Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

209 Excellent

About KingGhidorah

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

2,010 profile views
  1. Good to hear there is an upcoming "Bill" USA voice. Getting a little tired of Trav! To gpbarth: I have used FS2Crew in the past, but then became a full on MCE user. Flexibility, customizeability, and customer support are the big things. You find a bug or even request a feature, FS++ listens. I will echo certain sentiments said before about FS2Crew being comparitively rigid. I believe it is set up intentionally to ignore all but "appropriate" commands for any given phase of flight, plus the way you phrase something typically has to be exactly by the book with no variation. On the other hand with MCE, I can order the FO to do whatever I want with a large variety of phrasings, and not every flight has to follow the exact protocol of a real world commercial flight. In this way, I can have a copilot who does exactly what I want even if I'm flying the NGX around the field like a VFR Cessna, and there are no onscreen GUI's or mouseclicks needed to get the FO to know which phase of flight we're in. Only drawback I see is that because of the variation that MCE is capable of, it's voices are more dynamically constructed and therefore a little robotic sounding compared to FS2Crew. I like FS2Crew, it is very well done, but MCE just suits my needs better. Buy once, have all the good planes supported, including PMDG MD-11, and even be able to effectively interface with atc without have to mouse over selections as you are landing. I think MCE is of the best cost/value purchases in all of flight simulation, right up there in the same league with the likes of Ezdok, ASN, and TrackIR. And flying a multicrew airliner just doesn't feel right now without it.
  2. So this visibility distance issue that Rodd brought up on the previous page has now been fixed?
  3. Thanks for that Jcomm! As it is now, since the trees are just a texture, you can't hide behind the trees from enemy fire, negating a lot of nape of earth style tactics, nor is there really any real danger of going into a tight LZ because you never have to worry about your rotors hitting the trees. So I think that the planned addition of collideable trees just adds in a little extra realism there. It would be even better if they let us use the rotor of our Huey as an inverted lawnmower to actually chop down small tree trunks!
  4. I like the news of collidable trees
  5. I know your question is how to have these in Topcat, but if you don't mind me asking, don't you think you should be using the manual tables to calculate your V speeds anyway? I mean you have a one page sheet, you know how much you weigh, so does it really matter what Topcat would say anyway?
  6. Coming in as fast as those guys are talking about, and then pitching up like that in the last 10 feet seems like a perfect prescription for a tail strike. If the approach is shallow, it seems a lot easier to do than if you are also screaming earthward at near 1000 fpm right up until the last couple feet. And of course when you have to pull the collective that much, the helicopter is going to yank to one side (I always seem to be late on the pedals to counter that). I wonder how there can be such a wide variation of opinion among real helicopter pilots on the proper generalized technique to approach and land!
  7. Jcomm, I've been doing more reading about helicopter flying, and you might be right about the technique of coming into ground effect with speed on the Mi-8. And perhaps that is best for the Huey too. It has to do with the Height-Velocity diagram, which tells you the speed altitude combos that you should avoid in case of engine failure and the need to autorotate. The way I've been flying the Huey seem really wussy, if you want to stay out of the H-V danger areas. If you want to stay out of the danger area, we are talking about having around 40 knots at 10 feet, and then bleeding that off in the last couple of seconds with a massive pitch up. The H-V curves for helicopters definitely apply to takeoff, but in the discussions I've been reading, it seems that even real helicopter pilots can't agree on how much it applies to landing approaches. see this: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/404194-safest-final-approach-4.html I thought I was doing pretty good with normal (10 deg) and steep (15 deg) approaches, but now I'm considering the idea that I've been bleeding off speed way too early and too high. I was starting my decelerations from as high as 300 feet from 60 knots. It's going to take me a lot more practice to be able to scream towards the ground at 40 to 50 knots and then yank off that speed in the last 20 feet. That seems like a combat cowboy landing, not a "normal" way of making a landing approach. Some of the helicopter pilots, like in the link above, act like this is just a normal responsible thing to do, staying out of the "dead man's curve" of the H-V diagram virtually all the way to the ground, but there is not a consensus. It flies in the face of other advice I've read that helicopter approaches should be flown at the pace of an apparent fast walk. Always more to learn!
  8. This looks great. How's the flight model coming, and will you have real bo-105 pilots involved in it's creation?
  9. It can be an expensive proposition I know, but I'm convinced José, that one of the key elements of flying a simulated helicopter is to have 12 or 16 bit precision on your controllers, especially the collective. Sometimes the required inputs are so precise that I tell myself not to move the control, but to only think about moving the control, and to get that kind of precision I just don't know that your typical 16380 to -16380 controller provides the needed granularity.
  10. You shouldn't have to José. In my learning of flying simulated helicopters, I've come across many times that an ideal approach culminates in exactly 0 airspeed simultaneous to arriving at your hover in ground effect altitude. If done perfectly, it should require little or no extra flare to bleed off airspeed, because there shouldn't be any remaining. Don't forget about landing into the wind either. After reading your post above, I went and tried a couple of vertical descents from a hover at 50 feet. There were no particular problems with falling into VRS. It did require a very gentle and precise touch on the collective, because the tendency to overcontrol is ever-present. My theory is that the tendency to overcontrol the collective on the Mi-8 is slightly more than on the Huey, just because the bigger helicopter has more inertia, and it's easier to get on the bad side of the power curve. What are you using for your collective lever? Is it possible that your collective lever doesn't have enough precision?
  11. I didn't see any discussions that aided me on the DCS forums, but what I eventually found in the draft manual was "perform a glideslope approach at 120 kph. At an altitude of 100 m, smoothly pull the cyclic aft to begin reducing forward airspeed to attain 60-50kph at an altitude of 60-50m." Somewhere else in the draft manual it defines a "power on glidelope descent" as 120-180kph, and 3-5 m/sec descent. So at 120 kph and -3 m/s, that works out to a little over a 6 degree descent (65 knots, -590 fpm). Without any other reference, I guess that is as close to a definition of standard as I'll get. That is really quite shallow according to most of the generic western references I've been reading about helicopter flying, and being at 60 kph, 60m (32 knots,196 feet) is more conservative than I would have thought. I feel a bit better about flying it now though, because with a big doggy helicopter like the Mil, I was getting frustrated trying to do some of the things that are considered standard on the Huey and other helicopters. A 6 degree descent is definitely doable with my eyepoint, especially at those speeds.
  12. I have a procedural question. What is considered a "standard" approach profile in the Mi-8? In the UH-1, and I think the Bell 206 (which I have for FSX), they are always talking about entering into a 10 degree approach at 60 knots, say from 300 feet. And from there, the pilot adjusts his approach such that the LZ appears to approach at the pace of a fast walk. In the Mi-8, though, you have rotors tilted forward such that in order to decelerate you have to have the nose 10-15 degrees above the horizon, and also a panel that hides the direct forward view much more so than in typical western helicopters. For the Mi-8, because of the view over the nose alone, a 10 degree approach angle, much less a "steep" approach of 15 or more, seems very difficult. I think that my eyepoint above the panel is more or less what is realistic (head slightly below the level of the gunsight such that you have to sit up in the seat to see the center of the reticle). I want a base technique to build upon so that I can learn to fly the Mi-8 as aggressively as I have learned to fly the Huey. What do experienced Mi-8 people consider "standard?"
  13. Rodd, what visibility issue are you referring to? You mean how, with a reasonable FOV, you can't see anything more than 2 or 3 nm out without labels?
  14. Anyone have the Hawk or the C101 and would recommend either of them?
  15. For $16 I don't know that you really "lose out", it all depends on what level you're going for. Some of the DCS planes are so complex that they verge on intimidating and even discouraging at times, so to say that I've heard the FCS planes are simplified by comparison doesn't mean they are simple.
  • Create New...