They were sitting ducks in Vietnam. Until the US changed tactics and flew them nap of the earth. They still lost a lot, but not nearly as many. I would imagine in dcs world that hugging the terrain is the way to go when flying in hostile areas. Use the terrain as much as possible just like you have to do in black shark.
Great video by the way. Looking forward to this one!
They were sitting ducks in Vietnam. Until the US changed tactics and flew them nap of the earth. They still lost a lot, but not nearly as many. I would imagine in dcs world that hugging the terrain is the way to go when flying in hostile areas. Use the terrain as much as possible just like you have to do in black shark.
Great video by the way. Looking forward to this one!
Rob
Except that in real life, compared to DCS, trees can help you. I hope that it'll change with EDGE.
Sorry, guys, but earlier upload materials about the UH-1H Huey we had no right. Now we have it Right! We are almost ready for release, Not much left to wait, all external delays now is overcome.
The shuddering in the cockpit just as it transitions to foward flight down the runway at the end of the video, is exactly what you see in real life. Amazing! Great job.
The shuddering in the cockpit just as it transitions to foward flight down the runway at the end of the video, is exactly what you see in real life. Amazing! Great job.
Yeah..I noticed that..very cool. I wonder if it is possible to get into the "Huey tuck" I've read about where if you pitch down too aggressively the downward force (?) tends to push the aircraft toward the ground..?
I hope someday we'll be able to land and pick up ejected pilots.. How cool would that be?
They gonna strap some mini-guns to the sides of this? If they don,t whats the point of putting it into a combat sim?
I imagine the point would be whatever mission designers can come up with. Shouldn't be too difficult to devise some creative uses.
That said, evidently a Huey equipped with miniguns is already in the game files. Probably not directly linked with Belsimtek's module, but such a thing is clearly within the realm of possibility. Excuse the crappy video; it's the only one I could find.
EDIT: Missed the post on the previous page that shows much more concrete evidence of guns and rocket equipped Hueys.
I miss a real slick variant. Not only without the weapons, but without those pylons as well. Anyway, looks like I will buy this on day one. Beside from being rather silent they seem to know how to develop simulations.
No word on modern variants, so probably no. The AH-1 that is probably under development by Belsimtek too will be an old G version. But an OH-58 was announced (no version known yet) so that might be a tad more modern.
And quite a few older planes are in development, so those crates will get appropriate eventually.
Can't wait to get my hands on this beauty. And yeah, simple MP formation flights with real navigation, cross country and in bad weather is something I'm very much looking forward to.
Can't wait to get my hands on this beauty. And yeah, simple MP formation flights with real navigation, cross country and in bad weather is something I'm very much looking forward to.
great another shark pilot to fly with at this rate we could have a full squadron
Im a shark pilot not played in a few months, but I will be returning in the next few weeks, I still have not flown the A10 as I love the shark so much, and everyone knows the helicopter pilots throw the best parties and have the hottest wives.
BS2 upgrade is not a true upgrade. It just checks to see if you have BS1 installed before it installs. It does not install over BS1, it does not use any settings or files from BS1. It is a totally new game that looks quite a bit like the previous one, but isn't.
So as long as you understand that process, it's painless. Buy BS2 upgrade, DL and install and activate, then you can delete BS1 afterwards if you wish.
Oh, keep in mind there are two versions of BS2...the old "standalone" version 2.x designed to work with the standalone A-10C 1.1.1, and the newer one for DCS World now at 1.2.3.
Unless you have a particular need not to, I would suggest you DL and install DCS World and get BS2 (as an upgrade module that works identically to the standalone as far as activation) for it.
I literally cannot remember the last flight sim release that didn't need several patches to get working right. Some were clearly betas at release *cough*CloD*cough* and some just had tons of errors and other issues that needed ironing out.
The longer it takes to come out, the more work done now, the fewer updates it will need later. Never say "none", because that's unrealistic to believe, but I think we'd all prefer it 100% after just 2 or 3 rather than 4 or 5.
The navigation using only compass, stopwatch, airspeed indicator and ADF is probably the aspect of the multi-crew experience that interests me most.
meh... Just press F10
Lock On player mentality.
Elitist killing-the-flight-sim-genre mentality.
The Jedi Master
+1
Really? Someone declares their anticipation of map and compass navigation as a rewarding experience requiring skill and patience while improving themselves and you're negative about it? That's really sad. [admin edit: no personal attacks]
The navigation using only compass, stopwatch, airspeed indicator and ADF is probably the aspect of the multi-crew experience that interests me most.
meh... Just press F10
Lock On player mentality.
Originally Posted By: Frederf
Really? Someone declares their anticipation of map and compass navigation as a rewarding experience requiring skill and patience while improving themselves and you're negative about it? That's really sad. [admin edit: no personal attacks]
Frederf... Genbrien expressed his preference for a feature and you disparaged it.
Exactly. The whole backpedaling "I'm not being elitist!!" argument falls on its face, breaking nose and teeth in a bloody pulp, after a comment like that.
He did NOT say "F10 is oversimplifying the navigation experience" or "that's just cheating". Instead, he took Genbrien's obviously tongue-in-cheek comment about using F10 as a shortcut to all that and both insulted him and those who enjoy Lock On's take on simulation (not rivet-counting, just medium simming...and calling LOMAC "simlite" is stupid because it's obviously a lot more in-depth than ACTUAL simlite games).
Painting basically all sims into the two columns of "DCS" and "everything NOT DCS, basically arcade crap, like LOMAC" is not a worthy opinion.
That's like saying "if you're not driving a Mercedes S600, you're just driving a Yugo", including saying that to perhaps a Mercedes S500 owner. Or maybe "if you're not a Western white male, you're just a second rate human...if you even deserve that"?
LOMAC is not like Ace Combat or HAWX. It's not even like Strike Fighters, which sits above those but below LOMAC/FC. There are several levels of simulation fidelity, not TWO. His comment was 100% intended to insult LOMAC, its supporters, and those who DARE to use any shortcuts to being as painfully accurate as possible whatsoever. It was the poster child for sim elitism. Just like many "casual" racists get extremely defensive when you call them on it with their "hey, I have friends who are minorities!" claims, now he's trying to retcon his comment into a more reasonable one.
I mean, I'm surprised he doesn't demand DCS pilots commit suicide when their plane is destroyed because "the real pilots would be dead." That of course begs the question as to how he's still alive then as I'm sure he's been shot down at least ONCE before...
LoL Jedi! And I completly agree with you on this one.
BTW, I have an idea for those "elitist"/hardcore flight simmers (personally I also enjoy "hardcore" sims very much but I also enjoy more "light" sims as well, if not more sometimes): -> Place a bunch of explosives (preferably with lots of C4 and TNT) under the chair and in case the player dies in the sim than detonate them. This way the pilot/player would die VERY realistically with a VERY "explosive" realism -> And those same players should also play in an apartment located at the 10th floor or more and if case the player manages to sucessfully eject the player should pack a parachute and throw himself (or herself) from that apartment's window. This way if the player strikes an obstable and breaks his neck, this would also be realistic
Laugh away the topic with ridiculous ideas like jumping out the window if you eject in-sim, but beating up the straw man version of the horrible, no-fun elitist is not having a mature conversation about the topic.
When I express a negative reaction to a "casual gaming attitude" it's not because I resent not doing things the hardcore sim way. It's more a sadness at selling yourself and others short on rewarding experiences. Putting aside multiplayer for a moment and how there everyone's actions affect everyone else, look at single player. By using labels or website FAQ or other means one can cheapen their own experience if they aren't that aware. Things that help your game performance often have the opposite effect on your fun performance. Looking up where to get all the collectible golden skulls in a wiki list might mean you get them all in record time but it's likely going to feel like a chore doing so instead of any kind of fun. I speak from experience that becoming overly focused on the game result over experiencing the game similar to how it was intended is a bad habit and a hard habit to break. Try flying without kill messages on. Not knowing if the tank you attacked blew up or not actually adds to the game. A little fog of war, tension, non-omniscience can actually be fun.
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Not my understanding. Frederf was disparaging (new word for me! ) the comment about how F10 is equal to navigational skill...
No, that is not correct. I saw someone express joy and anticipation toward an intellectual aspect of aviation, a subject I love dearly, and witnessed you dismiss it in a passive aggressive, flippant smiley-suffixed way. That is what I take issue with. You are absolutely welcome to find your own method of utilizing your software, but putting down someone who has a genuine interest is over the line. You might as well have told someone aspiring to play the violin to get an iPod instead or don't learn calculus buy a calculator. It's anti-intellectual and counter to an environment where people are encouraged to try new and challenge themselves.
On the multiplayer front, you open the system of decisions and consequences to a group of people. While I might lament someone shorting their own experience I will absolutely not forgive someone degrading the experience of another person intentionally. "Trolling" and "team killing" are "I will give you a black eye" offenses around me. If someone doesn't respect the multiplayer environment and what their decisions mean to others then I don't respect them.
Taking off from the taxiway and colliding with another player, taking enough weapons to destroy all targets on the map so others won't get a chance, making a suicide run with missiles knowing you can respawn instantly, using the F-10 map to see targets behind buildings and similar tales are what I describe as the "Lock On Mentality." Perhaps it can be summed up as the notion that because a thing is possible it is permissible. That's not to say there's anything wrong with the Lock On software, just that I find the "me first me first gimmie gimmie oh wow pretty boom" attitude more prevalent in Lock On, IL-2 than say Falcon, RoF, DCS.
Overall I'm not an elitist. The elitist person strives to point out the distinction between themselves and supposed inferiors and then to maintain that separation. I'm not that. I am here to say that there are many players which are selfish, uncooperative, anti-social, impulse-driven, narrow-viewed, insecure, uneducated, or otherwise in a way that limits their enjoyment or the enjoyment of others. I don't want to maintain that distinction. I want these people to try a different way of playing or at least be aware it exists so they can choose for themselves.
I log onto a server of 7 people and say "Hey, hi everyone, who wants a wingman?" "What's the objective?" "Anyone need help with anything?" In response I get dead silence as everyone goes about being 7 single-ship flights loaded with as much weaponry as possible to make sure they get the kill before the other 6. It's discouraging.
You fly on the wrong servers then Frederf, fly on Eno'o or Wrecking Crew's and we always work together and communicate. Unless you used that to make your point?
Perhaps I do or at the wrong times or on the wrong days. I'm sure there good places to fly and good people to fly with. I just have rotten luck meeting them.
As someone who has no real interest in flying MP with people I don't know, zero of that applies to me. I fly offline, and occasionally coop online with a person or two.
Also, you have a false concept of fun. Just because "hunting golden skulls" doesn't appeal to you, the fact is that it does appeal to many out there, and there are literally millions of gamers out there who relish and anticipate the exact type of behaviors you call not-fun. Otherwise, why would people load up on cheats, hacks, and other goofs and hop on MP servers to grief everyone there? They're not playing the game even close to how it the developers intended, but they laugh hysterically at firing a single homing missile that passed through walls and takes out the entire enemy team. Just because you think playing a sim a certain way is more rewarding doesn't mean others share that belief, especially if perhaps the time they have to sim is very small, valuable, and would prefer to be spent in combat and not doing the more mundane things like preflight checklists and proper ATC procedures. I learned 10 years ago that if ANY of my enjoyment in a game was dependent on the behaviors of other people, ESPECIALLY those I don't know in an MP environment, that game was going to have periods where it would NOT be fun. I abruptly gave up public MP for all game types (FPS, flight sim, racing sim, strategy) and switched to mainly SP with occasional forays into coop MP with a couple trusted friends. It can easily be argued that a great MP session far outstrips any SP session, however the ODDS of having that great MP session are IMO far too low and the SP side is more predictable.
I also find it ironic that you describe the aforementioned hunting of golden skulls as work, and then see the idea of manual navigation with a stopwatch as fun, an attitude I'm sure far more than a simple majority of gamers do NOT share. It's the simmer equivalent of "don't know how you listen to that crappy *insert current popular type* music, REAL music is *insert former popular type*".
Are we really going to debate each other's definition of fun? How about we just assume that everyone is different and maybe we all have our own definition of fun? I'm going to play DCS how I like it and that's fun for me.
Now that we're back on topic ;), I love the pics, Nate, and great vid! That hover taxi was fantastic - I know it's gotta be a lot harder to execute than you made it look.
So, thinking about the navigation issue, i decided to take the big theater map EvilBivol-1 uploaded on the ED site and convert it into a GeoTIFF for use with falconview. I applied it to my flaconview, plotted a course on the map roughly 150nm long over 3 waypoints (from Kutasi to Poti to Batumi), and navigated in a P-51 using only the bearings and distances provided by the GeoTIFF and falconview.
Worked like a charm. The only problem was that i'm not good at holding a particular speed with the P-51 so i tried it once with an AI P-51 setting the pace, and this time i was arriving at the WPs within +-10 seconds of my ETA.
With this setup, you just drag and drop lines on the map to make legs, and flaconview generates the bearings and distances for you. The only thing it doesn't do is give you the times for the legs. But i made a simple NavLog spreadsheet to calculate the times for each leg. I'm uploading the GeoTIFF to the ED site as we speak. Once i get the NavLog set up to convert IAS to TAS, I'll share that too.
This is what it looks like (this is not the test route i flew, just an example route).
Well this is a third party module, so you'll have to take it up with Belsimtek. Maybe you can send them an email and tell them you don't want a huey, and that they should produce either an apache or nothing at all. As for being "fleeced", you're actually permitted to not buy the product if you're not interested. So no, you're not being "fleeced".
Well this is a third party module, so you'll have to take it up with Belsimtek. Maybe you can send them an email and tell them you don't want a huey, and that they should produce either an apache or nothing at all. As for being "fleeced", you're actually permitted to not buy the product if you're not interested. So no, you're not being "fleeced".
Well this is a third party module, so you'll have to take it up with Belsimtek. Maybe you can send them an email and tell them you don't want a huey, and that they should produce either an apache or nothing at all. As for being "fleeced", you're actually permitted to not buy the product if you're not interested. So no, you're not being "fleeced".
You are right, but your answer is nothing than polemic.
I bought A10-C, Black Shark 2 and P51. The first two modules are real "modules" with a model, missions etc. But P51 was the first release of a full price model without the character of an complete module. I love the Huey, bug it seems to me, that the story goes on.
What i'd like to see is multiplayer missions where the individual objective areas are not "cleared" until troops have been dropped off and have occupied the zone. I'd happily be the guy who follows in a formation of UH-1s ferrying troops.
This looks really interesting. I haven't delved into DCS for a while, have infantry and tree line-of-sight issues been improved enough to make for fun close air support and transport? If so, I'd love to coop with some Huey slicks, gunships for some classic 1960's insertion and support. Maybe even have Mustangs playing the role of OV-10 or Douglas A-1 Skyraider.
Tress are still invisible to AI and don't have collisions. As for infantry issue, i'm not sure which issues you're referring to, but they haven't come very far from thier initial modeling. Some are animated, some aren't. They have a tendancy to react to being attackd from the air by running a short distance, but that's all.
I'd definitely like to see the trees fixed personally, especially if i'm going to spend lots of time in an unarmed transport chopper flying NoE with nothing but terrain to use for protection. Besides, what fun is this without trees to worry about?
Bear in mind that DCS has been offering discounts now and then, selling their modules at much lower cost, just like they did recently. I would agree about the purpose behind the P51 - and the planned FW180 - but at these prices, it gives you a great plane to fly. DCS has been true to flight-simmers, they are dedicated to what they do. I bought the P51 modules, even though I am skeptical about its role in the DCS world, not only because of the sale , but because I felt like supporting DCS is the right thing to do, in a market where companies are turning their backs on the flight sim community, in favor of console gaming titles.
Yeah, I certainly don't understand the feelings of being "fleeced". Personally I'm not interested in Barbie Princess Charm School 2013, but that's doesn't mean I'm being fleeced by Mattel.
Just because I'm not everyone's opinion, I am far from being a troll!
According to you, "DCS" releasing new content not to your liking is somehow fleecing their customer base. And you say you're not a troll? Well at least you try very hard it has to be said
As mentioned previously, we are in the final testing stage, i.e. currently testing the installer and making last-minute fixes as needed. We were careful to say that this stage can take anywhere from days to weeks, so please be patient and give us the time needed to work through this process.
In recent weeks we've been working closely with a couple of Huey pilots added directly to the test team and as a result there has been a lot of tuning of the FM. We expect this process will continue after open beta release as well.
Besides the FM, some updates and improvements have continued to be made to the cockpit and external model. One of the more interesting ones just came in today. Although not functional yet, a FAT (free air temperature) gauge has been added to the top left corner of the right pilot’s front canopy. As many DCS Black Shark veterans no doubt appreciate, a simple FAT gauge is quite an important tool to have when considering the aircraft's performance capabilities and the dangers of icing.
Finally, a couple of courtesy screenshot to go with the update.
It's been "any day now" since that release announcement was accidentally posted on the ED site, and they stated they were going to create the installer package "this week".
That was six weeks ago. So i'm refraining from interpreting any sings as meaning release is imminent.
It's been "any day now" since that release announcement was accidentally posted on the ED site, and they stated they were going to create the installer package "this week".
That was six weeks ago. So i'm refraining from interpreting any sings as meaning release is imminent.
Any similarities with North Korea are purely coincidental
A complex SW product like the Huey will certainly have teething problems along the way, so I'm happy as long as they are making progress - and they are. And don't forget the licence negotiations with Bell Textron, those alone must've took them a month or 3...
As it stands now, you can create groups of infantry to spwan when a chopper lands. Not ideal, as you don't get to simulate added weight, but you can certainly have scenarios play out that result in troops being deployed when you land your chopper at an LZ. Even that will make for interesting missions.
...but yes, it would be much more interesting if the carriage of troops in the back of your chopper were actually modeled (especially if troops visibly being on board, and mounting/dismounting animations were provided). I wouldn't be surprised if that comes along at some point. If multi-player crew is possible, i don't see AI troops in cargo being impossible.
A trigger to set the cargo weight is already implemented.
Perfect. With that function available, we basically have all the necessary components for troop transport in the editor. Cosmetic additions like troops in the back and mounting/dismounting animations would be nice, but are really just that - cosmetic.
Using the scripting engine, it will also be possible to generate troops and assign route waypoints dynamically so that they are based on the helicopter position in real-time as oppososed to pre-plotted in the mission editor. That's somewhat advanced stuff, though, not available in the ME interface and requiring some work with Lua. Still not perfect compared to actual loading/unloading feature, but should be sufficient as a workaround for now. Hopefully new infantry modeling will be done as well for the final release or after, but certainly not for the beta release.
Sling load physics are in progress. Again, not for beta release, but we are optimistic about it being functional in final.
Using the scripting engine, it will also be possible to generate troops and assign route waypoints dynamically so that they are based on the helicopter position in real-time as oppososed to pre-plotted in the mission editor. That's somewhat advanced stuff, though, not available in the ME interface and requiring some work with Lua.
Sounds interesting. Would be nice if you can release a test mission / script template for this in the future.
Maybe ED ought to refocus its efforts on supporting what's already out there. Their response to tickets is known to be abysmal, mine included, 2 weeks and no response.
It's hard to keep "who does what" straight. The UH-1 is a DCS module advertised and for sale on ED's site and discussed on ED's forums. One might be forgiven for thinking it's ED's.
I think it might have been a mistake to allow 3rd parties to call theirs "DCS" because of that.
ED intends DCS to be a brand regardless of who actually makes the modules, but obviously people are going to equate DCS = ED at this point. Perhaps they need to rethink that and instead make a new term like the worn-out "HD" for it.
Eg you have the DCS Black Shark 2 HD, DCS A-10C HD, DCS Flaming Cliffs 3, DCS P-51D HD, DCS Combined Arms, MiG-21bis HD, UH-1H HD, and so on. That way people see DCS = ED and HD = A-10C-level modeling even if ED isn't making it.
Obviously using "HD" sucks, it's merely a quick example of how to differentiate the 4 levels of products which are right now ED's DCS and non-DCS level and 3rd party DCS and non-DCS level.
Most of the non-ED DCS modules have strong ties to ED as I understand it, either related groups or involving lots of cooperation.
I see what you mean Jedi. I like DCS to refer to the interoperable framework. They could add (and strongly suggest others add) a simply "By _____" after the title. DCS Huey by ____.
Originally Posted by Krebs20 Any chance we could have the music file? I would like to have it! Maybe include it with the UH-1 install as a bonus?
No problem! Attached Files UH-1H_Music_128-441.zip (3.89 MB, 39 views)
EvilBivol-1 confirm UH-1H have AFM (Advanced Flight model)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexx78 Huey will have Standart Flight Model or AFM?
The long answer:
Quote:
Quote: Helicopter velocity is determined using primitive equations that calculate the forces and moments not only at the fuselage center of gravity (CG), but also acting on the turning rotors, the blades of which undergo flapping motions. This makes it possible to model all of the dynamic effects specific to helicopter flight.
The aerodynamic forces acting on the helicopter model are derived as a summation of its individual element parameters: main and tail rotors, fuselage, vertical fin, horizontal stabilizer, pylons, landing skids. Each of these elements is positioned and orientated individually within the airframe local coordinate system and has its own aerodynamic characteristics.
The aerodynamic characteristics of each model element are pre-calculated with special software using numerical methods. In determining the forces and moments acting on the main and tail rotors, the calculations include the axial and longitudinal components of airflow speed, blade pitch, rotor angular velocity, airflow parameters, and blade inertia characteristics.
The aerodynamic forces acting on each model element are determined according to its calculated characteristics in its own coordinate system. This includes local airflow velocity changes in the vicinity of the element as induced by other model elements.
Each element has a damage/destruction capacity that affects the lifting and center of gravity calculations of the model. Damage can be affected either by aerodynamic forces or by physical contact with the ground or other objects. Ground and object contact is modeled using a system of rigid body points. This was written by a Ph.D. responsible for the Huey dynamics model, which is way above my head, so I may not have translated everything correctly yet. WIP for our new product page.