S. Low

These people aren’t even competing lol

Out of respect for you guys I have to go back and double check cause I could be wrong. Thanks for looking. I looked at some of my screenshots i submitted before and eyeballed it against cockpit screenshots/video of the real thing and it looks close to accurate but it still seems (from my laymen eyes) that the stick is clipping into the screen or into the under part of the above screen. But I’ll take a closer look, I don’t want to be the guy too proud to admit he’s wrong.

As much as I gripe about this module and HB I still love it a lot. Think after a long absence while flying f18 and mirage, I’m back to the tomcat for awhile. Some things I wish you’d change like right now: 1) afterburner detent keybind 2) improve the track ir head/camera movement 3) landings need something, Weight or something. They don’t seem accurate. 4) much brighter external lights 5) pilot stick position is modeled incorrectly, in game neutral is actually real life full forward (already proved this, please don’t waste my time telling me I’m wrong).

Seems to me that 99% of this helo can be experienced by the pilot so I don’t consider a delayed A.I. to be an issue. If you add in the fact that we can swap seats on the fly and set the helicopter to auto level flight, or auto orbit, I don’t think this is much of an issue. It’d be a bigger deal imo if this were the Apache module

Huey and Mi-8 should have slight pedal-hold in opposite direction of rotor spin to keep your nose pointing forward in forward flight. So for huey its left pedal in ground effect, and right pedal for forward flight. But I agree that if the OP didn't want to go with the Mi-8, the Huey is right there with it (and perhaps better as a trainer). I fly the Huey more than any of the modules I own. Though if ED ever makes an AH-64 module I'd basically just uninstall everything (except the huey) and be a permanent resident of the apache cockpit. Best of luck to the OP. I hope we all get to experience the Kiowa soon and that it's as awesome as we all want it to be.

Surface to Air pew pew

I agree, and I agree with the rules. I felt it necessary to investigate further and upon further inspection it seems as though both parties arguing in this thread have elements of truth.

I realize I'm pouring gasoline on a fire here, but it's worth discussing since it is related to the rules: Starting at 35:51, Jell-O asks SYPH and Cosmo about G limits on the F-14 A/B: They say that the A/B was designed for 7.5 g, but the crew was ordered limited to 6.5. But there was no limiter and the pilot says that "Trust me, there was many times that we went down there and tapped that little guy" "The gauge" "Yeah so we wouldn't get in trouble." Here's my 2 cents. I think exceeding the g-limit on the F-14 was more common than the pilots in this thread are willing to accept/admit, but it had a far more negative consequence to the fleet than the sim gamers are willing to accept/admit. Edit: And here at 41:25ish they begin talking about the maintenance nightmare of the F-14 and how they had to bend their own metal to replace parts, tons of panels to remove. If you listen further, they discuss how the airframe was extremely durable and there was a time on the Kennedy when a hornet got blown into a tomcat, and the hornet was heavily damaged but the tomcat flew the next day. Anecdotal but interesting. It still seems to me that the guys who flew the tomcat were willing to exceed g-limits and keep it hush hush, but I also feel as though this heavily contributed to the maintenance issues of the jet. A few minutes later in the 46 minute section the pilot talks about that his squadron was allowed to manually control the flaps in combat, and because of their corner speed they really weren't at risk of exceeding g-limit of the airframe (supporting what the fighter pilots here have been saying), but they had OTHER maintenance issues from breaking the mechanisms relating to the flaps. Again, the F-14 was used and abused.

Makes me think i should get xplane and try the helos

I appreciate the effort and desire towards educating someone, but I’m aware of the light touch need with helo controls. I’m not a pilot and always welcome info to learn but I’ve been doing the sim helamuhchopter thing for a long time. My question related specifically to videos posted, and whether the difference in travel distance of controls was due to short joystick vs real life cyclic. As an aside, negative curvature in rudder pedals is necessary imo because the sim doesn’t make the rudder as responsive as it should. As to which helo OP should train, I’d disqualify ka 50 and gaz. Ka50 doesn’t fly like your normal helo, and polychop is making a new flight model so neither the Kiowa nor the new gaz will fly like the CURRENT gaz. It’d be like training in arma to come to dcs. I don’t think that’s the best plan. I think the mi-8 is oddly the best bet to train. Reason being is the mi-8 is very stable in forward flight, unlike the Huey. I believe the Kiowa has stabilizing systems yes? It’ll probably be very stable in forward flight. Also I imagine you’ll have to be very attentive to the Kiowa when landing because it’s light and responsive, and the mi-8 requires a lot of attention in landing, even if the landing characteristics would be different. The Huey is a great balance between everything but I think the mi-8 would train you to be the best helo pilot you can be.

The ka-50 is abnormal and doesn’t fly like your average helo which takes away some fun for me. But it is very fast and stable in flight. The mi-8 is enjoyable but it’s trying to murder you every time you land. The gazelle is an arma module imo. Not fun at all to me. You run a risk getting this one. People either love it or absolutely hate it. Huey is the answer. It flies like what you’d expect, you have to keep working at it while flying, landing is a good mix of fun and challenge. The Huey hits a sweet spot imo and everyone should own it.

I'm not a programmer guys. This is DCS Wishlist. I'm giving you my wishlist. If the fellas at ED can code helo physics, I think they could come up with some basic g fatigue and airframe failures at g limits

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, just hoping learn something here - The F-14 was discontinued in part due to maintenance cost. Is it possible that in an effort to win BFM training engagements the pilots who were like Snodgrass contributed to an entire fleet of airframes being discontinued? I don't know for certain there. Just asking a question. But it goes to one of the points the pilots are trying to make: A dogfight isn't a one and done engagement, it is part of a larger picture of an entire battlefield and theatre where logistics matter. And a 1:1 k/d ratio where you kill the opponent but your jet is in maintenance for a month and you the pilot are in rehab for over-g related medical issues is not something to train for. If the state of your aircraft and your person doesn't matter when the engagement was over, you would be a japanese kamikaze pilot from ww2. But since that's untenable, you train to win efficiently so that your jet isn't broken when you land and your body still works too. So if the real fighter pilots don't over-g when training for real life combat, and the real fighter pilots are saying that in the vast majority of cases in a real fight you wouldn't even attempt to over-g because you'd be flying incorrectly to begin with, then maybe we should acknolwedge the awesome piece of luck we have at getting so much first-hand info from the real deal so we can improve how we play this sim. I'm thankful for the knowledge and now I understand more why certain tactics are used.

I'm a cnc machinist. I just love it when engineers expect me to do things that will break my tools or machine because they don't take 5 minutes to consider how their ideas are supposed to work in the real world where maintenance and structural tolerances exist. They are definitely the cool guys in my field. I really look up to them /s. Snark aside, I wanted to ask if we can get a report of which jets were flown so far? I'm interested in seeing what everyone else was using.

Wanted to revive this and add that not only should pilot g-force fatigue be real, but there should be a set of randomized structural failures that aircraft experience (with a chance of none happening) when the aircraft exceed their official g limit

I think I've missed some crucial detail lol... the Kiowa module is derailed?

We live in clown world. This thread is merely one example. Btw I drew the SHORTEST STRAW possible and flew against sungho round 1. I died quick lol, but it was fun regardless. Sungho seems like a really nice guy and had fun chatting with him. Good luck to everyone advancing to next weekend. Hopefully these rule-enforced tournaments (even without huge prizes) occur more often. I'm not super interested in "air quake" multiplayer but the controlled environment of the tournament was nice.

Took out two 3 AI baddies but got hit with the last guy's IR missile. Structure remained intact, but engine went out and lost electric. I did the air relight procedure and it worked. Couldn't get afterburner but I could definitely get mil power. Used tacan, radios, and remaining steam gauges to fly to Vaziani and land. My landing wasn't THAT bad so I think the wheels were popped inside the plane? I dunno, but I landed on stilts lol. Battery went completely out but I got the warning for DC battery discharging, 30 mins remaining. So I had enough electric to land. All of the fuel pumps went out except the auxilliary.

Yet another guy criticizing the rules who isn't even showing up. Why are you spending this much energy on a pointless argument? "I just told that with a real jet is more easy to keep under control g force so i believe you. The problem is with simulated jet." And the real fighter pilot who flies an aggressor T-38 (I think) is actually telling you that in an actual real life dogfight he cannot truly identify g forces past 5 gs reliably. He has to look into the cockpit to doublecheck his accelerometer so he doesn't over g the jet while fighting. He's doing this in real life, under physical g strain, with a big helmet on. I think we can move our heads a fraction using head trackers to see inside the cockpit.

This happened to me Sunday I think. I restarted steam and it was fine. Not sure what caused it

It’s like a train wreck that I can’t look away from.

lol good stuff

I’ll get back to you after I test

As and aside, either the field of view is weird, or they haven't modeled the M4 correctly lol. It's so tiny. And the smokes are too big. Look how much of the dash the M4 takes here, lots of angles to see that the M4 should be larger, and the smokes smaller than polychop has developed so far:

Though I don't like the gaz, I'm going to play devils advocate a minute here and ask a question: does the difference in cyclic / commercial flight stick travel distance largely affect what we're seeing in the gaz and alpha kiowa control indicators? If you're using a regular flight stick, not one with an extension, couldn't you just adjust saturation and curvature to mimick the data that alec posted?