I think Ice was probably referring to their stated involvement with the F-18. Could be wrong, though, since this is typing, and assuming usually doesn't work out well.

I admittedly own all Belsimtek modules except the Mig-15, but really only fly the Huey regularly, and Mi-8 off and on. Just curious which ones aren't modeled right?

I presume he means the exhaust gasses not being modeled yet.

Nate

If you're talking about EGT effects on engine performance due to overuse of a transient limit (ie on the Huey, being in the 610 to 625 degree range for more than 30 minutes), then yes, I realize the sim imposes no penalty. The problem is, if they do model some sort of engine damage because of breaking this limit, we're talking about something that's a bit nebulous. The engine doesn't just break/quit/gradually lose power when you get to 00:30:01 on the clock. That time limit is built in to save long term wear on engine components. Only the manufacturer knows the true limit of the engine, and even that varies from s/n to s/n, I'm sure.

I'm not a Huey pilot, so I'll use a different example: if they(Eagle Dynamics, Belsimtek, etc.) made an H-60A where an engine died/gradually lost power/broke when hitting 00:30:01 on the clock at 850 degrees TGT, I would call BS, because I know it can do more. They problem is, maintenance and the commander wouldn't be happy because the aircraft would be down until the engine was inspected. They may, or may not find anything wrong. And if it was a brand new engine (what we get in just about any sim whenever we click 'Fly'), I would wage a lot of money on them not finding anything wrong.

Anyway, short story long, I agree, there is no modeling of engine damage due to exceeding EGT limits on the Huey, or Mi-8 that I'm aware of. However, at least engine power limits are modeled (ie, rotor droop when exceeding what the engine can do gross weight wise).

I've digressed far enough from the main topic. Excited about an Mi-24 from these guys. If it's as good as the other helos they've done, I'm sure it will be fun. Kind of wish they would have waited until it was close to release to make an announcement, though.

Heloguy,

I agree 100% on the 00:30:01 statement. What I have a problem with is:
Hot summer day in Nevada, I can load to 10,000lbs, two guys in the back with 134's, 100% fuel, 100% ammo, Rockets and Miniguns. Take off from Nellis, Torque at 45, Gas Producer 98%-99%, Gov blip increased to max, run it to the threshold of the Low Rotor RPM warning just about to scream which raises the EGT to 750°C to 760°C. Fly like this until low fuel. That is a lot longer than 00:30:01






Modeled:

Maybe Heloguy can answer since I am not a pilot. When I Practice Auto-Rotations in the UH-1H, I shut off the fuel. The RPM Needles(Engine and Rotor) stay glued together. Shouldn't the Engine go to near 0 and the Rotor fluctuate with the amount of collective?





I agree 100%.

Which brings up a sore point with me.
Mi-24P Crew: 2–3: pilot, weapons system officer and technician (optional)
F-4E Crew 2

On the Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop, for both the UH-1H & Mi-8MTV2, the language of "Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update" has been removed.

Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop UH-1H
Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop Mi-8MTV2

At the Belsimtek site, they still have "Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update" listed.

Belsimtek UH-1H
Belsimtek Mi-8MTV2

I bought UH-1H on 30-04-2013
I bought Mi-8MTV2 on 05-09-2013
Where is Co-Operative Multi-Player Multicrew after 4 years?
95% of my purchase decision for UH-1H & Mi-8MTV2 was Co-operative multi-player flight with humans in the different positions. I would have bought 2 more of each(total of three copies each) to run on different computers at home on a LAN for friends that come over so we could Multicrew.

No more Belsimtek products(F-4E nor Mi-24P) for me until they finish what they promised 4 years ago.

If Belsimtek being a Eagle Dynamics Partner, have extra staff to start on F4, Mi-24, and F-18C how about finishing what you promised customers first. In my opinion, even before working on F-18C

Thank you,
Monnie

Yeah, this is extreme. Hopefully whatever they come up with as 'the gray area' isn't too conservative. That is what I'm worried about.



Yes, the engine's free power turbine (N2) should decelerate well below the rotor speed if the engine is shut off during an autorotation, unless the free-wheeling unit is malfunctioning (probably not in DCS). Try initiating an auto by reducing the throttle to idle (this is how it is practiced IRL), or by shutting it off with the throttle. I'm unable to test it now, but I thought this did make the needles split the last time I tried it. At any rate, the needles splitting would just be a visual effect anyway. Whether they split or not, if the engine quits, you have to autorotate.

As far as the rotor RPM fluctuating or not, it should. If the engine is shut down, try increasing the collective to max, and you should see a major decrease in RPM. The Huey rotor system has notoriously high inertia (even the composite blades, compared to newer helicopters).

If there is no decrease in RPM, then the engine is not shut down. This would either be because there is still fuel in the lines, and DCS is modeling that, or it's a bug. The engine would indeed not quit immediately when the fuel valve is closed, and it would continue to burn what fuel is between the valve and engine, which would take some time (not sure how much, but couldn't be more than 10-20 seconds). With this in mind, the engine RPM would not decrease until the fuel was starved completely.

Thanks Monnie.

No money to be found in that.

I bet the pre-release alphaBeta mayhem we see today is there for a reason.
Will folks stop pre-purchase stuff/promises?
Doesn't look like it, but if we do I bet we "the community" will be at blame for killing the genre, not the half-assed developers.

Wagner likes to point out "everything is subject to change" Monnie Rock has pointed out a big example of this "Where is Co-Operative Multi-Player Multicrew after 4 years? ". Once the sales have reached their high water mark, the "change" is development stops. The big sales pitch evaporates. The customer is left with a product that isn't what they paid for, and in Monnie Rocks case a product that has been paid for more than once.
Certain members of the community are just as guilty of the platform circling the drain as the Developers ED/3rd parties. Their misguided belief that they're helping the platform by supporting beta/alpha just encourages the developers to throw their resources into the next product while leaving the old product unfinished because its not financially viable to continue development as sales have peaked. When more folk refuse to purchase beta/alpha, especially on the DCS platform, until the previous products are finished, then and only then will things improve. With the "soon" to be released f-18 in development I can't see that happening. It's a high demand airframe and there are folk who've been waiting for it a long time. Same with the f-14, same with the F4/hind, high demand airframes that will distract from the issues with previous modules. "Oooh shiny new" Ed will be rubbing their hands together at the thought of the early access monies soon to be had from the hornet. Will all the systems be present at early access? I doubt it. Will they be finalized within 3-5 years? Who knows, everything is subject to change, and who knows what difficulties their other products may bring that will divert resources from the Hornet. Same can be said for the F-14, F-4 and Hind.
Stop encouraging this business practice, show some self restraint and stop purchasing early access/beta from a developer that clearly has little regard for their customers once the "confirm purchase" button has been pressed.

@Johnny_Redd's reply. +1

I've been TDY for the past 2 weeks and have reading the various site's reviews or comments on 1.5.7 FPS and memory issues and listening to crickets in regards to fixing 2.1.1

The sales pitch was made very well. However, the environment now is so broken, my optimism is quickly matching. If half of your users are experiencing any issues, then you've got some major problems. And then to have people chiming in with "I dont have any issues" only discourages and muddies the support chain.

So like so many others, I'm stuck at 1.5.6 in order to keep some playability. 2.1.1 is a disaster as deferred lighting makes it blindingly unusable and the FPS a slideshow.

I quit purchasing modules in Beta, and I quit purchasing modules from developers that disappointed me.

E.g. Even though I would like the Viggen, I'm not gonna buy it. Why? 'Cause I got burnt enough with the MiG-21.
BST? I bought the F-5 after reading many opinions that it was a good module and mostly bug free. I've been very disappointed with BST in the past, so they're "on probation" for me, but getting better since the F-5.

ED? To be honest, ED's airplane modules are good quality upon release, unfortunately they #%&*$# them up later on and never fix things that are broken (see Ka-50, A-10, P-51).

Stop buying stuff upfront and throw 60 bucks in the bin. Make sure the product is good, research and if all seems ok buy. They are a business, not a church. If they don't provide good products, customers should flee, not pay more.

Indeed, the incentive to do any more work diminishes after the first round of sales. Most people will buy only one copy of the module; a rare few will buy two or three copies to either gift to someone else or to use for a server. So why continue pouring 100% of your resources/manpower when you can only expect to sell only a few more copies? Why not divert that resources/manpower into something that will sell another thousand or so of copies?

Makes sense in the business standpoint, but really, they're only shooting themselves in the foot with this practice. I bought the A10C during Beta because I flew the A10A in FC3. I bought BS2 when it came out as "support" for ED; I wasn't really much of a rotorhead and all previous helos I've flown were American-side in EECH/EEACH, namely the Apache and the Commanche, but I bought BS2 to support the devs. I'm glad I didn't do more after that..... one or two of the guys I was flying with bought Combined Arms but AFAIK, it never materialized to what they thought they could do with that module.

Looking forward to the Hind! Will buy it if/when multi crew is in and working.

Until then me and a friend are having a blast in the Gazelle. Just bought a Rift on the summer sale and that will probably double the fun despite beeing 1st Gen headsets. 399US/449 EUR is a bargain. Touch controllers, taxes and UPS shipping included.

Currently, Belsimtek is the only developer I really buy easily from, and both the Mi-24P and F-4E are easily among the things I want the MOST in DCS, so I'll probably buy shortly after they are available, but will probably shy away from prepurchasing as well.

They did have a spotty record on delivering features and fixing things at first, but they've mostly come clean these days, not entirely may be, but they have improved a lot. As for the other devs, yeah, like others said, it is "carefully watch first from a safe distance, then consider carefully, than watch some more, and then may be buy" for me.

But Hind and Phantom are two things I can hardly resist at all, and I do have faith in Belsimtek, so I'll likely keep my surveillance period short on these modules .

A bit of an update on the E Phantom, "straight from the horse's mouth":
https://belsimtek.com/news/1787/

Looks like we're set up for the '80s suite of systems on that bird.

Nice! Any word how they're going to implement the guy in the back (RIO)?

AIM9 AIM7
Bombs AGM65 AGM45 GBU15
Optical Search n Slave Device
FLIR targeting pod (AN/AVQ-26)
Automatic landing approach(?)

just ....wow!
didnt know F-4 was a multirole fighter with such an advanced device equipped.
MP is gonna be hella fun

Hopefully one of the ways is with a real person. After reading "Scream of the Eagles" I can't imagine playing without this option. I also hope that the current third party development procedure doesn't prohibit collaboration on features within DCS. I know that Heatblur has talked about RIO AI with the F-14. It would be nice if there isn't a huge disparity between modules due to "trade secrets."

would have been fun to have the naval version though.....

I was wondering if it was going to be a Vietnam era F-4E or a mid 80s variant. Good to know about the AGM-65.