Ifikratis

Hello @Silver_Dragon. Thank you for the reply. Apologies for not knowing you but are you working for Belsimtek ? I really need a reassuring answer from the developer of the module. As I said, these issues are reported for months in the bug section and they have no reply from any developer.

Hi all, I bought the Huey yesterday and discovered multiple problems with textures: 1) The cockpit colors look dull and washed out when light is directly shining on them 2) The cockpit illumination is wrong. There is light coming from the back of the aircraft through the fuselage and illuminates the panel. The fuselage does not cast shadow on the instrument panels. 3) The beacon light is flashing in the cockpit 4) Their is no glass visible inside or outside. Or there is glass without texture. 5) The tail has different finish than the rest of the fuselage. The fuselage is more shinny. Now, you may ask why the aggressive title of my thread? I will tell you why. I bought the module and when I realized the problems I went to this forum and in the bugs department and realized that many if not all of them are already posted for some months, some of them even from 2017! Then, I really became worried and what I did next was to send a support ticket explaining the situation and asking for a refund. The answer I got was the following: " We cannot make a refund in this case. You have to discuss your opinion in our forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=263 " So, what DCS is telling me, is in other words "we don't care if you just paid for it and the textures are broken. Share you opinion in the forums." Seriously ????? If the developer is watching this, can he provide me with a proper answer?

Okay guys..I get that if a manual is classified it can't be posted. I really want to buy the Gazelle, find the model very beautifully done. But as a potential customer I need to know which is the level of FM accuracy and how it is sourced. The thing is I don't have the aircraft so I can't comment on what feels right or wrong, so I can only interpret what I read. The problem is that the developer made two opposite statements about SAS and the FM is seems to be altered completely based on pilot's input and not based on rotor physics and how SAS is interacting. It seems to me that the FM Is tweaked to satisfy what a pilot wants to see which is fine when you put the final touches on something. But the FM on the Gazelle has been completely changed the previous months and this does not create the reassurance that the model is based on a solid physical understanding of the systems. The developer has also acknowledged that inertia has been completely removed which make me wonder: How realistic is to remove inertia? I would be really glad to be completely wrong on this and someone reassure why this is true and that the Gazelle indeed flies like that, because I would buy the Gazelle, so if someone can disprove that, please do it.

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I'm reading carefully all similar threads trying to find out if its worth it (for me) to buy the Gazelle. I am fan of absolute realism in FM and thus this topic is of paramount importance for my decision. Reading this thread I can say that particularly the last two posts summarize what has been said. As already pointed out by EagleEye, we have been told by the developer that the SAS is on: a) As soon as the AP and gyro are on b) As soon as the battery is on - always The part of the manual posted by iFoxRomeo indicates that SAS can be 'cut off' and flight can continue without SAS. Now, this seems to be a solid argument to me and a flaw in the aircraft's FM by the developer as I see it. So, what I get as a conclusion from all this is the following: The developer provides a flight model that includes a SAS stabilization which is not decoupled in the coding process. So the coding in the Gazelle does not include a separate SAS script that kicks in when enabled (not talking about hover), but the FM itself is tuned to work as if there is a gimbal (SAS) in the controls somehow. This is after input of the French Gazelle pilots who said this is how it flies and not through research in the mechanics and physics behind the systems. Please understand that I am not bushing the product, I just want to know what it is and what should I expect to get for the price. I would think that the best way to program this is to code it from the inside out, starting with the rotor physics equations and then adding the specific stability control systems on top of it, coupled or decoupled according to the official documentation. If this information was not available it would be good to know and thus the flight model was based on verbal guidance. This is what I have got from all the threads that I have read and please if I'm wrong I'd be glad to be corrected. I'm not bushing the product but if I pay for it I deserve to know what it is and where the FM is coming from. Finally, I would be really glad to get a system explanation by the developer that includes manual references and not ''the French pilots think its fine''. Then, I would buy the module the same minute. Maybe I'm picky but lets say I'm too sensitive to FM realism in DCS, I guess you can give that to someone, given the level of accuracy which is currently possible in DCS. Thanks for your time.

Are you sure about that? The F/18 for example is in the bonus program. Bonus cannot be applied now on the Tomcat because its on a pre-order discount. I guess when the Tomcat is released for Early Access, bonus points should apply. EDIT. Just read the bonus policy again and indeed there is no bonus for products labelled as ‘new’. Very reasonable indeed. Especially this tomcat deserves every penny and more. Heatblur deserves all respect for this piece of software masterpiece. Cant wait for this winter! :)

This winter is from 2 to 4 months away. With not something more precise, I think I'd rather wait and pay 10$ more than pay now and wait. Not worth 10$ less for me if I have to wait 2-4 months. Just my thoughts. Excellent presentation though, looks absolutely unbelievable.

I dont get this. We have seen many development previews. If its not a release then why to put a countdown?

Why you think that all people who preordered a) read this forum, b) read this thread c) will confirm here or in youtube that they received it? Probably the only one who knows how many throttles are being sent is Virpil.

Hi guys. I'm also waiting for my pre-order. May I ask mdee, why 3+ months delay? According to their latest update the throttles should be shipping this week or so.

Really thank you all for your replies. I understand that we have to compromise to what is possible and mostly, available for our simulators. I chose the Virpil because I believe it has the durability and build quality I like. I went through all the aircraft I have using the excellent Chuck guides and found out that all the aircraft I use will need a 4-way or 5-way hat switches to operate the throttle controls, so I should not lose any functionality. Thank you Sokol and Ranma for the very useful input. I was unaware that the real planes use different kind of switches. And in that respect I understand Ranma suggestion. The real switches are so much more efficient that a 4-way hat or an analog self-centering thumbstick, however the analog thumbstick is a closer approximation. I think I will learn to center the pods with the hat fast enough and so keep my pre-order.

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that the analog is better, my question though is if its more realistic. Does the real jets have an analog thumbstick or a 4-way hat?

Hi all, I am writing because I have a question regarding the use of the analog thumb stick on a hardware throttle. I do not own a dedicated throttle yet except my T.1600M joystick and today I placed a pre-order for the Virpil MT-50 throttle. I chose it instead of the TM warthog throttle mostly because of its metallic internals and thus I believe it will last long and be more precise as Virpil seems to have the quality I like (based on what I see and read). My only concern is the following: I read that they plan to release in the future a model with an analog thumb stick, while the one currently on pre-release state is using hat switches. I am new to DCS and so I am not as experienced about the uses of the throttle switches on flight, however I am aware of the TWC cursor that is usually controlled using these switches. My question is this: Is it necessary and is it realistic to have an analog thumbstick (mini joystick) on the throttle or is it more realistic to have a 4-way hat? If the functionality on the modules I am using is going to be reduced because I won't have an analog thumbstick, I'd rather call off my pre-order and re-order when they release the analog stick version. My main concern is not if the analog is easier to use (I guess it is) but more if its realistic, ie. if the real fighters have all an analog thumb stick. Thank you all for spending your time reading my question. I'd be very happy to hear your opinion.

Thank you very much guys. Seems like I will go with the Virpil option. Thanks for the very useful input.

Hi all, I would like to invest on a good HOTAS system. I'm between the TM Warthog and the new Virpil flightstick and throttle. I am aware that the Virpil has metallic base design and thus seems of higher mechanism quality however I'm not a fan of Russian jets, and thus their Russian joystick design is a little annoying to me as I do not fly Russian jets. Also the TM joystick is metal versus plastic from Virpil. However, the Virpil solution will cost me double the money of the TM HOTAS. So I would like to ask you guys if you think that the cost is justifying for what you get compared to the TM system. Thank you very much for your time!

I'm a new Harrier customer and it certainly seems a very impressive module. Haven't flown it yet to express opinion but I get a bit worried from various users 'complaining' for a lack of attention and completion time-frame. I think it would be nice if the developer could chime-in here and give a relieving comment about their commitment to deliver a full study level aircraft. I think it will do only good to hear how high in RAZBAM priorities is currently the harrier.

Hi all, Really considering to buy the Harrier, although one thing that visually annoys me in the cockpit is the fact that the push-buttons on the MPCD and front facing keypad are not depressed when you click on them (I observe that on all YouTube videos). I know its not taking out of the functionality but it's a thing that annoys me as I am not sure if a button is pressed when I click if its not 3D modeled to depress. Is this planned to be fixed in the future, so all push-buttons can be 3D depressed ? Thank you for your time! ***EDIT: I'm really sorry, I was completely wrong here. I bought it and the buttons are depressed correctly. I don't know why I was unable to see that on YouTube. Again sorry for the wrong comment. Everything is perfect. Thank you RAZBAM! :)

Hello guys, Thank you very much for your advice! Very valuable to me :) I bought the A-10C now and I'm really impressed. Even released at the dawn of DCS, Eagle Dynamics have done an outstanding job that just holds like it was released today. Its extremely well done and I'm sure the 600+ pages manual will keep me busy for a long time. However, I'm still considering the Harrier (due to the sale) and I may get it too before the sale ends, mostly intrigued to practice its STOL capabilities. Again thank you very much for your very helpful inputs.

Hi all, I am a new DCS user (around a month new), having purchased the Hornet and Persian Gulf map so far. And while I'm still learning the Hornet, I would like to take the sale opportunity to acquire one more aircraft. I am considering the A-10 or the Harrier. Based on your more deep experience I would like to ask your opinion on which you think is a better purchase? Looking at the beautiful Chuck's guides but also screenshots and videos I have the impression that the A-10 is better in terms of visuals. Modelling/texturing detail seems of a higher level to me. However I could be wrong...but is it right? To be honest though I like more the Harrier's design as an airplane. Its more intriguing and pleasing to look at. Besides the visuals, and besides that the Harrier is not yet complete, which one do you think is more interesting or has a deeper learning curve? I know the Harrier is a STOL aircraft, which surely gives it an advantage, but I'd like to hear more if someone has the time and will to let me know. An interesting question which I am completely unaware is how deep is RAZBAM systems simulations compared to Eagle Dynamics? Of course if you feel that there is not a considerable advantage on these planes, the "buy both" option is also one I am considering. Thank you very much for your time to read my message. I'd be looking forward for your advice :)