zazz

Actually i didn't notice the spelling error. What got to me was "opened or closed" But now i think i get it - it can be "open or closed" while taxiing or turning, but the pilot should not initiate the act of "opening or closing" the canopy. The mistake was mine, but the phrasing is a tad misleading.

Lol warriorx, read the quote again.

Lol, from the beta manual i've downloaded off of this forum: "While taxing, the canopy should never be opened or closed while turning" I'm a bit baffled...

Lame question, but out of curiosity for the tiny detail: If you are making inputs to both the control stick and the throttle, does the sim allow you to press various buttons in the cockpit? Lol if anyone wants to test that out, u better have 3 hands

Attaching the track file. It was kinda hard to achieve the most noticable results. Right after takeoff, i steady the machine, center the stick, and press and hold the trimmer a few times, and that causes the machine to pitch up. I do the same thing a few more times throughout the flight. Sorry for the sloppy flying. Does this look normal, is this the AP channels re-setting? Oh, and does the rudder get trimmed in RL too? Thanks guys trimmer_05.trk

Really appreciate this guys, will have a track file in a few hours. Thanks

Quick question - forgive in advance if double posting I've had this problem with both the old and the new trimmer implementation - whenever i press the trim button, the aircraft "jumps", around 10 degrees, sometimes up, sometimes down, sometimes rolls... Really quite unpredictable. This makes it impossible to just click the trimmer button to set it, so i have to press and hold trim, compensate for the "jump", and then release. However, during the "jump", the virtual cyclic does not move a bit. Same thing happens when i use "t" on the keyboard. Is this a depiction of a realistic trimmer, or is it my Logitech Extreme 3d Pro joystick? Thanks

Hell, thats what i'm saying - living up to DCS's standards, yet not being bound to real life...?

lol, great point. There's only what, a dozen ka-50 made to the day? Most of them differ in the onboard systems... And between all of us, BSers, we crashed about 100,000 of them by now... Why is that degree of unrealism ok, while any other isn't? Shit, how bout every time you crash and die, the game automatically uninstalls, and your serial number is discontinued? Keep it real, people

It's not a bad idea, it's a terrible idea. That's the point. And it IS the realism that I enjoy about BS, but I'm saying that a plane that doesn't exist could still be realistic Not 2059, how bout 2009? Or even 1999 technology? I'm not talking about an enginering masterpiece with all the bells and whisles, just a reasonable war bird that employs RL weapons and systems? I'm just throwing things out there. I was drunk when I posted anyhows, hehehe

So far, the conscent on the 3rd party flyable seems to be "you can't make it realistic enough, don't bother". SO.... Why not create a "perspective" flyable? Something totally made up. But, not something "out of this world", A jet/helo that the community creates from ground up? Something that is realistic, yet non-existent in real life? Not too far out? I'm not talking about an X-wing or nothing here, but a solution to the "not real enough" dilllema. Any comments?

I doubt you ever will... 3d encompasses such a broad range of aspects... I love 3d - thats for sure, and I have all the bases covered - from animation to rigging to mapping, materials, lighting, particles and so fourth - but i just can't imagine that anyone could love all those aspects equally. I mean, modeling is an art, unwrapping - just a procedure, and sometimes a rather tedious one. I might have expressed myself a bit harshely about it in my earlier posts, but one thing for sure - while modeling is my passion, uvw mapping is just a middle step between that and the final render. Anyhow, yea, if there are finished models out there that need unwrapping - pm me and we'll make it happen

Hmm... damn, you guys don't have anyone who unwraps? I suppose I could unwrap a model or two...

To be honest, while I am good at UVW mapping, I hate doing it with a fiery passion, hehehe, as opposed to modeling - which I love with the same degree of passion. With the above mentioned - I'm pretty unlikely to touch textures unless there is money involved (not to sound pompous or anything) - whereas models - I would gladly create just for personal enjoyment. Then again it would be wrong of me not to unwrap the models I personally create, so that's something, i guess....

I'd be glad to undertake any of those models, please give me some specific guidelines for the model creation - particularly poly count, required output format, anything else i need to know, and, if possible, a sourse for schematics (top-side-front view). If you can provide me with the above - you'll have any of those models very soon. Let me know which you'd like me to start out on, and I'll get on it

Being a big fan of BS, and a skilled 3d modeler/animator (3ds max - 9 years), I was wondering if ED could use any help on the upcoming modules? I'm sure there's plenty of tallent out there in the community that would like to input on the project...

Well sure enough, if you're not interested - no one will force you to take part or use whatever may come of it. So far most of the posts in this thread seem to oppose the thought of a community flyable, based on the idea that "you can't do it right, don't even try".... Well, opinion noted, thanks for posting!

So could somebody from ED tell me the estimated polygon count for a helo? A thorough model is one thing, but if it's half a million faces... you get the idea

Sure, or a MH-6 Little Bird or something. Something doable and simple like that would be a great start

Why not include the option of removing trees alltogether? I mean, it's 2 poly's per tree, plus the opacity map... multiply that by the nuber of trees that are to be rendered each frame... sounds like it would make for a pretty decent fps boost. Or maybe the IL-2 trees, that were just 3 layered planes?

Well, it would only be as half-assed as we'd make it, wouldn't it... I'm 100% confident in my modeling ability, and sure that someone out there is as confident in their programming. And as mentioned before, ED woudn't touch anything that they don't have full info about, so there's practicly no chance for the Mangusta or the Tiger.

you know i don't, and highly unlikely to ever get them but frankly, as much as i appreciate ED's level of realism, i don't find it imperative; therefore, i see nothing wrong with building a fairly inacurate simulation based on publicly available info

Where's the community and why is there no projects on new flyables? I'm gonna put together a model for a new chopper, whether it's gonna be implemented in the future modules, made flyable by the community, or just sit in my projects folder... Let me hear you guys' oppinions on the construction of following machines: A129 Mangusta AH-2 Rooivalk Eurocopter Tiger Anything else of interest? Also, consider the availability of info on each machine. Any good sources - throw 'em out there P.S. ED, can you give me a ballpark of the poly count of ka-50? Thx