Furlow
最新回复 发布由 Furlow
-
-
11 hours ago, Furlow said:
I really want to like the TCA quadrant 4 engine setup
As a follow up, the TCA airbus quadrants work perfectly with no annoying setups or curves. Assign axis's and it all just works. Even the lift locks to allow reverse thrust is where it should be. Highly recommended for DCS and C130.
-
1
-
-
I really want to like the TCA quadrant 4 engine setup but I'll reserve a recommendation until after I see how it actually works with the C130. When it works in msfs 2020/2024 its amazing, but sometimes you can spend hours trying to get it setup properly on each aircraft. (Having a single TCA throttle + spoiler attachment + flaps attachment works fine, but when you add the 2nd to give you 4 throttle levers things go a bit pear-shaped. Plus the curves you have to use take a lot of figuring out as well).
-
9 hours ago, Renko said:
They added for the CH47 a separate section called "CH-47F Gunner Station", which is active when you are out of stations 1-2-3.
So you have to map there those HOTAS keybinds.Outstanding, thank you very much, this was the answer. Makes sense now but I was scratching my head there.
-
Good thought, as it was my first, but the hats still work fine in other helos and the vkb config. In fact I can see the presses registering in vkb while ignored in dcs. The repair I did and I also remapped to other buttons on hotas and it continued. Its definitely software, but I dont know if its a bug or perhaps a conflict on my end.
-
Not sure if this is a 'my setup' problem or s DCS problem. I have all 6 internal crew positions mapped to hats for situational awareness without external view. Switching between 1, 2 and 3 works fine, but if I switch to 4, 5, or 6, there is a 90% chance it will get stuck in that position and wont let me switch back to 1, 2 or 3 until I use keyboard numbers. The fact that it does work sometimes makes it weirder.
Anyone else experienced this?
-
On 5/29/2025 at 7:21 PM, MadKreator said:
In the CH-47, the only one that works with native naming is RIGHT_MFCD
Hi, thanks for the fast reply and apologies for my slow one. Appreciate the help, even if its the answer I dreaded lol. So basically I have a naked right mfd for Contention, and the helios setup is for non-protected servers (which are not many these days) and singleplayer. I'm partly grateful because at least I can read the display now, but its a bit miserable that they are so close to proper connectivity but seemingly purposely fencing it off. Could it be they want things like exportable/exterior instruments to be a divider between DCS and the military trainer version? Makes zero sense to me but there has to be a reasoning somewhere for it to be included then disabled.
Also congrats and major thanks to you on your helios stuff, big fan of your chopper cockpit panels. Amazing stuff. Appreciate your time.
-
1
-
-
Ran into this problem myself this week. Was playing Contention in chinook and decided it would be nice to have 2x 11 inch tablets as pilots mfd and CDU, since I can barely read the airspeed etc and to make navigation a lot quicker. Three days of Amazon and setup later, and a crash tutorial in spacedesk and helios, everything works great, but I now cant play on Contention because I break IC. (Shout out to helios guys though, amazing program).
So what are our options for exporting things? Is anything other than 1-3 monitors in a horizontal line going to break IC? Is there any kind of touchscreen available in vanilla DCS where I could try and get a 43 inch monitor with touchscreen to display the entire pilot-side cockpit interior with usable MFDs and CDU? The monitor options in setup is filled with CAMERA + LMFD etc options, do these work or is it another IC breaker? (I tried some of them and it resets and stretches all my displays that Ive finally just got working for helios, so i dont want to wreck that yet if its not going to help anything).
Excuse the long post but at this stage I dont even know what I dont know. Is exporting an mfd possible at all without breaking IC?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Weta43 said:
You want them to not just look back but also stand up ?
He might be meaning the rotor attached to invisible engine cowling and the conspicuous absence of a tail boom?
On 7/26/2024 at 5:28 PM, LuseKofte said:But also a more modern version. In short I want two
Would be nice to get a modern version for sure, then you could have the steamgauge version to fly against huey for 70s/80s warfare and a glass cockpit modernized version to fly against the new 47F. We can dream I guess.
Then again if we're already dreaming, we may as well go full send and dream of a Mi-26 module.
-
2
-
-
I would pay for a refresh for sure. Really it only needs the graphics updated since the FM is amazing as is and the sounds were just done. Give it the same logistics treatment as whatever the chinook is getting and shes good to go for another ten years.
-
5
-
-
I took 4 vacation days for this BS, luckily got them delayed last week when the 47 got postponed, but I'm not going to be able to delay again. So now I've got 4 days of my wife and no reason why I cant be repainting the kitchen and dining room.
I'm laughing but I'm also very furious.
-
2
-
-
Cargo view (looking down from pilot window) not working for me either anymore.
However engineer cargo view, (looking down from cargo hatch) has started working again.
-
1
-
-
Its a bit depressing that I've been waiting for multi on this module for 10+ years, and now multicrew has been moved to the wishlist.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, K-51 said:
I'm sorry about the delay.
No worries, I got added during a rush for the product so I knew it would be a while.
-
1
-
-
t
8 hours ago, LeLv30_Superbus said:I ordered on March 14 so it took 10 weeks to manufacture and ship to Finland.
Nice, I ordered on March 15th so I'll be getting a notification any day now hopefully.
-
1
-
-
Sweet, thanks for the info guys.
-
Which way does the Hind want to twist from main rotor torque? Huey wants to go right so you give left pedal, Mi-8 wants to go left so you give right pedal, but both have left-hand tail rotor in game. The hind is also on the left, so is that a huey left or a hip left?
-
Im going to have to make a move on this quickly to see how viable it is before my collective is ready. Appreciate the heads up, I didnt even know this thing existed.
-
Nah I went through a lot of misery to find what worked for me lol. Right now Im on no spring CHs that i just replaced the pot in, plus copious amounts of nyogel 767a, a DIY floor cyclic and with any luck in a couple of weeks I'll have one of K-51s collectives to replace the throttles. Im not changing again for a while.
8 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:Simchair IV
Dude, why would you even send that to me, do you know how much 3d printers are? And you're making me go buy one just so I can sit in a snazzy office chair with options?
God damn you to hell for what youve done. My marriage is hanging by a thread here and this will be the scissors.
Just you wait and see.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Dragon1-1 said:
return to center but without center detent
Yeah that would be a thing to find. Fair enough I stand corrected, its more realistic to have the pedals neutral most of the time then. Dunno how you could make that smooth though.
-
1 minute ago, Dragon1-1 said:
It's not really middle position (this being force trim, they stay in position you trim them to), but yeah, the forces are zeroed out and you can take your feet off them. In fact, the Mi-8 has sensors to detect when you put your feed on the pedals, which disengages the yaw autopilot, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was something like that on the Hind, too. Also, autopilot.
Thats why removing the spring is a handy mod, you just set the pedals for long flights and take your feet off. Id say its a far easier and preferable route than having to trim center returning pedals.
-
1 minute ago, unlikely_spider said:
If you force trim, sure.
I didnt know that. I use my force trim independent of the pedals, only the cyclic trims.
-
The pedals in a real helicopter spend most of their flight in the middle position?
-
I'll go against the grain of the thread and say I wouldnt bother with choppers at all without pedals, the modules are too expensive to only play with 2/3rds of the input. Fixed wing i could see the argument that a twist throttle or paddles are not 100% necessary at the start, but not choppers. For rotary there is a relatively small amount of the flight where your pedals will be neutral, (assuming coordinated flight), low speed theyll be going one way, high speed theyll be going the other, with only the sweet cruise speed spot being (sometimes) completely neutral. This is also why pedals with removable springs are important for the choppers, as fighting a center return gets old real fast when you dont spend much time in the center, and moving over a spring middle detent wont do your landing approaches any favors.
Is it possible to fly a chopper without pedals? Absolutely, in the same way you can absolutely fly a tomcat with a keyboard, but you're missing a fundamental part of the module, and at the module prices, I dont think its worth it, or anywhere close to even thinking about it. Your money would be far better served getting a set of old ch pro pedals or TFRPs along with the mi-8 module on sale rather than a full priced hind on a twist grip. Again this is more to do with module prices vs pedal prices, if the modules were $5 each and a pair of pedals was $100, Id say go for the twist grip and have fun, but with the hind being $50 and a pair of ebay pedals being about the same, it makes no sense to me.
-
3
-
-
Not a pilot so pinch of salt. Ive got thousands of hours in DCS Mi-8 and Ive got all the muscle memory for staying out of VRS downpat, and I thought Id throw something in that hasnt been mentioned specifically. VRS in the hip is the only part of the flight where you have to react to something before it happens, as opposed to getting a true warning or indication to respond before or as it happens, which I think is why it probably claims so many victims. When you start to learn the approach the first lesson the DCS Mi-8 teaches you is as you approach lower ETL limit you add twice as much collective as you think you need, then you double it, and then you wait to see what effect that had a second later as the VRS hands grabs you and tries to pull you out the sky. As is pointed out, its hard at first but it quickly becomes part of muscle memory and you crown yourself king of VRS.
My point here (if you can call it one), is the VRS fight always felt a bit out of place compared to the rest of the flight, again, the rest of the time you are responding to what the aircraft is doing after it does it, but VRS is a completely separate entity that has to be entirely pre-empted on every approach. You fly your response against VRS about a full second or two before it 'activates' because it seems to behave as a pre-programmed stumbling block, an obstacle in the road that must be driven around every single time, rather than a dynamically created event dependent on conditions. (This also helps to create muscle memory however, as right now VRS acts in the same way each and every time).
I completely agree with the hip being an uncertifiable deathtrap if it was like this realistically, I just wonder if the real reason for this type of modeling is possibly more to do with controlling sim pilots to look realistic rather than create an entirely realistic module. Sim pilots are a pretty enthusiastic and inventive fan base at the best of times, and will generally behave in an unrealistic manner (namely pushing the aircraft far beyond its safe limits) on a regular basis, and when you watch a track replay of such flying, it looks terrible and some arcadey arma type game. Such greatly magnified pre-set roadblocks like the hip VRS may simply be there to try to rebalance the realism lost to pilots who quite happily wreck the engine and transmission of a brand new helicopter every flight. So in other words the VRS on steroids is a poor mans substitute to a crew chief asking wtf have you done to my helicopter? I think if we had any kind of wear and tear modelling, plus somehow persistent aircraft, you would then be able to remove the magnified VRS and people would still fly fairly realistically looking due to preserving and not stressing the airframe, but without that kind of concern then pre-programmed stumbling blocks was the best they could manage to try and get sim pilots to fly in a semi-realistic fashion.
Sorry, rambling and kinda forgot where I was going with this, but while I definitely agree with VRS being modeled bizarrely, I think there might be an ulterior motive behind it, simply because real life values didnt look real when in the simulator when flown by non pilots in a non-realistic way. (Ironic).
-
3
-
4 Engine Throttle Quadrant
在 DCS: C-130J
发布于
2 sets for 4 total yup, plus the flaps and spoiler addons. Works well.