b00ce

More progress with the Huey, got busy with work and didn't have the energy to work on helicopters after spending 10 hours of working on helicopters. Needless to say, progress is slow.

Awwe yeah! Who needs anything else when you have aviators? ;)

Especially because the aviators are still not available in LEA...:lookaround:

Even when you're prone with something as small as an M-249, your eyeballs rattle inside your head to the point you can hardly see what you're shooting. Definitely downloading this. :D

Disables them if you're lucky. You have to get a REALLY good hit in at exactly the right spot to take the bits and bobs that matter out.

It was intended as an anti-material gun, but there's only so much you can do with 30mm. It irritates me when people promote the notion that the 30mm on the A-10 is somehow able to penetrate better than every other 30mm on the planet. Yes, the plane was designed around the gun, and the gun was designed for an anti-material role, but that still doesn't make it able to penetrate thick armor like a hot knife through warm butter. The only parts of a T-62 the 2000 round/min hell storm of depleted uranium and high explosive will penetrate are the engine, barrel and the bottom. Like I said, there is a reason that main battle tanks use 100mm+ cannons to fight other tanks. The 30mm depleted uranium round does not have the length or velocity to penetrate tank armor like APFSDS does. The API round fired from the GAU-8 will penetrate a whopping 23/4 inches(69mm) of armor at 500m. I imagine that's perfectly perpendicular to the gun on the ground, once you start throwing angles into the mix (Which is every shot from the air), your penetration starts going way down. As for disabling the tank, the parts you'd be able to kill are the engine from behind, guns/optics(If you're lucky enough to get a good hit or two in), and MAYBE the tracks if you hit them enough. Beyond that is why the A-10 has a crap load of Mavericks and bombs. That being said, the GAU-8 should be able to make short work of APCs and IFVs.

Not really. You do realize that the GAU-8 isn't some wunderwaffen that cuts through tank armor like butter, right? There's a reason main battle tanks use 120mm and not 30mm. It'll damage an APC/IFV at best.

Would it be possible to drop some hints as to what exactly we can expect to see in terms of features that come along side the addition of RotorLib?

Mine has it on both front and back, though the seam for the lower band is only in the back , covered by the velcro name tape fuzz. That being said, I agree. Fantastic work.

Wow. Fantastic work with the hook Nod. I'll have to give your technique a try.

You can't just do a roll-on however fast you want, even in the real life. Anything over 100 kph in ArmA will kill you and/or your bird; which isn't terrible as far as helicopters go. As for the hitting poles thing, don't do that. Why would you complain that you damage your aircraft upon hitting things? The rotor does take damage, about on the same level as the fuselage. What "problem" are you talking about?

The rifles come from the factory with the sight in my picture. When my old company got shiny new M4s to replace their old M16a2s, they had the same sight on them.

Oh well, at least I can have an (almost) exact replica of my service rifle. Thanks man.

Would it be possible to tweak the front sight posts on the M4s and M16s? They aren't quite the right shape; it should taper and slowly curve outward instead of being a block and then dog legging all of the sudden. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u125/booce/IMG_20140519_123710_5091.jpg vs. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u125/booce/arma32014-05-2109-24-32-20.png A version of the M4 with the flip up sight that the "M16a4 Matech" has would be awesome too. The Army doesn't use the carry handle/rear sight anymore. Hats off to you and your team for all the hard work.

Never been to Rucker, I'm a crew chief. :p

I know that in days of old, as long as you were at least 1km away from any given target (Even the dreaded Tunguska) you were safe from detection. Sounds like some experimenting is in order.

Even before I played a lot of DCS' date=' the dead zone felt wrong and I flew like a drunken Michel J. Fox. and save my HOTAS for the real sims. Yep. lol See my new avatar.

I've tried that, it still doesn't feel right. The rudder and throttle axises are fine, though I get 0-100% in 50% of the throttle's range of motion.

How would it split the player base? And why are people so vehemently opposed to the "player base being split"? I feel like the proposed idea would only disadvantage pilots who use keyboard and mouse, such as myself. I have a TM Warthog and Pedals , but ArmA doesn't feel natural and I fly worse with them than with keyboard and mouse. And I've found this to not be a FM issue, rather a controller input issue, no matter what stick I use I have this issue of a retarded (Literally.) input dead-zone/curve. I have to move the stick 50% before I even start to see a change in attitude, no matter my game settings. I want all or nothing when it comes to the actual flight model, the ToH FM is better but it doesn't feel natural. Don't get me wrong, rolling wheels and working shock absorbers are a MUST, but I personally can live without Rotor Lib. Unless BIS fixes the curve issue so I'm not constantly making ham-fisted over corrections like a drunken jackass, I'll stick with the standard FM and keyboard/mouse. I think he does too. That's what I'm saying, the mixer will move the pedals and stick when you pull collective, even without SAS/BOOST and the AFCS running.

On helicopters with Mechanical mixing units (Mixer for short), "auto trim" is part of the linkages leading to the main & tail rotors. Mixers are mind bending feats of engineering, taking collective input and giving pedal input from it, as well as accounting for translating tenancy from the increased tail rotor pitch, and what ever other forces come into play due to each helicopter's unique set up. Not all helos have these though. That being said, FCS/FCC =/= Fly by Wire. All FbW does is remove the mechanical linkages from the aircraft, replacing them with electrical wires. It doesn't assist the pilot with anything, that's the FCS/FCC's job. Additionally, you can have FCS and mechanical linkages at the same time, the FCS takes effect through SAS servos. FCS = Flight Control System FCC = Flight Control Computer SAS = Stability Augmentation System

Even in the real life in an HH60M with active vibration control, crossing into ETL shakes quite a bit. You just don't "see" it as much because your focus isn't fixed to your head like it is in a computer game.

Well, it WAS made by Rock. ;)

The stabilator issue has been pretty much solved, but we still have the "Oh Sh!t" switch on the cyclic just in case. I haven't heard of a stab. malfunction in any recent times. The Mikes don't have Stab amps anymore, its controlled by the FCC now. I don't see how a purely fly by wire system would cut more than 20 lbs on a blackhawk though. The push rods and cables are pretty light weight. I really hope that we get at least rolling wheels/brakes and shock absorbers at a minimum; wind and IAS being a factor is also a must, ETL shudder would be a nice touch too. The direction of "thrust" changing with stick inputs independently of the acft body is another big issue for me. I really can't stress enough how important working shocks and rolling wheels/brakes are for aircraft. Please BIS, I beg of thee. I'm like super cereal. Seriously BIS.

The AFCS/Mechanical Mixing unit/SAS moves the controls for you and you can always override those inputs if you need to by moving the stick. The AFCS does not keep you within limitations, it merely helps the pilot account for various forces on the aircraft that are hard to predict like gusts of wind. The AFCS/SAS do a lot to aid the pilot, but they let the pilot fly and they don't work miracles. If a pilot messes up, the computers won't magically recover the aircraft for him; it won't keep him from overspeeding, over torquing, over temping, drooping the rotors, etc. etc. etc. Source: I fix and fly on HH-60Ms

I don't trust Fly by Wire for that reason. You don't get the feedback if something is malfunctioning, with mechanical linkages you feel if a servo is buggered or if the actual flight control is damaged. FCS/FCC scares me, that and Stab Amps dealing with ambient radio interference. I know computers too well to trust them with my life. And yet I do it anyway.