Moriarty

Not trying to read minds but the empty part of his message was likely related to weight, and how much the weight affects the behavior of the Gaz. It’s not unusual to find the Gaz harder and harder to hover during the natural course of a mission. Even the weight of a single Hot 3 makes a huge difference in how stable the thing is. Disregard if I’m telling you something you already knew. If it’s news tho the Gaz is more stable the closer it is to max weight and more twitchy (and difficult to hover, manually or otherwise) as it gets lighter. Edit: I thought it might be relevant to mention that I fly the Gaz almost exclusively in DCS, so I’m pretty familiar with its quirks. I’ve noticed that it is more difficult, or seems more difficult, to get into an auto hover than it was before the last patch. In posting my message above I almost completely forgot the point of the thread. So my perception is that something has changed a bit and it makes the auto hover function require a more finesse than it used to in order to engage. Also of note is it used to feel like the auto hover “snapped” into effect rather suddenly. I’ve noticed now it transitions, to include little oscillations, a bit more fluidly into a stable hover. This means it isn’t always as obvious that the AH has been successfully engaged compared to before. Again, my perception, but I’d like a second opinion on this from someone.

Can’t recall exactly how long ago this issue was marked as reported, locked and a comment added to the effect that there’s no timeline for a fix, but it’s probably due for that again.

USA, thanks!

Please add me to the list as well. Thank you!

If this one’s correct, we need to report all the other DCS modules as incorrect, because they do the opposite. We should divide it up. Lots of reports to make!

Why limit ourselves to what some guy who wrote an operational requirement document back in the 60s could or couldn’t imagine? It’s the old turn fighter vs energy fighter debate dress up in different clothes.

Right on. When the trimmer button is pressed (for me, central trimmer mode) the AP channels return to center to include control surface deflections. So if I’m level in a slow forward flight for example and need to make a correction to pitch or roll, as soon as I press the button my a/c is being moved usually nose up or nose down right away before I make a stick deflection. I follow through, holding the trimmer down the whole time, complete the adjustment I want to make, release, recenter, and then the AP channels move back to where they were before anyway and take my a/c with them. With the functionality of the button reversed, I make an adjustment then give the trimmer button a quick press and release without any drama at all. Note though that this does have other consequences to the AP functionality and I don’t yet know what all of them are. It does, however, give me a functional trimmer as well as the damping I’m looking for. As the story develops, I’m sure we’re going to see a slew of changes anyway, so I don’t plan on getting too used to things being the way they are.

I’m adapting to this by reversing the trimmer depress/released functionality, for now. It provides stability augmentation without unwanted inputs. That’s fine for now, for me. YMMV. As an experiment, and to illustrate the magnitude of what’s presently happening, try this: achieve a stable hover, using the roll/pitch/yaw channels (and hover mode if you like, or don’t, no difference). Once you’re stable enough to be hands-off, press the trimmer button as if you were preparing to make a minor adjustment. Just press the button and hold it for a sec.

The pilot’s manual doesn’t get too specific about it, as best I can tell. It says use a series of rapid, short presses (for example) in the transition from hover to forward flight. Make of that what you will, but my intuition tells me it doesn’t matter if the trimmer is used in a press-hold-adjust-release or adjust-press-release. (There’s a vid of a *flying* Mi-8 in which the pilot is constantly clicking that button.) The one person I know who’s flown a Hind was an Apache pilot who flew it once 20+ years ago. As for ED, the people or person who *really* knows how it’s supposed to work probably doesn’t read the English language forum much. It’s notoriously difficult to communicate with coders who are convinced that pilots only notice the “small details” of how their aircraft works, too. So the bottom line is we must adjust to how the thing works in DCS at any given time as opposed to losing sleep over how someone believes it should work or how it actually works in the wild. It’ll be this way until someone who writes code, or directs the people who write code, changes their mind.

If the trim button disables the AP channels, and if that’s as intended, then does the 4-way hat trimmer also disable the AP channels when it’s pressed?

Now that’s interesting!

Which certain conditions does this apply to please, @BIGNEWY? We can avoid them if we’re certain what they are. Thanks

Can’t help with technique without first seeing what your technique is, but do you recall what your fuel state was when you tried your landing? A lot of new pilots forget to factor fuel weight into their landings, so you might be too heavy for that field/ plane combo.

Yes, 100%. No need for a repetitive stress injury clicking a mouse like that.

Huey miniguns do it too. Just too much stuff to calculate sometimes (my guess). Remember when cluster bombs used to tank a server for a few secs at a time? Same kind of vibe going on here. I’d provide a track but it wouldn’t be a good time investment to do that.

Whenever I join a public server I accept that there are going to be other peoples’ kids flying around in there, bored, looking for ways to amuse themselves. Some of them may be in their 40s but still wear the same short pants as adults. This is really the heart of the issue, and I think the fix is whitelisting vs. coding in “anti troll” measures that’ll inevitably end up becoming problematic in themselves. Think, for example, shader mods that make VR more useable (necessary in *this* sim for many) but fail IC because someone will inevitably use it for nefarious purposes. But yeah, when the door is left open and anyone can walk in, they will.

I don’t envy the guys whose job is to defend practices like this. I wouldn’t have any liver function left. Kudos.

This is an outstanding idea

Lower the slider labeled helmet, or maybe it’s called in-helmet. One of those.

This is true. The implied task for ED is to correct it, and thinking back to the days of Blackshark standalone about 10-11 years ago, it should be getting close to the top of their to-do list by now.

I plan to learn how to properly fly and operate it, which should take a couple of update cycles at least.

Did you check the control overlay for inputs you didn’t make?

Tried out the changes in my Index and it’s much improved. The reflections are still very much there as they should be, but the effect is such that my eyes are able to focus at a point in space further away than the canopy now. Thanks, team.

Chief, good thread. Wouldn’t it be disappointing for a flight sim enthusiast to learn everything they worked hard at for however long was in pursuit of mastering dynamics that are, well, wrong? There might be more than a couple of social science PhDs’ worth of cognitive dissonance buried around here, waiting to be mined. Bringing up VRS is like bringing up pitch in the 109. I’m surprised you haven’t gotten more than 4 pages of feedback just for suggesting it.

I noticed some flickering today in the canopy reflections, which hasn’t been an issue until now. Flickering is always distracting. Flight was out of TPH on the NTTR map under a rainy overcast. I’ll see if I can troubleshoot the culprit but fwiw I’m on an index and using nvidia drivers 466.11 (latest ones reportedly cause flickering, go figure). Anyone know of a way to disable canopy reflections until the risk of seizures is addressed by ED? I don’t care about IC.