now in early access DCS: CH-47F Pre-purchase

[Northstar98]

58 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

But I am fed up about this pre hysterical issues you guys seems to come up with before handed a module.

Oh, do you think the watering down of EA features in comparison to previous EA products is something we've made up?

This isn't a figment of our imagination here, we can in fact read what's being put forth.

58 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Why not fly it before you judge?

Because I'm able to form a judgment based on what is planned. If the plan is for some basic, fundamental features to be omitted, then I'm perfectly capable of making a judgement based on that.

58 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Why pre buy in the first place?

I haven't. But as I explained earlier, whether I buy it or not, this problem will still exist. Me electing not to buy the module doesn't actually solve anything beyond me not being directly affected by it, unless ED decide to increase the scope of the EA release.

58 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Eventually it will be up to your standards.

Considering no plans have been shared regarding wider logistics in DCS (which I would've thought would be something important for a helicopter dedicated to logistics), despite it being first teased over 3 years ago, I will believe this when I see it.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Northstar98

[HMSSURP]

5 hours ago, Hatman335 said:

I'm just speculating, but I think they are referring to the functions of the 'CD rel' switch. As for not being available in EA, they said that hold modes aren't going to make it in either, so the DAFCS itself will be limited.

Maybe?  But all the Centering Device Release button did was release both mag brakes in the pitch and roll channels allowing you to position the stick where you wanted, then release and it would hold it there. Same as with the Huey.   The trim switch, which we called "Beep Trim" was used to fine tune the position.   If what you say is true I would think they are refereing to altitude hold and heading hold.  But I am not a developer so I could be totally off here.  Thanks for the input!

[av8orDave]

A few things here:

First, ED called it "force trim" themselves, so if anyone is creating confusion, it might be ED? Exact verbiage from the newsletter was:

"After Early Access Launch Features

• DAFCS trim system and force trim."

Second, a few people have requested clarity on what trim function exactly will be included in Early Access, but no moderator or official source has responded yet. Doesn't exactly instill confidence.

[HMSSURP]

3 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

A few things here:

First, ED called it "force trim" themselves, so if anyone is creating confusion, it might be ED? Exact verbiage from the newsletter was:

"After Early Access Launch Features

• DAFCS trim system and force trim."

Second, a few people have requested clarity on what trim function exactly will be included in Early Access, but no moderator or official source has responded yet. Doesn't exactly instill confidence.

DAFCS is the Digital Automatic Flight Control System.  Trim is what I described earlier, beep trim in the pitch and roll channels.  Force Trim, hell, I only flew the F model for about 200 hours so I could forgetting offical names and I have to say ED seems to do pretty darn good research on their modules so it is very possible they are right and I haven't flown a chinook for nearly a decade.  But going off my old memory, I really don't remember anything called force trim.  We had beep trim for the inflight modes and hover hold and hover beep for hovering modes.  Of course, what we could be seeing is me remembering slang and forgetting actual names.  If that is the case, I would put money on the table to say they are refering to the Flight Director system.  If that is all that is missing, yeah, it is a significant part of what made a difference from the CH-47D to CH-47F and when they do get them up and running I am sure everyone will be most impressed with the stuff.  But I would say you will have more fun.  My heart belongs to the CH-47D were I was a pilot and not the CH-47F were I was a system manager.  Of course, to each their own on that.  I know many who couldn't get rid o fthe D's fast enough.  But I for one loved flying.  Heck, even in the CH-47D I used to spend a large part of my time flying with the AFCS off.  Actually, that reminds me of something that happened to me in flight school.  Flying AFCS requires a LOT of attention to everything the aircaft is doing because you can quickly loose control if you don't.   For short spurts this is not usually to much trouble for most.  But the longer you go you get tired.  While in flight school my instructor pilot had me do AFCS off and I was pretty good at it.  I also had a pretty big ego.  She told me "You really fly AFCS off very well."  My dump butt said "Yeah, of couse.  I am awesome!"  I got to spend the next two hours flying AFCS off performing all my maneuvers for the training that day AFCS off!  I learned from that point on when complimented just say "Thank you!" 

[Migparts]

Reading the various posts, it seems that probably the June 26th release date will be extended. Is it clear, when the new release date would be?

[Hammer1-1]

36 minutes ago, Migparts said:

Reading the various posts, it seems that probably the June 26th release date will be extended. Is it clear, when the new release date would be?

July 3rd.

[Hatman335]

3 hours ago, HMSSURP said:

Maybe?  But all the Centering Device Release button did was release both mag brakes in the pitch and roll channels allowing you to position the stick where you wanted, then release and it would hold it there. Same as with the Huey.   The trim switch, which we called "Beep Trim" was used to fine tune the position.   If what you say is true I would think they are refereing to altitude hold and heading hold.  But I am not a developer so I could be totally off here.  Thanks for the input!

Do you think the aircraft would be flyable by average players if they don't add DAFCS at all to early access?

[Chinooklad]

11 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Oh I care. But I am fed up about this pre hysterical issues you guys seems to come up with before handed a module. 
Why not fly it before you judge? Why pre buy in the first place?
I want my hand in this module no matter its shortcomings. You seem to regret your purchase, why not just try to get a refund?
Eventually it will be up to your standards. 

Edit: gramma seem to be a big issue. So I corrected something

 

My main gripe right now is the exclusion of NVGs on release, though mind you, all and other elements that are going to be kept out are just as reasonable complaint points. 

I just can't understand it no matter how hard I try. They even included them in the trailer! Why? Chinook is a helicopter that is extensively used for special operations by most of its operator countries, even despite not being the heavily modified MH configuration that Yanks use. Netherlands, Greece, UK just to name a few. Throughout the many years of GWOT, night flying was a key force multiplier for all NATO participants and Chinook brought such advantage forth for many. Chinook is a work horse and an excellent air assault helicopter. Thing with Air Assault is that it does not simply stop at night. It's a round the clock racket, flying back and forth to deliver supplies, evac cassualties and provide a general airlift capability for their ground counterparts.

The night flying capability is an absolutely vital part of this rotary aircraft. If this was a D or C model during the days of Desert Storm, where a lot of guys were opposed to NVGs and chose to fly with MK1 eyeballs at night, sure, that would make some sense. But this is an F model. Already by the time F was introduced, not a single pilot was allowed to call himself a fullfledged one until they've had an ample amount of hours under goggles and demonstrated their adequate profficency with them. If anyone was to make a campaign for the CH47 now, they wouldn't be able to delve into the incredible world of night time operations that Chinook realistically offers. This is a major misstep in my mind. I'd get into why having functioning AI crew that can give out calls is vital to the operation of Chinook as well, but then I'd need to type out an essay 

[ChrisUK27]

3 hours ago, Hatman335 said:

Do you think the aircraft would be flyable by average players if they don't add DAFCS at all to early access?

I'd say yes, Chinook is a very stable platform as others have mentioned. I very much doubt that because there's no full AFCS/DFACS on early access it'll be unflyable (Challenging) akin to no AFCS at all, although that said the MilTech MSFS Chinook version was messed up at the start (fixed now). There will be some stabilisation for sure, remember we're talking about software here, they can make it fly similar without having the exact same functionality. A 'Basic trim system' will be fine to get going with and I imagine will be very similar to that of the Huey, perhaps the only significant difference people will notice when it's added is how easy it is to land.

It's probably summed up really well in this comment from https://verticalmag.com/features/golden-years-html/

"A crew chief recently transferred to the F from the D model probably said it best, “I miss having pilots. . . we’ve got button-pushers now.” 

[Slippa]

I pre-ordered this the other day. I still had some miles spare and who wouldn’t want the Hook? 

Should be interesting to see what we get and how it develops. There’s nothing like the sound of em. Hope we’re all pleasantly surprised. At this point I’m banking on at least getting two engines, a couple of sets of blades and some nav lights. We’ll see.

 

[LuseKofte]

40 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

They even included them in the trailer! Why? Chinook is a helicopter that is extensively used for special operations by most of its operator countries, even despite not being the heavily modified MH configuration that Yanks use. Netherlands, Greece, UK just to name a few.

In short , it will come. I think with such a big list of missing features it will take as long as AH 64 to be finished.  Don’t get me wrong, I like to have all these things too. 
But fact is, we ain’t getting them in first release. 
It is same with life itself. You play with cards your dealt. This mass hysteria every time a modul approaches is getting pretty old. 
One of the most complete modules delivered to us got the same treatment, the Kiowa. And it is a real treat. 

[ChrisUK27]

All ED need to do is swap out the title 'Early access' to 'Paid Beta' and then we'll all be on the same page. That's what I'm buying into, early beta access where I get my hands on the aircraft and am prepared come across bugs, annoyances and issues (Deep breath...) and feed them back, not early access to a V1.XXXX module. The annoyance would only come if nothing gets fixed such that I didn't want to fly it. The Miltech MSFS Chinook is a prime example, their first flight model was so bad I didn't want to fly it despite paying for the full module, but now a version or so on, reacting to feedback it's much better. 

[LuseKofte]

7 minutes ago, ChrisUK27 said:

All ED need to do is swap out the title 'Early access' to 'Paid Beta' and then we'll all be on the same page. That's what I'm buying into, early beta access where I get my hands on the aircraft and am prepared come across bugs, annoyances and issues (Deep breath...) and feed them back, not early access to a V1.XXXX module. The annoyance would only come if nothing gets fixed such that I didn't want to fly it. The Miltech MSFS Chinook is a prime example, their first flight model was so bad I didn't want to fly it despite paying for the full module, but now a version or so on, reacting to feedback it's much better. 

I just ain’t sure you are right. It might work perfectly, just with less features than we hoped for. 
I bought the H 140 in msfs, supposed to be the best ever in msfs. It just do not tic my interest. The total lack of environment make choppers in that sim like drones. 
Concerns people have might or might not be true. 
CH 47 Chinook is a very stable transporter, I am not sure it is my cup of tea without a solid foundation of logistical task to do. 
I knew this when buying it, so should people more knowledgeable than me do too. 
I say give it a chance, personally I think it will take a long while until it and its tasks are implemented. 

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

CH 47 Chinook is a very stable transporter, I am not sure it is my cup of tea without a solid foundation of logistical task to do.

 

I'm just looking forward to flying a great big chopper. The Mi-8 is fantastic but it needs a paintjob, and it's old school, which is fine, but I want some new tech and those fancy MFDs as well. 

 

7 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

 I say give it a chance, personally I think it will take a long while until it and its tasks are implemented. 

 

For comparison, the Apache has taken a while to have everything implemented, but it's a pretty damn nice chopper. Not that I understand half the system though. Since the Chinook is all about the flying, I can see myself getting deeper into flight management, and that's okay with me. Lots of my DCS time is just flying around for fun.

[HMSSURP]

7 hours ago, Hatman335 said:

Do you think the aircraft would be flyable by average players if they don't add DAFCS at all to early access?

Tadem Rotor aircraft are inheriently unstable.  Early Tadem Rotor aircraft were notoriously bad and difficult to fly and you will notice many had "wings" to help remedy this.  The AFCS systems (I keep calling it AFCS as that is what it is called in the D model.  It was not called DAFCS until the  F model in large part because many of the gyros were replaced with laser systems.  But this should also prove that any terminology I use take with a grain of salt.  A vast majority of exerience I had was in the D's and I carried a lot of the terminology over with me into the F's) was a game changer.  It really helped relieve the workload on the pilot flying the aircraft.

Anyways, to answer your question.  If they include basic stability and trim functions, you will be fine.  If they have NO AFCS functions, the aircraft is certainly flyable but it will be a challenge.

[HMSSURP]

I thought I should clarrify something.  In an earlier post you heard me say Tandem Rotor aircraft are very stable but in my last reply I said they are inherinetly unstable.  I know that sounds a bit contradictory so I would like to explain.

1.  WIth load carrying a tandem rotor aircraft is the easiest and by far the most stable platform you will have.  CG control is extremely lax compared with a conventional aircraft.  This is not to say that we didn't have to consider it, just that it was eaiser.  In fact, prior to any flight we had to computer a PPC (Performance Planning Card) that considered everything from weights, altitudes, torques, etc.  We also were required to compute a weight and balance form.  We generally had a stack of "standard load" variant cards of each that we carried that we could reference, usually just to knock out our hover power checks and verify everything was capice.  But outside of that we never were all to concerned with it.  It was only with the heavier, non-standard loads that we would actually really have to dig into the weeds on that stuff.  For example, hauling another aircraft under us or the gun crew loads I mentioned.   Otherwise, the Chinook is incredibly stable as a lift platform.

2.  Flying, with AFCS is incredible.  When I tried on the AH-64D simultor I was shocked at just how little stability providing systems that aircraft had.  I had to think "Is this how those barbarians live!"   The Chinook has pitch control, roll control, altitude hold, heading hold and that was in the old CH-47D models.  You get into the CH-47F the aircraft literally can do EVERYTHING for you.  So with AFCS (or more correctly DAFCS in the F model) she is an INCREDIBLY stable platform.

3.  Flying, with AFCS off.  That is an entirely different story.  As I mentioned before, the best way to describe it is trying to balance the aircraft on a pin set in the middle.  There are these things called strakes and spoilers and a blunted aft pylon which provide a bit of change of the airflow over the airframe giving some stability but you will be dancing on the on controls to keep her straight and level.  Don't try to do any abrupt maneuvers as you will likely find yourself facing a direction you had not intended.  Each control inputs needs to be deleberate and thought through with counter movements in all the other channels at the exact same time.  And once you get to were you want to be you will find she keeps wanting to go in different directions so you will constantly be making counter movements.

To be honest though, if you can fly the Huey you can fly the Chinook AFCS off.  In fact, hands down the best sticks in the Army were Kiowa Warrior pilots.  They have no stability systems that I am aware of and man, can they fly!  The one problem people tend to have when coming over from a tail rotor aircraft to a tandem rotor aircraft is remember DO NOT USE PEDALS when taking off!  We had a huey guy who came over to chinooks.  His first few flight taking off was a nightmare as he instinctively would kick in pedal to counter torque.  All that does in a Chinook is cause you nose to spin!  

I can say, as the newb in this world of DCS but having tried a number of airframes, have faith!  ED will give you a good product.  Everything I have seen so far has been amazing and I am positive that even if the EA is missing a few things they will get it to you and I am positive you will love flying the Chinook!  

Some maneuvering tips and tricks for all of you in the chinook:

To turn the tail around the nose use counter pedal/stick controls.  So Left pedal, right stick should cause the tail to spin right around the nose.

To turn around the center hook, just use pedals.

To turn around the tail, use coinciding stick and pedal movements.  So left pedal, left stick should cause the nose to spin left around the tail.

[HMSSURP]

Another tip.  In the chinook if you find yourself in a settling with power situation the best way out is left stick.  The forward most part of the rotor arc and the aft most part are both spinning towards the left.  By rolling to the left you get them most lift and will recover quicker.  If you roll right the only area of lift you are getting is over the tunnel.

[HMSSURP]

One more:  When performing a two wheel landing avoid bringing the nose up too high.  You will hit the aft rotor system on the ground.  

Edited June 23, 2024 by HMSSURP

[LuseKofte]

8 minutes ago, HMSSURP said:

Another tip.  In the chinook if you find yourself in a settling with power situation the best way out is left stick.  The forward most part of the rotor arc and the aft most part are both spinning towards the left.  By rolling to the left you get them most lift and will recover quicker.  If you roll right the only area of lift you are getting is over the tunnel.

Can we hope they modelled this correctly? I hope so. 

[HMSSURP]

Just now, LuseKofte said:

Can we hope they modelled this correctly? I hope so. 

I'm sure they will.  An amateur did the CH-47D on X-Plane which had some obvious errors but overall was VERY good!  How much better will be a professional company like ED!

[ChrisUK27]

1 hour ago, HMSSURP said:

One more:  When performing a two wheel landing avoid bringing the nose up too high.  You will hit the aft rotor system on the ground.  

 

Unless you want to perform a rapid 'Aft pylon removal'  

https://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/aft_pylon_removal.html

[admiki]

1 hour ago, HMSSURP said:

I'm sure they will.  An amateur did the CH-47D on X-Plane which had some obvious errors but overall was VERY good!  How much better will be a professional company like ED!

You must be new here?

[Hartsblade]

I've been holding off on pre-ordering.

So I'd like to thank all of the folks bitching and moaning, about an Early Access product, for helping me make up my mind.

Pre-order complete. Looking forward to July 3rd, or whenever it may end up in my hands.

Edited June 23, 2024 by Hartsblade
Spelling

[HMSSURP]

1 hour ago, ChrisUK27 said:

Unless you want to perform a rapid 'Aft pylon removal'  

https://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/aft_pylon_removal.html

I am glad you brought this site up.  Check out www.chinook-helicopter.com!  This is a great site that has TONS of information about the Chinook.  System manuals, operator manuals, history, pictures, disposition of various tail numbers,  etc.  I believe they only have up to the CH-47D in regards to operator manuals but many of the systems are similiar.  The biggest differences between the D and F is all the extras that came with the DAFCS system (namely Flight Director, Hover Hold mode, and hover beep) over the AFCS system.  Additionally, having a glass cockpit versus steam guages so accessing various systems had different avenues of approach of course.  But overall, same aircraft!  So the website will have lots of great info for anyone interested!

Edited June 23, 2024 by HMSSURP

[lee1hy]

I decided to buy ch47 because of a comment someone left.

i will buy EA CH-47B. ED will upgrade the CH-47F for free. We are purchasing two helicopters.

 

Edited June 23, 2024 by lee1hy