Arclight

Well, now that you mention it, I seem to have noticed an increase in lift when building up lateral speed. I was in near-hover at the time, "funneling" the farp to get the nose in the wind. Obviously I was low to the ground, so ground effect may have played a part in this. Anyway, what occured to me at the time was that lift from the wings may be determined simply by a measure of airspeed, not nescessarily forward speed. :unsure: Gonna have another look at that, and post it in the correct forum if I find anything to substantiate that notion (not very likely, me thinks :D ). :)

See? FM sucks. :D I'm kidding, I'm kidding, stop hitting me! :chair: ;)

Indeed, a valuable peice of information, much appreciated. :thumbup: This is part of the reason I do it like I do. The other part is because it is similar to how the trim function is used; hold it down while making changes, release when at desired attitude/speed/altitude. I'm not sure, but it seems to override the altitude hold behaviour untill released, much like holding down the trimmer overrides hold functions untill released. :unsure: And if it doesn't, it should. ED, next patch please. :D

I think the neutral position for the "altitude input" switch turns off input. As a result, the AP won't be able to hold an altitude at all. To fly at a steady altitude, climb manually to desired altitude, level off and engage "ALT HOLD". There's no way to program an altitude beforehand, like you would in, say, a Boeing 737 (use dial to set desired altitude for AP). To change altitude, press and hold the collective brake, adjust collective to climb or descent, level off at desired altitude and release collective brake. (at least that's how I do it; it may not be nescessary to hold the collective brake, just press it once at desired altitude to send this new data to AP) Same thing for speed; either trim the aircraft to a specific attitude that gives you desired speed (make sure HOLD functions are active instead of dampening, ie FD off), or get up to desired speed and engage AP ROUTE mode. It will keep the desired speed to the best of it's capability. To change speed, press and hold trim, change pitch to change speed (adjust collective to maintain desired VS) and release trim to send new speed to AP. I think in the second case you need to trim close to the desired attitude like you would with the first method, or the AP won't have enough authority (20% max) to properly control speed by adjusting the pitch. Remember that any adjustments to the collective change the pitch, requiring a re-trim to make sure the AP still has enough authority to maintain desired pitch/speed. (when going into steady climb or descent, for example)

I agree, proper sims are few and far between, and I honestly doubt any other company could/would achieve the level of fidelity demonstrated in DCS. Last time I did combat-simming (if that's a word) was with Jane's Longbow (1&2). That's over 10 years inbetween. Fixed-wing sims just don't do it for me like helo sims, but I will buy any module that's released for DCS, and support ED through other means if available (like a donation system, as I mentioned). If ED goes down, it's very likely my virtual pilot career goes down with it, untill the next proper sim pops up 10 years from now, if ever. At least I'll now I had no part in their downfall. :ermm:

Why not? :D I much prefer rotary to fixed wing, but I seem to be part of a minority. :ermm:

You're main concern seems to be with piracy. Though I won't deny it's a problem, especially on PC, more strict anti-piracy measures have proven to only drive people away and into piracy; any DRM/copy-protection gets cracked eventually. I know a number of people that won't buy BS because it has Starforce. It doesn't even matter it's not the same thing everyone knows and rightly fears. Spore had some rather limiting features. The result was an uproar and it still stands as the most pirated game ever. A lot of games have since then received patches that alter or remove DRM features, in part or entirely. A recent article claimed that piracy on the DS was effectively countered by including a small "bonus", such as a figurine. Long story short, you counter piracy far more effectively by increasing the value of the content, than by imposing more restrictions on the rights of legitimate users. And only legitimate users at that; pirates don't have to deal with the hell Securom and Starforce have put me and many others through in the past. http://kotaku.com/5323863/ubisoft-plans-to-have-piracy-solution-in-place-this-year I think piracy is a symptom, not a cause. A number of games have been released in an incomplete, even unplayable state, with support afterwards lacking. I'm not surprised consumers have become wary, and prefer to DL a game, either to "demo" it to see if it's worth the money, or simply avoid the headaches that seem to have become synonym with PC gaming. (this doesn't apply to BS btw; a very polished product, and the issues that do exist do not subtract from the experience. For this, ED, you have earned my eternal gratitude. :notworthy:) I'd much rather see a donation system put into place. Who so wishes, can subscribe to donate, say, 5,-USD monthly. Again, it's about increasing content value. I honestly believe that people will buy, and support, something that is worth it. A bit of communication between devs and donators would be nescessary to make sure the people who... "more actively" support ED know where the money is going. It wouldn't stop them from complaining though. :D Maybe throw in a skin-pack as an incentive for donators; something small enough not too be missed by people who don't have it. Introducing an exclusive aircraft, for example, would imho drive a wedge between normal and donating users. If it tanks then, it's because of the community, not lack of effort on the devs part. :ermm: Just give me the info I need to make a PayPal transaction, and I will gladly make the first 60,-USD donation to kick it off. :)

I think something that has been overlooked untill now is the fact the KA-50 is a twin-rotor design. I don't have any RL experience flying either a helo with a twin-rotor or one with a tail rotor, but I imagine it makes quite a bit of difference in the way the aircraft handles. :ermm: And comparing RC to military attack helicopter... I dunno. :unsure: *nvm, just figured out what coaxial rotor means. :rolleyes: :doh:

The main difference between core2 and i7 is (1.) integrated memory controller and (2.) 4 cores that are directly linked. 1. Normally, with Intel, the memory controller is integrated into the northbridge. On i7, it's located on the CPU itself. Simply put, it reduces latency; the time between requesting and receiving data is reduced, meaning faster memory. 2. On Core2 quad CPU, there are 2 pairs of 2 cores tied together through the Front Side Bus. Each pair communicates directly through the cache on the CPU itself, but communication between the 2 pairs takes a detour. With i7, all 4 cores communicate directly through a shared cache on the chip. Simply put, C2Q is 2 C2Ds stuck together, while i7 is a "true" quad-core CPU. Another benefit is triple-channel. It effectively triples the bandwith compared to running the modules normally. High bandwith is nice, but only really comes into play when writing/reading very large, continguous blocks of data. In general, you'll see a greater boost in performance (in games) from low latencies. And then there's the optimizations that always come with new architectures. Even without afore mentioned benefits, i7 would be slightly faster than C2. At any rate, considering you're running 3 screens, it's pretty safe to say you need more powerfull graphics, at least IMHO. :ermm:

Going to a Q9550 basically just gets you a 45nm CPU; apart from some optimizations, I don't think it makes much difference. I7 would yield a more substantial improvement ("real" quad-core, integrated memory controller), but I still doubt it would make much difference. I get lowest FPS around farp/airfield (lot of stuff on screen), so I think it's the GPU holding me back, not the CPU. Not sure though. Q9550 3.4GHz 4GB DDR2 4-4-4-12 8800GTS 512

That's what I do too, just too bad wingmen have the tendency to get engaged by whatever they spotted when you tell them to engage. :D Lost quite a few of them that way. :music_whistling:

You're instructed to engage the base facilities, meaning the buildings. Attacking the buildings should trigger an event required for completion. ;) Not that that event is easy to complete. :music_whistling:

Some random action packed shots. :D (all rescaled to 1024x768 and converted to .jpg) That fireball is my wingman... or at least it used to be. Think I'll make this into my new desktop. Think he saw it coming? Close shave... My previous and current desktop:

Had to cross a 4000m ridge to get to my target area, but only started the climb when I approached the ridge. Having slowed to a crawl, it was almost impossible to gain altitude. When I finally reached the level of the ridge, I nudged the helo forward and skidded (yes, in contact with the ridge) across to the other side. :D Should have lowered the gear, no damage though. :joystick:

You can still spin it; there's a rudder on the tail, and I think you can generate centrifugal force to spin at low speed by varying RPM between the 2 rotor discs. At any rate, it's transparent; there are 2 pedals that allow you to turn, how it happens is not important. :D

Yep, rearm was fine, but fuel was refused, so I tried shutting her down and request again, no joy. I looked around and noticed a distinct lack of a fuel truck (figured I'd snuggle up besides it and try again :D ), which prompted my question. Wasn't sure if one needed to be present at all for ground operations at airfield/FARP, but it makes sense that it is. Thanks for the reply, I'll be sure to check next time before setting down. :thumbup:

Yep, played a fair bit of Longbow 2 in the past, glad to see the Apache heading this way. I just hope the Longbow radar will be modeled at some point; nothing like raining hellfires from behind a hill. :D For my own noobie question: I'm sitting on a FARP, in the middle of a mission. I'm requesting refuel, but ground crew keeps saying "unable to comply". Helo is "cold", no systems powered up or spinning blades. Am I doing something wrong, or don't they have any fuel to give? :cry:

SH isn't realistic in that fashion. Normally it takes something like 20 shells to sink a ship (game uses HP system). There are mods though that change this; sometimes you can fire over 120 rounds without much to show for it. IRL it certainly could take 100 rounds to finish of a crippled ship that had already been struck by a torpedo. Long story short, ships don't sink easy. Lobbing a few ATGMs at them isn't going to do much (giving it's a decent sized ship).

For example, Route mode doesn't work properly with FD active. And what do you mean by "enabled by default" anyway? I need to flip switches all over the place to enable anything. :D

I'm starting to feel like the Ka-50 isn't really a tank-buster. Like you said, even mutiple ATGM on target without a kill, and never enough missiles to go around. :no_sad: I still tend to become charred, ground meat at any range. Heck, I don't even need enemies for that. :D In stead of sacrificing realism, let's hope they model another Ka-50 type for night-hunting. Should be minor tweaks to existing stuff + modeling of night-gear.

Maximum engagement range for the cannon is 2km (at least according to tutorial). If you're firing it from over 3km away, it would explain the poor accuracy you're experiencing. Theoretically, armor is thinnest at the top and at the rear, followed by the sides. You can try different angles and see if that improves your chances to penetrate the armor. :unsure: Haven't had much luck with the cannon against heavy armor either. Guess that's what the Vikhrs are for. :D

There are 2 drop-down selection boxes at the top. First will probably be at "KA-50 real". Select "Axis Commands" in the second one; you should get a list with all commands that accept an axis for input. Click the axis you want to adjust under your controller, and the "axis tune" option should be lit up.

Ugh, was just about to download and my router decided to stop working. Thought Win7 commited suicide at first, but that was jumping to conclusions. :D Anyway, thanks for the replies. :thumbup:

Hi, I'm really interested in getting the game. I have a new flightstick on the way, and thought I would get the game now to familiarize myself with the machine. Hopefully I'll at least be able to start the engines by the time the stick arrives. :D Purchase trough DCS site is not an option; no credit card. Boxed is possible, but D2D is almost 30% cheaper. Question is, are there any drawbacks to it? I don't want to get stuck with a patch that isn't compatible with my version of the game, for example. Any feedback would be much appreciated. :thumbup: