed it day one. It's nice to have some advanced system out the gate like the Tpod but the general polish of the more basic systems is pretty disappointing. The biggest issue for me is the lack of a damage model. That alone pretty much relegates this to flying patterns and cross countries and not doing any combat. Magz and Jabbers first impression videos sum up my feelings perfectly. I'm not mad or cursing ED, just disappointed. At a minimum I think we should have been made aware basic elements would be missing. When it's said "were releasing it with a Tpod!" we assume more basic elements like lights, damage model, and textures are already done. This probably isn't the best way to go in the future. Anyway I'm sure these issues will be corrected quickly and it will be a great plane soon.

The article mentioned an AI pilot and no multicrew. I know it may be difficult but with the right bindings will we be able to fly and use the weapons system at the same time? In the gazelle I would be flying and manipulating the camera with a hat switch.

Well said Bad CrC

I'm still here. I was the most vocal defender of the Gazelle so I'm going to assume you meant me. But I got over arguing. And I didn't refuse to admit there was a problem at all. I did a lengthy write up once on the good and bad of the flight model. But overall I thought it felt pretty damn good to me as long as you were flying it within the normal flight envelope with the disclaimer I'm using an actual cyclic and collective and not a hotas which I think makes a huge difference. I also stopped defending it as the other bugs started piling up though. I wasn't upset about them but I understood why people were. I wasn't concerned though because the Gazelle is an old module and the first module from a small studio. They did their best with coding the FM but as time went on I'm guessing the limitations in the core code were discovered that would require they pretty much rebuild the Gazelle from scratch. So they make the 58 with the idea of back porting the new technology to the gaz and tuning the new model from there. Is it ideal? No. In a perfect world it would go straight to the gaz. But that's probably not practical considering what a small team it is and that they have pay people. Look at the rushed state of the F-16 and how much more resources its dev has... Anyway this is only my perspective from the outside looking in and hopefully I'm not stepping on the devs toes woth my assumptions. But I'm happy the gaz has a coder working on the bugs and that it's going to get new fm technology. I'm excited for the 58 and its a day 1 buy for me but I understand the people who have a "put your money where you mouth is and we'll see" attitude.

So I'm getting a severe cross eye effect with both regular and spyglass zoom in vr. Using a pimax 5k+ anyone have a similar problem or know a solution.

:megalol::thumbup: