JACN

I keep thinking if ED gives us a standard trim system (aircraft like) as an alternative substituting the current force trim switch, the controllability issues many of us are experiencing would be, at the very least, atenuated. Of course, unrealistic, but what really matters is having an as much smooth, predictable and controllable helicopter as the real thing. With our standard hardware, the result is quite the opposite, unfortunately. You can get used to it and master it, but the resulting handling will be (always) a degraded version of the real ah-64.

I agree, with some practice you can get used to it. The point here is the actual ah-64 trim force is not what we have in non-FFB devices (having pedal FFB is also important). The actual system clamps or freeze the hardware position...in springs hardware there is a time lapse (0.5 - 1 second?) in which you have to release your control hardware to meet the new zero position (all centred)...it´s all about what happens in that 0.5 and 1 second transition. In the real helo (or 100% FFB hardware) you can do it whatever/whenever you want (hover, transition,cruise...) as there is ALWAYS a continuous followup in the hardware position and the pilot commands. On the other hand, in spring-loaded devices ("dumb" devices) you need to be quick and trained in the hardware recentering transition that never happens in the real helicopter. Again, that small and many times unpredictable (...specially under high workload situations) reaction is what is killing the handling. Maybe the implementation of the rest of AP modes (att hold) will help.

Hi, While unrealistic, could it be possible to implement a standard trim system as an additional option?: Pitch, roll, yaw. I think this would fix all trim issues for everyone. At the end of the day, the point is to make the ah-64 as much realistic as possible, but if the hardware 75-90% users have does not allow applying such FCS realism, the result is quite the opposite: poor/degraded handling qualities and controllability. Again, I strongly believe allowing a standard (i.e. f-14) trim system will make more enjoyable the experience and more "similar" to the easiness of flying the ah-64. Fighting (erratically) against control springs and a trim system conceptually very differently born, is not the solution. In my opinion. Please ED, consider implementing an aircraft standard trim system as an additional option. Thanks

Thanks for your efforts and professional attitude. It is really appreciated by your community.

Great. Thanks for the evidences. I just tested the mission a couple of times after the patch and my feeling was that no changes were made in the AI. So good news. Thanks!

I have verified it only with wingmen, but I suspect it's happening also with other F-14 flights as I don't see a single AIM-54 being shot. As I said, if missions and campaigns need to be edited for a correct AIM54 use (by forcing a "canned" use)...something is not correct with the default AIM54 AI management.

Hi, The mission is "HB F14A Kish Kat Attack" and the missile engagement range is set to random between max range and NEZ. I think AI should be launching missiles "randomly" between both zones. Well, it is not happening and AI is using them as AIM-9 (when not being shot down well before reaching such close range)...so, the AI AIM54 employment is broken, specially if you have to force the use instead of AI using them in a more random/clever way, by default.

Good to know, thanks. I'm using them in a f-14A default missions (don't recall the mission name). But, does it mean all missions have to be edited?. What about campaigns?. I would expect the AI using them in a smart way, by default, instead of than having to "script" the use.

Oh. I understood from the patch release note that the AI AIM54 use was fixed. It looks like my F-14 will keep grounded

Is this issue finally fixed in the last patch?. I would say it's not, as I still see my wingman refusing to launch his 54's at long distance (he's asked to attack targets!) and entering a dogfight with all AIM54 missiles attached. Cheers,

I really hope so. Seeing the nice and realistic vapor effects of the F-16 being displayed when manoeuvering at 35,000ft over a desert scenery is killing all the realism inmersion achieved with them at lower altitudes.

Hi, I have noticed that all aircraft vapor visual effects on wings, lex, etc.. remain constant in intensity disregard the altitude. As the effect physics is dependant on atmosphere humidity (amongst others) and atmos humidity strongly decays with altitude, I think some attenuation with altitude should be applied. Actually, I'm not sure if any vapor should be seen while manoeuvering at very high altitude (i.e. 30,000ft) and in a clean day. Now the visuals are the same as at 0ft on sea. As example of it, there are several high altitude spin tests. The only vapor seen there is from the engines contrails: Cheers, A.

Yes, I got the replies I was asking for from him and HB team. Thanks,

Hi, I´m getting a CTD everytime the FFB feature is enabled in the miscel menu. I know the "unofficial" Thrustmaster drivers needed to make it work under windows10 are rather problematic in other sims like P3D or MSFS2020...but I have no issues with the (great) FS Force external application in P3D. My question is this: is anybody using this hardware with DCS?. If so, is there any way to make the FFB feature work with it?. Thanks in advance,

Great!. I have not tested it, actually few flight hours on the F-14. But, sorry for asking, is your statement confirmed by developers (perhaps you belong to the HB team.. ?). Thanks!

Hi, First of all, congratulations and thanks for the impressive F-14 recreation!. I have a question related to the aerodynamics effects of external stores: are they modeled?. I assume they are not, at least in terms of aircraft stability and control impact. I´ve read that you´re working on a more realistic drag model for external stores configurations (fuel tanks and under fuselage weapons, right?). So, my question is if you have planned to include some directional stability degradation due to external stores as points the Natops. Yes, I am fully aware how difficult is to do it without real data....but, according to real jet flight manual, perhaps some (and always conservative) CNb reduction could be implemented with increasing Drag Index numbers. For sure it will not yield the exact jet behaviour...but definitely it will be closer than a 0 directional stability effects version...like the current one?. Apparently, the Natops states that it is not the result of a single store but the addition of several ones...and so my suggestion of a DI correlation and incremental approach. Probably, former F-14 pilots could help tweaking it by providing valuable info on more critical configurations. Best regards,

Will this mod be compatible with ED´s next patch?. It´s supposed they will tweak some AI engagement behaviours there.

Definitely, ED should look into this in their next patches. Although SAM threats can be *easily* handled by human piloted aircrafts, it results absolutely frustrating and disastrous for the rest of the AI flight... :( Álvaro

I do believe something that easy would help A LOT against manpads, aswell as some restriction in the maverick use. It would be great if minimum maverick distance to the target could be commanded to the flight. Right now the flight keep their track firing mavs until they almost end above the target and at very low altitude. Then they start a quite stupid break manouvre which only further delays their *hot-zone*egression, bleeding at the same time all their energy in an useless turn which leaves them without true manoeuvring capability against a SAM. Aside, reaching this point, and given the proximity to the threat, it would be better if they´d try to overfly at higher speed the target or try to climb for a safer altitude instead of that useless high energy bleed turn. All in all, those aditional "escape" manoeuvres are observed in the DSMS setup... Álvaro

Hi, Any hint about using flight (and wingman) to attack a target defended by iglas/stingers?. I´ve found *quite* easy to handle my flight to deal with -the easier to spot- SAM armour threads...but SAM manpads are always a nightmare for them since always almost all the flight result badly damaged or downed at the begining of the attack. I think ED should improve the flight AI on this respect or at least (a good improvement I think) giving us the chance to force the flight to employ a minimum safe altitude (3000-5000 ft). I´ve not found such possibility in the comms menu and once a flight member attempts even a *stand-off* missile attack they are hit because their altitude at the end of the run is too low and well inside the manpads range. Aside, I´ve seen they use very poor CMS tactics, since they drop few flares and at a very low rate. And I´m talking about high skills flight... A little desperated here :( Álvaro

Any good news about fps in advance?

Making the most of what my partner has mentioned. SE Superbug still is not the highest standard in realism FSX can offer since our PRO version development is in (good) progress and will use a 100% custom Flight Dynamics Engine, which basically will mean: no realism limitation. The limit will be the data used in the aerodynamic model and Control Laws (real Hornet code based, btw)...and of course the PC computational capability. But so far, you do not have to worry about this.:smilewink: Please, for *informed* discussion about VRS products...please, go to www.vrsimulations.com. Thanks Álvaro PS: our apologizes to ED for the interference.

Patch v.1.0.4.x released! :) Álvaro

;) Álvaro

Upgrade payware Aside of a completely new and -WAY- more advanced Flight Model (Aerodynamic data-set and Flight Control Laws) it will include aditional features as is ACL and systems/avionics upgrades. Álvaro