another nail in the coffin of the sim industry

[Steel Jaw]

I can't believe this is the 8th all time for posts in the non sticky category. I am simply adding to it by making this post.

 

That's right: so YOU are a part of the problem...! :doh:

[sweinhart3]

I noticed that, too. As far as I can tell its an off or null position. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about it could jump in here.

As part of my preflight cockpit check I always set that switch off center, usually back, just so the Route indicator light will go on if the [R] key unintentionally gets pressed while I'm trying to put out a fire, select a weapon, evade SAM's, issue orders to a wingman and wind my watch at the same time. That has saved me a lot frustration.

 

Yes in the middle position, the aircraft will not gather altitude data for the altitude hold switch from either radar or barometric pressure. It effectively disables the altitude hold as far as I know.

[Speed]

Might as well give you guys a screenshot as well. :)

 

 

Do its lasers burn out as well? Gonna suck if so :(

[dsobbe]

Yes in the middle position, the aircraft will not gather altitude data for the altitude hold switch from either radar or barometric pressure. It effectively disables the altitude hold as far as I know.

Maybe not. I tried engaging altitude hold with the switch in the center position. While hovering hands off, auto hover off, I manually set the power to give about a fifty foot/minute rate of descent. Then, engaged altitude hold, observed the VSI for awhile and disengaged it. At engagement the descent stopped. At disengagement, it resumed. Perhaps altitude hold just attempts to hold the last indicated or recorded altitude at engagement, with the switch centered.(?) Or, I may have been seeing some random behavior unrelated to the selected function.

But, the altitude switch has to be in the aft, barometric, position in order for the overhead Route indicator light to come on when the [R] key is pressed. I fail to understand that rational, though.

[CAT_101st]

That's right: so YOU are a part of the problem...! :doh:

I want to be part of the problem.... O wait I am Weeeeee:pilotfly:

[Steel Jaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muVmZGd9Rjs

 

Thanx, I needed that!

[dsobbe]

Yeah - they complain until they're told/shown that they're doing it wrong.......there's the difference ;)

 

Read the manual, understand the manual, read the manual again and put in the hours........you'll get there.

 

Chromewasp,

 

Viper is absolutely right.

Helicopters are not easier or harder to fly than fixed wing aircraft. But, they are "different" and require different learned skills, handling techniques and procedures. I have several thousand hours in fixed wing, a pocket full of instructors certificates and still spent about 300 hours learning to fly the Shark competently. I suspect that most here did the same. So, for a low time, or no time computer pilot, this sim has a steep learning curve. But, it can be, and is, done. :book:

One other point. A flight simulator is primarily a teaching aid. The key word here is simulator. Its advantage is that you can make mistakes and it won't kill you. With the exception of some multi-million dollar six axis machines, which get darn close, none of them can accurately emulate all of the real flight environment. Get used to it. It is what it is. And this one is very, very good.

Edited August 17, 2010 by dsobbe

[Steel Jaw]

Funny thing about helos in the military, unless you pick them, rotary wing is where they dump pilots who flunked out of jets (at least here in Canada).

[GGTharos]

It's pretty easy to flunk out of jets in Canada :P

[Steel Jaw]

It's pretty easy to flunk out of jets in Canada :P

 

Yes, because the number of combat jets is limited.

 

Jetstream is a good documentary to check out.

[Itkovian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muVmZGd9Rjs

 

Allright, there I gotta say something:

 

How can this guy say that TIE Fighter was so innovative, when basically all the features he mentions are in X-Wing?

 

Gah!

 

TIE-Fighter was basically an evolution of X-Wing, with more refined features. But ultimately X-Wing was the true innovator.

 

Itkovian

 

P.S. Not a geek. *cough*

[GGTharos]

Not much different in the USAF as far as I can tell ... they're looking at 300 candidates for one bomber slot and one fighter slot ... you can really pick and choose.

[Itkovian]

Not much different in the USAF as far as I can tell ... they're looking at 300 candidates for one bomber slot and one fighter slot ... you can really pick and choose.

 

Had a friend who applied a while ago for flying positions. From his research and groups he visited, it apparently helps a lot to have connections. :)

 

I'm not surprised, mind you, there's so little demand, and eventually when you reach the top level applicants you start looking for "other things" that sets them apart. :)

 

Itkovian

[Toadster]

It's pretty easy to flunk out of jets in Canada :P

 

:thumbup: LOL... Yes, we're too busy playing Hockey and Drinking beer..(mmm, Beeeeer)

 

We are suppose to be getting some F-35 a few years down the road, so I imagine it'll be even tougher to pass into the Fighter Community now...

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/29/weapons-of-choice/

 

Hopefully we can afford the cost of not just the aircraft, but all the training and support that will be required on these aircraft. Lots of moving parts equals lots of chances that something will break.

 

And woe to the first Private that scratches the Radar Absorbing paint on the skin....

[Itkovian]

:thumbup: LOL... Yes, we're too busy playing Hockey and Drinking beer..(mmm, Beeeeer)

 

When we make beer so good, who could resist drinking it?

 

*downs a Don de Dieu*

 

Mmmmm.

 

Itkovian

[Moa]

Not much different in the USAF as far as I can tell ... they're looking at 300 candidates for one bomber slot and one fighter slot ... you can really pick and choose.

 

In the RNZAF when I was there (early nineties) it was 2000 candidates apply to the recruiters for pilot training every four months and around 16 would be accepted for the officer's course, lose a couple on the officer course then some would be commissioned (ground officers), some would go to university first, and the rest to flight school. Maybe 4 would graduate flight school. Everyone was trained to fighter pilot ability and got some A4 time (hence the very high standard) - it is a shame our F-16s were cancelled (change of government to a more 'dovish' one at the time) since we could have fielded a lot of good pilots for them.

 

All our best pilots went to the helos and strike squadrons if they chose to (and the squadron accepted them). Others went to transport and maritime (P3 Orions). We might have have amateur gear but the pilots were very good. The Aussies have similar high standards and they now have the SuperBug. RAF is also quality. Israel's standards are also very high, and they have a pilot relegation system so only the best performers stay in the best squadrons (if you snooze you lose).

 

Point is, every country has different standards. So be careful sneering at the rotorheads as "not good enough to make fighters". I know of some guys who flunked the RNZAF pilot training but ended up flying Tornados in the RAF. This doesn't mean the RAF is worse, just that different air forces empahsise different things and having the best or most gear doesn't automatically mean all your pilots are better. As always, each air force has a distribution of proficiency levels, with some distributions being shifted higher than others.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Moa

[dotChuckles]

I just read all 37 pages of this thread in one go...

 

My head now hurts.

[joey45]

^ err I have 19 pages here.

[celticcoho]

for all nations, these are multi million dollar aircraft. Not easy to replace. So why not the best to fly them and bring them back home? Helios too...Not like buying a car, just because you have a LIC.:doh:

[madyogi]

The guy who started this thread is right about that 'paper bag' feeling!

 

Replaced my old PC with a new one, lately to see the difference to BS1...

 

Result:

The old BS1 vs BS2 flight profile presents much better. IN BS2 U feel like flying a 100 grams leaf that goes over the air, but U don't know exactly where it goes or at least when it stops ;( If U sit into a 10 ton brick U should feel something different I think... In BS2 just move the stick forward slightly, pull the collective, add trim and bang, U have 250kmh, now try to hoover fast without flaring like a rocket 100 meters up or flying forward next 1 km like a tanker at the sea....

 

I had a rare opportunity to fly a Russian heli in the 90s (as a passanger) :pilotfly: - damn it was laud... :D

Also remember Russian mi24s flying near my city in the 80s... Yes, they sound scary (and heavy) specially in tight turns... Why the new BS2 KA does pahhh, pahhhh, pahhhh, pahhhh ...like a shredded paper?

 

I guess, the 'weight bug' is true not just for this sim but many other 'modern' games, like car racers where a car feels like a matchbox, not a 1.5 ton piece of metal. In a real car, when driving a highway with 100kmh you get a feeling like 'walking a footpath'. In games, U drive 60 and feel like speeding 400 over Bonneville...:doh:

[ALDEGA]

Yes, they sound scary (and heavy) specially in tight turns... Why the new BS2 KA does pahhh, pahhhh, pahhhh, pahhhh ...like a shredded paper?

_6_dFUcZiJY

IHyVNdZfILE

[madyogi]

Cool vids, but for me the BS1 still sounds closer to it, .... or there's something with my ears :(

[diveplane]

Cool vids, but for me the BS1 still sounds closer to it, .... or there's something with my ears :(

 

my audio mod is spot on with ka50 , stock sounds are terrible.

[JozMk.II]

The bumping of this topic is a failure of the internet.

[RIPTIDE]

^ err I have 19 pages here.

38 here.