geogob

It should probably have said "within 24 hours" or "within a day".

My problem is not with the Yaw trim, but with the heading trim. When you trim, it not only trims the yaw but sets a heading as well. I'm ready to accept that there might be an automatic pilot controlling horizontal attitude and that it might be linked to the trim, but I can't believe it can't be disabled. It's a real nuisance in many situations. Or maybe there's a way to turn heading hold off that I do not know about...

Indeed. They would be very surprised.

No, it's an EKRAN warning linked to the L-140 LWS. It's not a feature of the arcade-mode

I'm with you on this one. I stopped the campaign completely and won't resume until it's fixed. Doing some training while I wait. I also order rudder pedals, so I'll get time to get used to them. I'm crossing my fingers for a fix early-march.

Right. But then again, when you are in an helicopter, you feel the vibrations through the cyclic, seat, pedals, etc. "Feeling" the aircraft is very difficult in a simulator... except if you are in a full flight that cost millions. There are ways to add to the experience like vibrating chairs and force feedback. But for those less fortunate that do not have these systems, there is no feedback at all on the "feeling". The first sign you are pushing the aicraft too much to the limits are the alarms sounding off. Not getting this feeling is not realistic at all either. This feeling can be somewhat restored using visual cues. Some might argue that getting feedback from the state of the aircraft is more important than respecting this visual accuracy. Instead of feeling it your butt, you see it on your screen. Of course, such a visual feedback should be subtle and should not affect the ability to fly the aircraft. Haven't tried it so i can't comment on that. I'm just saying that in the reality of a computer simulation that is not linked to specialty hardware, sometimes trading one inaccuracy for another might result in a better simulation overall. The overall resulting accuracy will, of course, be strongly dependent to the implementation.

Just a question, do you have unlimited ammo enabled? The first behavior you mention would be coherent with the use of unlimited ammo.

The multiple panel thing could be very very usefull for pit builders. Some may decide to replace some hardware with glass panels giving good results with less investment (both in time and money). Very interesting ideas - but even more important - very well presented.

I have the feeling the radio model is fairly complex despite of it apparent simplicity. While playing around with it and trying to listen to broadcast radio, I even got the feeling crosstalk in the receiver was modeled. Very nice.

Yes, this is "normal" behavior for the multiplayer GUI and is well know, The multiplayer and single player GUI are two distinct applications. This is known and I hope it's going to be addressed in an upcoming patch soon™. Search the forum before posting bugs (especially ones as obvious as this), you'll see that all this has been reported before ;)

Just a guess, but are you in icing conditions with pitot and static heaters off? (not even sure pitot icing is modelled) Do the barometric altimeter and vario work - if they don't work right, it may be static icing.

Technically, the collective also controls the swashplate, but instead of tilting it, it moves it up and down uniformly (although I'm not quite sure how it would work with a dual rotor. I think it's not that different as the two rotors probably work with differential input).

I've yet to see a laser fail due to overuse in DCS. All I can see is the laser still working, but not as intended.

Yes, I think I pulled the collective too much and too early. I guess it's a natural reflex you need to overcome...

Started a thread on the subject a few days back. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36610&highlight=autorotation Idle engine input is far from negligible.

Ah! srsly? And I had put so much hope on those hot air balloon rumors. :( :megalol:

No excuse required. I don't think that many people here have english as their native language. When you say J-79, you mean like, the J-79 GE engine?

I wonder how you could correctly model the Ka-52 in DCS with the same level of realism the Ka-50 is modeled. Same goes for any two seat aircraft. The only way to manage this would be through a strictly multi-player system that requires two players to fly the aircraft at all time. I doubt the AI could cut in for the job.

That's not how it works. Again, as I said, I'm not expert in Russian military logistics, but if it's anything like here, such a retrofit may take years - even if a major conflict breaks out. It's also quite certain the helos would be deployed regardless. As it was mention above, that was the case in the conflict where the Ka-50 was used.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=35496 It's known and was discussed. AFAIK, the dev said they were aware of the issue and knew how to reproduce it. I guess it's going to be fixed in an eventual patch (but that's just a guess). I doubt you'll see any correction for this until a patch is released.

I'm just going to go ahead and highlight some parts and add a few comments.... observation to follow. I think you like contradicting yourself. First you state that no AA system were every fully developped nor implemented on the AH-64A, then you conclude that DCS: Apache-A should have AA systems. So. which one is it? Do they have the AA missile systems or do they not? If they don't, it doesn't get into the simulator, if they do, it gets in. You said they don't, then you say they should be in the simulator. I think you don't know what a simulator is. You do no what you want it to be though. But, most importantly, what does all this about the AH-64 have to do with the Ka-50 ECM systems? How about this. If you want to start a new discussion, start a new thread. Don't forget the forum search function first. You might be shocked to see what you find there!

Frederf, I was replying to someone In particular. I should have quoted the post. Sorry for the confusion. (honestly, i forgot to whom I was replying and to which post... I just remember I posted this in response to a particular post). That should have been clearer, my mistake. It wasn't directed at the gerneral audiance of this thread. I've been having a lot off issues with the rangefinder not working as intended and that happens to be every 2 missions or so. It has nothing to do with rearming. I have a feeling that (and its just an hypothesis) that the laser should stop working for a period to cool down after 30 minutes of use or so. Instead of shutting down and giving you a warning on the HUD, it gets all messed up. I am not sure it's where the problem his, but my guts point in that direction, or so to speak...

Rokosowsky, I think there something fundamental about military acquisitions, logistics and reality you do not understand. Of course everyone will agree with you that sending aircraft without proper ECM equipment against ANY enemy forces with SAM capabilities is far from being ideal. Regardless if the opposing forces are Chinese, NATO, Russian or what ever. I thing most of us, including moderators and developers, understood your point and, for the most part, even agreed with you. Sending these aircraft in areas covered by SAM is not ideal. It is not safe. You are right. Best course of action will always to keep the aircraft out of danger until the SAM threats can be neutralized. The reality is in fact (and that's especially the case during a military conflict) far from the ideal picture-book theory. Rules change and need to be flexible. Do aircraft without ECM equipment go into dangerous areas? I'm pretty sure they have to, because you don't always have any alternatives. There are some conflict areas where you would see Canadian helicopters with bullet holes patched with duct tape. That's not ideal. That's not safe, but it had to be done. In short, my point is that even if you do think that all modern military aircraft should be equipped with proper ECM equipment (and again, you are probably right), it doesn't change the reality that not all modern military aircraft have this luxury. Nor does it change the fact that they may be used in situations where SAM threats are possible. It all comes down to a question of budget, logistics, politics, ever lasting upgrade schedules, etc. That the life of military development. I'm not familiar with Russian programs, but I'm fairly sure that once an upgrade program starts, it could easily take a decade to see any changes on the aircraft. Nothing is plug-n-play in the military world. Changes are slow. Finally, I think you should take some time to review your attitude. You are clearly pulling out the smart ass act I've seen a bit too often around the internet by now. I'm sure it served you well in other situations, but here you are talking with a group of developers who, clearly, put a lot of effort into research and documentation. Their argument is simple. They basically said, "we do not have any information describing these systems for the Ka-50, hence we didn't model any". On a simulator where realism is the key, their approach is a valid one and hardly deniable because, to the best of their knowledge, it's right. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this :s If you have serious information to provide, go ahead. But again, don't start babbling about this or that other aircraft that has the system or how much it would be nonsense to use the aircraft without it or even that it has been tested. All those facts that may be true or not do not provide any useful information on the state of the fleet of Ka-50 at any point in time. Even if you are right, the information you provide is not enough to conclude in the context of a realism-based simulator. EDIT: corrected few obvious typos

How about we do it this way (because arguing about how many Mi-24 have RWR systems is pointless as we are talking about the Ka-50)... Can you find one single evidence of an RWR system mounted on any KA-50 built (either production or prototype). 1 image should be enough. No need for 200+ images that wouldn't give any information about the Ka-50. You seem to be quite sure of what you are saying, so, surly, you must have some information about the Ka-50 the developers do not have in hand. I'm sure they would be interested to see those picture or documents you have.

I like it. Just like in real life, military operations are not always conducted in ideal conditions. Flying with NVG is really easy. You have to set the lights correctly. Search the forums, we already had a few threads on this subject.