liotczik

And to think I used to stalk MANPADS solo with cannon, just to save Vikhr's on a better, more expensive targets. This thread has ruined my day :D Another thing worth considering, is supply quantity and replenishment rate. I wonder, if it happens in RL, when pilot has to conserve certain types of ordnance/ammunition or fly with less sophisticated types of it, because of supply shortages?

Amazing! Now I won't be able to sleep until I get it next week :D I have one more question though, have they modelled damage to the helicopter caused by excessive torque or engine rpm/temp? Surely FADEC prevents that, but I'm just curious, what'll happen when it fails for some reason.

If you like STALKER, you may also want to try Cryostasis. http://www.cryostasis-game.com/ Completely different setting, but the same 'atmosphere of eerie mystery and uncertainty' and fantastic graphics.

Actually, I'd like to ask devs to slow down a little with their work on FC2 and A-10. Why? Because I'm not done with Ka-50 yet, I have other sims to fly, as well as life outside of the screen. Releasing anything will seriously turn my whole world upside down :D Another thing is, I'd prefer to wait for a completed and feature rich product, instead of getting another half-baked Rise of Flight, which I'm about to uninstall, despite all my initial sincere enthusiasm for it...

Good to hear that :) How does it fly?

The truth is, based on the experience with Ka-50, I'll get anything labelled ED/DCS. However, after A-10 I would love to see multirole (with attack capability) helicopter (1st choice) or multirole fighter (2nd choice). Small turboprop attack plane would also be nice :) Multistation AC-130 would be awesome but I doubt we'll ever see it. With lots of luck, no sooner than after some 30 years, when the thing will be declassified enough and more dynamic ground forces modelling will allow to put it into reasonable use.

Would it be possible to implement into DCS the ability for the ground forces to mark enemy positions with an IR laser beam? Something like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZi6vH4Jruo&feature=related It would certainly spice up night CAS in A-10 (and other future ground attack aircraft) :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPk4l67PRqc On this video you can clearly see how the <M> icon moves to the center of RWR display - that is you. Note the evasion geometry setup (30-40 deg off, nose 10 deg down, accelerating past supersonic) and the exact moment, when he's starting to break off (pulling 8,9 - 9,2g - that's stick all the way to the guts). Also notice, that he's always descending, which has three purposes: - to accelerate faster (you want to fly fast and be able to put lots of g's in order to evade, also you want to slow down during the break as little as possible) - to hide against ground clutter - to drag the missile lower, into more dense air, which helps slowing it down even more (drag!), after it's rocket engine has ceased Watch this video few times. Try not to remember it - try to understand the principles it illustrates. Watch other movies, look for some reading materials on the topic. Also get familiar with how missiles work, what are their strong and weak points. Using this method, it is possible to score a gun kill against an enemy armed even with 4 missiles (two evaded and two never launched because of excessive angles/being too close). And all that can be achieved without jammer and chaffs! Real pilots asked about missile evasion, were little to no talkative :) All I could get was that there are indeed some methods and tricks like certain maneuvers and that's it. So I can't tell if it is realistic or not. It works in a sim, and if sim is supposed to be n% close to the reality, then I would assume, that the evasion we know is n% realistic. As for the SARH missiles, you'll get launch warning, so you know it's coming. Put the missile on a beam and then wave/snake to bleed his energy and be on a lookout if it is still tracking you. If yes, then turn tail and dive or be prepared for a high-g break, depending on missile's suspected energy and other conditions. Being shot at with IR missiles, is a clear indication, that you've already made terrible mistakes - failed to maintain SA, separation and perform BVR ;) Then, what's only left, are hard break, lots of flares and even more luck. All that said, you need some knowledge beforehand, in order to plan appropriate training and know what to look for.

And by a pure coincidence, I just happen to be in possession of a highly classified images of it: http://www.bmmedia.no/henningb/images/f18hornet.jpg http://www.bmmedia.no/henningb/images/f18hornet2.jpg :D:D:D

I see. Yes, I was mainly thinking about known to me F-16 RWR display and I thought that was the same case for the F-15, because of the similar display screen. Something like you described was used in Jane's Longbow 2 and Enemy Engaged, although I don't have a slightest clue, whether it was realistic or totally off (probably the later). However the principle was very similar, only the data was shown on the MFD. It was called ASE = aircraft survivability equipment and combined data from datalink, TADS, and RWR. It was also used for IR and radar jamming and could display missiles as small dots coming from the attacker the the own helo. EDIT: I'vejust found it: http://www.terma.com/multimedia/1409_update_0704.pdf Check on the part about F-16's Self Protection and Pilot's Situational Awareness.

I second to that also. I'm long time F-16 enthusiast, partially thanks to Falcon 4.0 and its offspring, partially because it's a truly multirole and partially because of it's, in many ways unique, design. And after my contry acquired some of them, I'm really obsessed :D Another favourite is F/A-18, another multirole and carrier capable, to add even more spice :) I'm myself really curious, how would that be, to try realistic Falcon, but in another skin, so to speak ;) So familiar, yet so different. Right now I wait in patience for the A-10C and FC2, but l can't help but think ahead, like every pilot should do during flight ;) Blue Thunder and Airwolf are codenames of super-helicopters, which were the main stars of a movie and TV series, respectively. The first (being my long time favourite) was a modified Gazelle, the second was made from Bell 222. There are detailed articles about them everywhere on the Internet (like Wikipedia and imdb.com), also Google picture search shows various photos and sketches of the two.

Yes. It not only gives the all around indication and provides the more or less exact radar type, but also, if I remember correctly, the TEWS is made in such a way, that it indicates, if you are inside or outside enemy's engagement range. If a fighter or SAM icon is shown on the outer half of the display, you are reasonably safe. But any enemy radar icon, being shown inside inner half of the display means, that you are close to, or already are, being engaged. That's a very good moment to turn the tail and run like crazy or prepare to take evasive actions or try pincer/offset on the boogies.

I'm not that much worried about sale figures of an eventual DCS: Littlebird. Certainly it's not the Apache, but still somehow iconic aircraft. The final duel in Blue Thuder was against OH-6, many duels in Airwolf series were alike, just to mention the most well known helicopter titles. The popularity of the type was even more boosted after "Black Hawk Down" movie and FPP game, I believe ArmA 1 & 2 and some other FPP games also let the player to control AH/MH-6. http://www.mocpages.com/user_thumbnails/frater@paradise.net.nz/www.brickshelf.com_gallery_lukefrater_littlebird_littlebird1.jpg_SPLASH.jpg :D True, it's not the best attack/transport/medevac and whatever on the market, but what's interesting, that it can perform all the roles. And that multirole (or mission diversity) can be entertaining, because simple repetitive "seek'n'destroy" iterations have more or less limited lifetime, in terms of being interesting. After some n numer of missions, you know all the moves of AI, all the methods to employ weapons and all the tricks to fool the enemy. Flights start becoming automatic routine rather than thrill of new and unknown. You no longer fight - you execute. For multirole a/c you basically get few more or less different (but still) sims in one. I wouldn't call that wasting developer's resources. Even on this message board are signs, that there are people, who at least equally enjoy booting speedboats, as sinking battlecruisers and I've read somewhere, that OH-58 armed with Hellfires were extremely efficient at eliminating small and fast boats owned by various hostile elements operating in the Persian Gulf. Another thing is recon and targeting capability of small helos, that would further expand current DCS focus on a2g combat. Also don't forget about multiplayer, where it would be interesting to form hunter-killer teams, like OH-6/AH-1 known from the Vietnam war. As for the Gazelle and Lynx, I'm pretty sure that most of the French and British pilots (if not all of them), that currently enjoy flying the Ka-50, would love to try something, that is 'closer to their hearts' :) While I've discovered the joy of rotary-wing flight long before Black Shark, and want even more of it, I also strongly support idea to introduce light attack fixed-wing aircraft. It's a whole new to sims, different from what we had and never, even lightly, explored branch of aviation. Just think of it, how many sim pilots would claim their favourite (or one of the favourites) aircraft being Ka-50, before the release of Black Shark?

It's not measuring distance but enemy's/missile's radar signal strength, to be precise. Knowing the maximum power output and a characteristics of a given radar, you could estimate range, based on actual strength of intercepted transmission and that's what the SPO does. American planes' RWR has very similar capability. Notice, that radar icon on the display sometimes is closer to the center and sometimes closer to the edge (I think of the same radar type). The closer to the center, the stronger the signal intercepted - thus the source (like missile) is closer. Experiment with it :D Also you don't need specific training tracks for F-15, as the same trick and techniques apply, as for the Russian jets. I've tried Ironhand's tips and moves in Lomac Su, MiG, F-15, A-10 and in Falcon 4AF and they work equally well with regards to all of the mentioned aircraft. With some practice, you could dodge even 2-3 missiles in a row, while being able to engage boogies all the time. The key to success is proper spatial setup, correct speeed and precise timing. When all is set well and missile was shot from a distance, you have good chance of surviving. However, that's always a risky proposition, as you may not have enough time to maneuver and accelerate for a perfect evasive geometry or already be inside of a no-escape zone. If you want realism, always try not to being fired upon in the first place -> planning and situational awareness are your best wingmans. I just can't wait for FC2 to see how it will change missile combat and evasion.

I've watched all of your movies and I'm really impressed. What I liked the most, is that they are very dynamic, yet with some nostalgic and emotional tune, instead of the usual 'kill'em all' served on fast paced movies. You seem to have a rare gift of showing aircraft and aviation as if they were something different, from out of this world, almost magical. Another highlight is the music itself. Fantastic pieces and well selected. I've watched some of the movies few times, just for the soundtrack. Keep up the good work!

For anyone who thinks, that all that NVG+FLIR business is like a walk in a park, think again. While using NVG on a desktop sim doesn't change much, what we see and how we feel, one of the AH-64 pilots described it like "flying while looking through a straw". Lack of peripheral vision kills, especially in helos. Another thing is that you loose some view resolution and ability to spot things (like electricity wires or enemies), as no NVGs can be compared to a human eye for that matter. You loose also partially or totally perception of distance, depth of view. FLIR, while being cool and really useful, also has it's own limitations and you need training and understanding of it, to use it efficiently and properly. That's exactly, why I support so much the idea of adding to the DCS smaller and somehow less capable aircraft, like AH-6. Less hardware, more stick'n'guts :)

I've read that interview also. As I've written above: Yes, it is based on a reality, or to be more specific on the ideas researched from the RL, like Osprey, Bell X-22, Mi-12 (not to mention, that the whole fuselage looks like a crossover between Gazelle or EC and Huey). Just remember, that Osprey isn't widely used around the world (even though it's prototype was flown some time ago) and there aren't other constructions of that type, as well as X-22 and Mi-12 never made any significant career. Yet another explanation why it uses contra-rotating props. More thrust from the same area. The Avatar's a/c in question are rather wide and it would be reasonable to take efforts to minimise that, in order to improve maneuverability and capability to operate in small areas.

The most obvious reason for that is, that they cancel each other's gyroscopic effect, which causes additional force applied ninety degrees further along the edge of a rotating body, when you try to tilt that body. As seen in movie, pilot (surely with the help of hydraulic or electric actuators) tilts the whole "sheath" along with rotors, instead of shaping a rotor in a such way, that it wants to tilt by itself - as is done on real helicopters with the help of aerodynamics. This cancelling effect would be then used to lessen forces acting on the joint between fuselage and sheath, when the sheath is tilted or when the whole aircraft maneuvers in space. For example it would be hard for the actuators to hold the commanded sheath's pitch while the whole a/c was being banked, if they've used single rotors only. Why would that matter? Helicopters manage well with only single rotor - in fact that's the 'classic' way of building them. It's because the helicopters use free rotors (you have to apply only small force to turn the blades and the airflow does the hard work), while Avatar's are just contra-rotating propellers solid-mounted into a tiltable ring (meaning you need to put some serious force to tilt them) - anyone familiar with Mustang or Corsair know, how bad the propeller torque induced yaw can be. I've watched Avatar's rotors closely and I didn't notice any behaviour suggesting that they have cyclic control. Also if they were, it would negate the whole sheath concept and would also cause a real danger of a collision between the blades and the boom (on which end the prop hubs were mounted and which also supported the whole sheath structure) when the rotor plane is tilted by cyclic. Also they are too close to each other, to be free flapping rotors. All of us know, what happens with classic contra-rotating rotors in certain flight conditions ;) I've read somewhere, that it was Kamov's discovery, that you need to put a spacing between rotors being at least 10% of their diameter and that's certainly not the case with Avatar's ones. While on the movie they sounded just like Blackhawk, I doubt it would be the case for real ones. Tu-95 is known for it's being enormously loud and Kamov's helos as well as Cessna 337 have very distinctive sound footprint. And as you know, noise generated by an aircraft is an important factor both in civilian and military applications (noise pollution and abatement procedures, detection probability). I've mentioned earlier about some difficulties in controlling such aircraft, especially with regard to longtitudinal instability (in pitch), but also yaw stability would be negatively affected, compared to the classic helo. On the other hand, even now we have fly by wire, which can help in that matter, but that surely would make the design way more expensive, which is a serious factor in RL to be considered. And why the sheaths are built like dihedral wings? To help stabilise aircraft in a hover. Similar concept is used on Harrier - while in hover, the jetstreams from the engine don't go vertically, but slightly outwards. Think of it, as of standing in a boat on rough seas. It's easier to maintain balance with legs spaced further, than kept close to each other (the pyramid principle). I'm also higly sceptic about autorotating in such aircraft. While the combined rotor area could be sufficient enough, I don't think there is enough rotating mass there. Remember - hard-tilt instead of free rotor, so you want them to be as light as possible, which is further made worse beause individual blades are so short (=even less inertia driven angular momentum to keep them turning). As was said earlier, from aerodynamic point of view, the sheath would cause more trouble then help and that's correct. Ducts are used on propellers and fans to reduce blade-tip vortices, which improves prop efficiency and lessens force needed to turn it. Think of it them as of rotary winglets, but they only work in a laminar airflow, which is more or less paralell to the axis of rotation. In Avatar a/c the airflow is more perpendicular to it and you end up with a nice air brakes. Theoretically the sheath could improve hovering out of ground effect, but I doubt that this single property would justify using it. Helicopters for the most of time either hover low or cruise high with the help of other helo specific effects like translational lift. Also tail surface looks too small to be efficient (however I could be wrong here), but certainly the 'butterfly' (a.k.a. V-tail) tail assembly is not the best for a helo or any VTOL for that matter. But it looks cool and unusual and that's the reason behind it. What I liked in this design (Aerospatiale SA-2 Samson and AT-99 Scorpion, to be specific), was that the engines were mounted into the fuselage itself, rather than like on Mi-12 or Osprey. It greatly improves balance and static stability (beacuse more mass is closer to the a/c center of gravity), as well as makes easier to propell both sides with one engine, in case of an engine failure (shorter shafts and simpler main gearbox). It makes also easier to install armour protection and IR suppressors over the engines, fuel lines also would be less exposed. I could examine it further, but that's all that is on my mind now. I must say that I totally love the Avatar's design from the point of 'coolness' and indeed it would be possible to build one with current technology, but think about it: there is a deep reason why contemporary helicopters are built like they are and not in a different way. Is anyone going to make "Na'vi war paint" skin for Ka-50 please? :music_whistling:

http://ivao.xenoflex.de/Download/Charts/LOWI.pdf A complete set of charts for anyone interested in said LOWI approach :) Departures, while less difficult, are too interesting. If you want reeeally good thermals, then I strongly recommend yet another sim ;)

Tweety? :D Equally dangerous, yet so little and cute, just like all the 'little-birds' ;) Also negative on drugs, I'm normally like that :D Yup, blowing stuff and bringing destruction is good and nice (at least in a sim), but I find it also amusing to serve for a taxi for someone going to blow stuff and bring destruction, as well as for the unfortunate guys, who were blown out of the sky instead of bringing destruction :D Simply I miss Jane's Longbow 2 planeset. However I would gladly hire some trigger happy pilot, like you, as my cover, whaddya say? :D We have a proverb here: "the wolf is fed, yet the sheep is intact". Mi-24 was mentioned earlier and I wholeheartedly support the idea! We already have British, French and American forces in our version of Crimea region, so why not to equip them with the helos mentioned earlier? South America, while highly desired, is another topic. Tell me more abour Pucara, Bronco and the rest of the pack :P I was going to ask for the A-1 Skyraider in the first place, but I suffer from too few good helo sims on the market (so that's the priority) and also the old Able Dog is, well... old, so I don't even dream of a historic DCS module like Korea or Vietnam.

http://www.xpluginsdk.org/pilot_view.htm Have you tried PilotView plugin by Sandy Barbour? I use it on my Windows version, because I prefer the way how it handles Track IR, compared to native X-Plane headtracking support. You'll have to configure it separately for each aircraft, but in the end it can give you looking and moving around cockpit almost exactly like in Black Shark.

I wish, that one of the next DCS modules would be centered around a relatively simple aircraft, which looks more like an armed version of a civilian a/c, than a heavy and mean flying predator. I think mostly of Aerospatiale Gazelle, Westland Lynx, OH-58, AH/MH-6. Anything light attack/recon with additional capability to deploy/retrieve specops team or perform SAR would make me really happy for a long time :) My second wish is directly connected to the first one. Such an aircraft could be used in a theatre simulating local guerilla warfare and counterinsurgency operations, rather than full scale military conflict (South America comes to my mind). I would love to look for tracers coming from under jungle trees canopy, rather than signs of missile launch on RWR :) Just like Hueys in Vietnam, but a little bit more current and modern, and therefore more justified as a DCS module. One more wish, if I may. DCS: Harrier. Please... :D

Remember to update to the latest version, after installing. There are many significant differencies between 9.0 and current 9.41, and many of them are related for helos. Torque induced yaw is also present on propeller aircraft in X-Plane. For example, when you push the nose down, you'll get some yaw. The bigger and more powered the prop, the bigger the effect, but it can be observed even on C172. X-Plane started as a professional training software and it is still used in that role. You could even get FAA approval on it, provided you have detailed hardware cockpit and are willing to spend some serious cash on the professional license, instead of a home one. Also some serious companies and organisations were using it in a past, as an additional engineering tool or a visualisation for their concepts of future aircraft. Innsbruck is one of the most detailed airports in X-Plane, in not THE most detailed. You can see it on the attached screenshot. Sadly, most of the airports are just runway with taxiways and parking area, or only runway (which is enough for me most of the time). There are many sceneries to download, but I can't tell you anything more specific about them, because I don't use them (Innsbruck was already attached to the v9.0, because it's a default airport).

As I said in one of my previous posts, X-Plane is not a sim, that will get you immediately hooked, even my own first impressions were not so enthusiastic. Only after I got used to it, and spent some hours learning it, configuring, testing stuff and flying, it turned out to be exactly what I always wanted (one of the most memorable moments during that time, was being caught into severe icing in C172, I barely made it out in one piece). Sure, there are few things, that I'd like to be made differently or even made at all, but still I've never had any regrets after switching from MSFS (maybe sometimes I miss cool ATC and buildings in airports, but only a little ;)) On the other hand X-Plane is compatible with Vatsim/IVAO and the pool of detailed airports is constantly growing. And the best part is, that X-Plane's makers listen to the community and upgrade the sim on a regular basis with bugfixes and new features. One thing to remember is that, the default helicopters in X-Plane were made for it's previous versions, and now are way off, thanks to the frequent updates and refinements in flight dynamics modelling. Their looks are another matter... Fortunately, there are upgraded versions of the best helos and they are really good, both dynamically and visually (I think here mostly about the newest B206, MD500 and R44, there is also a nice EC-120). If you're interested in giving X-Plane another chance, there is opened a new section on x-plane.org about helicopters (currently it's even on the main site), where you have links to all of the most important stuff like recommended birds, flying school and more. I speak only about what I've checked myself and I do know few things about sims I fly, because of my general approach for flight simulations and aviation. I gather and get familiar with RL resources like handbooks and manuals and then try this knowledge in my sims, to better understand it. Some parts of this work almost exactly like in reality and some are totally wrong. Then I try to determine why is that, why something was modelled (and how it was done) or why wasn't, just to know the difference between sim and reality. The final outcome is that, by this interaction and cross-checking of reality and simulation, I can learn more about both, than I would be able to, if I was using only one source/method. Of course, the best thing would be to get real flying license, but I can't afford it yet, so for now I have to fly with what I have :) And I fly everything, that has some degree of fidelity and quality, as you can see in my profile. To be honest, there are regions, I know almost nothing about. For example I know what to do in order to not to be killed by SA-2 and that's it. I'm totally jaw-dropped and feel so small when I read posts about SAM Simulator and after I've visited their website. Indeed Dodosim's B206 is better than stock X-Plane's B206 because it has the following items (though remember, that all of these miracles are driven by plugins and mods, not the FS itself, Dodosim basicaly built a separate sim, that only works in FS environment): - detailed turbine engine simulation, along with damage model dependent of pilot erros and flight/environmental conditions (X-Plane's engine modelling is more simple, but it's one of the things that are worked on. On top of that some planes have similar plugin enchancements to the engine model) - detailed additional systems, like hydraulic, electric, fuel (funny thing is that X-Plane has all of it, only it hadn't been used for B206. But it's there and is used on other a/c. I hope the next version of one of my favourite helos will be fitted with these - or I'll try to do it myself) - airframe wear'n'tear and maintenance mod (that's really fantastic! X-Plane's native "failures screen", while huge and complicated, as well as wear and corresponding failures simulation, can't be compared to that level of attention.) - visuals (Dodo's looks a bit better, more detailed - but hey, it's a payware afterall. For me, X-Plane's version is more than enough, anyway the most important are gauges, which are good and easily readable) - LTE a.k.a. loss of tail rotor's effectiveness (with patience, this will be eventually introduced into X-Plane as standard. To be honest I've never encountered it in normal operation in Dodosim - only when I tried to check, how does it work. But then again it's just like with failures - the unexpected possibility of it gives the thrills :D) Now, when you consider what I've written in comments, you will realise, that the two aren't that much away from each other and this quality could be introduced to the X-Plane as well (even more easily and it was already done, but on the other airframes), which I hope to see with BK-117 (at least to some degree). My thoughts about Dodosim's B206 are, if you have FS9/FSX and fly them even from time to time, then it's a highly recommended addon. Just to see what can be done with enough skills and knowledge. But if you're additionally into rotorcraft or want to learn fly one, then it's absolutely necessary to buy it. For anyone that only wants to start the engine and wee around for a while, without need for learning niuances and perils of aviation, probably MSFS would be better, because of less flying difficulty and more user friendliness. For anyone truly happy and amazed with Black Shark, I'd suggest either buying X-Plane or MSFS+Dodosim (and then removing all the default MSFS helos from HDD, as unneeded burden ;)) I'll stick with X-Plane for the following reasons: - stock flight dynamics are among the best on market, along with nice visualisation and file output (which helps in setting control derivatives you've mentioned earlier, there is even a separate option for them) - it may not have so vast library of addons, like MSFS, but I have there all types of aircraft I fly most often, so it's enough for me (it would be great to have few more, but on the other hand I can't fly them all anyway) - weather dynamics is better in the areas I look for (like icing, ridge lift, turbulence, windshear) - on 85-90% of graphics settings it runs on my PC better than FSX on lowest possible settings (25 fps max over ocean - X-Plane in such conditions accelerates to 100+, Crysis works full detail with only very occasional and minor fps drop, even some DX10 effects are present, while it's only WinXP with DX9). Do I need to add, that then it looks much better than FSX on minimal? Another thing is, I prefer X-Plane's general world colours, less neon and flashy. - the freedom and relative easiness of making own a/c (with the whole subsection about airfoils and their properties, man that's crazy!), even the most extravagant and non existent in RL (for me it was the one of the very main reasons to buy it!) - nice and quite convincing NVG (works for every a/c just out of box :)) - dogfight module and possibility to arm a/c with working weapons - damage model to the airframe (along with max speeds for flap and gear deployment, Vne, max and min G. Exceed one of this and bad things start to happen) - possibility to fly on Mars (with realistic landscape and atmosphere/gravitation properties. In fact you could modify Earth's properties to reflect any fictional world from your favourite universe :)) - lots of config options, at first hard to get a hold of this all, but in the end it can produce an experience better tuned to the specific user - frequent updates of the sim itself, there is a connection between makers and the community - little nice touches and minigames out of the box - a2a refueling, atmospheric reentry, airdrop from B-52, dropping water on forest fires, formation flying, oilrigs, carrier and frigate ops. Sometimes I just want to have fun or do some stunts, instead of "serious" flying. And formation flying module is a great training device, anyone having trouble with it in Black Shark should try it :) Also when you fly unpressurised plane over 12500 ft or so, screen is going black to simulate losing conciousness because of not enough oxygen in too thin air. The higher you get, the more rapid blackout. You can put on sunglasses. Birds are circling on final and deers walk on runway, alwazs ready to create trouble. In nice weather there are baloons everywhere. And so on :) Sure, FSX has some of these, but not all of them :P

Agreed :) There is no such thing as 'best sim'. As you said, it depends on how and what do you compare, and also what do you expect from it. I just hope, that my high expectations of BK117 will be satisfied soon ;)