Posts by Ozav8r

    Hi again - sorry for the delay, have been away from my SimPit. I am using NextLevelRacing Platform Manager ver. Earlier versions used to have 2 AFS2 profiles, but this has now been brought back to the single one included with Platform Manager. I have reduced both Roll Rate Intensity and Pitch Rate Intensity to 0.5, and that has reduced some of the "jerkiness". The update rate however remains vastly inferior to what we saw prior to telemetry was removed with the R22 release. It is vastly better in the other sims, but I have pretty much given up on trying to get IPACS interested in sorting it out. The answer thay gave me was that the "the telemetry output that worked perfectly before the R22 release, was never meant to work at all, and so had to be removed as it could interfere with some "other" function." I haven't given up hope that they will eventually re-instate proper telemetry output, but it is not for me to set their development priorities. I would happily pay for this if they would provide support of motion platform, and pulled back from an investment in a commercial setup with a 6-axis motion platform, after it became obvious that any support was not forthcoming. It's a shame, cause AFS2 could be a brilliant commercial helicopter VR-sim, but without adequate telemetry support, it is not credible. Hope you get some satisfaction out of the motion in AFS2,

    Best regards - Eivind

    Hi Marco - I’m away from my computer, but will get back to you in the next couple of days with the settings I currently fly under, including version of the NextLevel Software etc.. It “kinda” works for the moment, even though the update rates are very noticeably slower than X-plane and the others. I really never got any satisfactory answers on IPACS plans with regard to motion telemetry output, going into the future. I think there is a possibility they may include this option in a a “Pro-version” of the sim, but that is largely conjecture on my behalf, and I’m not trying to start a rumour. I’ll get back to you at first opportunity.

    Best regards - Eivind

    The current EC135 that we have been given by IPACS is a superb model, and I hope my request is not seen as a child that was given a bike for his birthday, and now cries because he wanted a different colour. I don’t think anyone had any expectation that the next aircraft model developed by the IPACS team should be a freebie, and we all understand that you need to monetise the ongoing development and support work within the sim-platform. The thing though, is that as we have access to the (payed add-on) of a brilliant Himalaya mountain scenery, with a liberal inclusion of helipads at strategic locations (including Everest Basecamp) there is an unfulfilled need to go and explore it with a helicopter. I was really hoping that the EC135 would be that helicopter and I am merely trying to build an argument that it COULD be, without spoiling the REALISM of the current model, by adding engine power or reducing the modelled weight (or a combination of both). I’m certainly not expecting anyone at IPACS to jump up and humour every request or whim we have, so I’ve just put it out there for your consideration, hoping that you might see the logic in the request. I will certainly continue to enjoy all the other good aspects of the sim.

    Cheers - Eivind

    As shown in the attached sales blurb from Airbus Helicopters, the T3/P3 can hover in ground effect at 13.300’ at MTOW. I don’t have access to a Flight Manual for the EC135, but it wouldn’t be stretching “reality” too much that hover in ground effect could also take place at Everest Basecamp, elevation 17.598’ at a significantly lower weight! Basic Empty Weight for the T3/P3 is only 1.482kg, so with a 80 kilo pilot and a fuel load of 400 kilos, you could model the EC135 at an operational weight below 2.000 kilos, a full 1 Tonne below MTOW. I would bet the EC135 would easily Hover in Ground Effect at that weight, with the power output of the P3 model.

    C’mon IPACS - I really urge you not to dismiss this suggestion - it would allow us to fly the brilliant EC135 in the best mountain scenery and the YouTube scenery generated by the enthusiasts would drive new customers to the sim. It’s a win-win!

    I totally get (and appreciate) the quest to be "realistic" but - the thing is, we have great base-sim in AFS2, with a superb add-on in the EC135. The aftermarket scenery for Lukla and Everest Park is the most immersive mountain scenery of any platform, with dozens of helipads. It's just that we have no way of combining the 3. Could you not indulge us with a version of the EC135 with beefed up engines and transmission, that make this playground available to us? Or, perhaps a way to reduce the weight of the helicopter to a minimum, so that a solo pilot with minimum fuel onboard could have a play up at altitude? I'm not having a whinge and I totally appreciate the work you guys do. This is just long-time customers feedback and request for some lee-way with the quest for realism, as it is after all targeted at consumers. As far as I have been able to ascertain - you do not currently sell a Professional version to the flight training industry, but when (or if) you do, let me know, as I'd very much like to invest in and buy such a product.

    Thanks again.

    I am continuously blown away by the new EC135 that we now have to play with. It is a superb model and will drive heli / VR enthusiasts to the AFS2 platform in droves. I have but one simple request, after having put it to work out of Lukla - an engine upgrade, or alternatively an option to reduce weight. What would be a superb platform to use on missions up to Everest basecamp (or beyond) is simply put - to anemic to be of much use at these altitudes. We really need a helicopter that is able to hover in ground effect up at basecamp, something the EC135 is currently unable to do. Which brings me to the question in the thread title - can we possibly get a P3 version of the EC135 with the the upgraded PW206B3 engines? These engines are putting out 528kW (708 shp) (TOP rating) to improve the high altitude capabilities, or - alternatively - could we get an option to ditch unnecessary weight to improve the performance? I fully realize that this is no Llama (nor did you set out to create one), but with the superb Mountain scenery for the Himalayas (with helipads Galore), we really need a chopper that can fly up there. So please, preddy please - give us an engine upgrade?8o

    At the moment the height above ground for the ground effect is sampled at one point, which is why it jumps up when you fly over an edge. But that's the same in the R22 and not a new issue.

    Thanks for the response Jan. I appreciate that it is not a new issue, but the perceived effect on the EC135 is larger - by a big margin - than I have ever experienced it to be on the R22. I love the R22 as well and my post above is only attempted to be constructive commentary and not a criticism.

    Best - Eivind

    First of all - congratulations to the IPACS team for pulling off the massive feat that the EC135 represents! I am in awe of the whole team for bringing this modern helicopter to the community, as an INCLUDED aircraft in the AFS2! This simulator now represents the best VR-heli experience available to the casual home user and I bet it will drive a horde of new users to the platform.

    There is just one thing I would like the team to have another look at in the flight model - the rather large difference in lift between Hover In Ground Effect (IGE) and Hover OUT of Ground effect (OGE)? As it currently is - when approaching a landing and getting within what the flight model defines as being IN ground effect the increase in lift is massive and there is no "ramp up". For instance - when slowly moving forward from an "OUT of ground effect hover, for instance when approaching almost in level flight towards the roof of a high-rise building. When approximately half the rotor diameter is over the roof surface, there is no warning or "build-up" of an increase in lift, but it is very noticeable that the flight modelling suddenly changes a single parameter, and the helicopter "lurches" into the air, requiring an immediate large reduction in collective. I am a professional (fixed-wing mind you, so the hover "purists" may well argue it hardly counts;-)) pilot and fully realize that there is SOME difference and I also totally understand that the developers are aware of this and have included it in the modelling. My request however, is that they look again at the WAY this is modeled and - if possible - have a look at a more sophisticated and gradual build-up of lift, when translating into a steady Hover IN Ground Effect. At a very minimum the difference in lift provided between IGE and OGE should be reduced.

    And just to re-iterate - this is a very minor issue, and does NOT detract from what I believe is the best and most sophisticated rotary wing expereince available to the home enthusiasts!:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

    Very intriguing project! I’m really impressed with your vision and understanding of what matters most in VR, i.e. geographic location of controls, levers, knobs, switches and buttons. The modular approach is just perfect to allow individual adaptation of different aircraft. Well done - I’ll be watching the ongoing development of this with great interest!

    Fantastic - as it always rains there (in Bergen) , it will remain a bit “unrealistic” until we get a proper weather engine in AFS2, but I love your work - scenery is stunning!!!

    I had the same problem and solved it by ensuring I get some forward speed before applying full collective/throttle to prevent the spin. I assumed the tail rotor does not have sufficient authority to prevent the helicopter spinning under the torque of full collective and throttle.

    Correct - if you pull full collective in this machine your engines have gone WAAY into an over-torquing situation and there will not be any way you can stop the yawing to the right. Keep a close eye on the engine gauge as you pull collective - it’ll go into the “Yellow Arc” first and then “Red Line” shortly thereafter.

    Looks amazingly good, if flight dynamics are developed with the same care and understanding as your venerable R22, this helicopter will drive rotary wing sim-pilots to AFS2 in droves!! Hoping also for the option of cold and dark - or not, for quick spurts of hovering delights!!!

    Also - any idea which direction you are planning to continue covering the Orthos? Bergen and Voss areas including Sognefjorden are incredibly scenic, and perhaps Jotunheimen and Dovrefjell?

    Whichever way you go - we all appreciate it very much!

    Doohh!, red squares on the map, means they are not yet covered. That makes sense, and I feel really dumb I didn’t realise it in the first place. Ahh well, wouldn’t be the first time.....

    Your generous contribution is very much appreciated - I did make a donation to after the firs Lofoten release, but time to chip in a few more bucks then!

    Thanks a lot!

    Just wanted to say a big thanks to Hartman for all the work you are putting into making my country of birth, such an enjoyable place to fly in using AFS2! I have now downloaded and installed all the Norwegian content - Lofoten, Bardufoss, Bodo and Southern Norway, and it is just incredible to experience it, in all it's glory in wide field-of-view VR at 90 FPS! So, first of all - let me know where and how I can show my appreciation with a PayPal donation or otherwise. And a couple of questions, if I may. Can you make a chart for Southern Norway where you show the numbering "tiles" of ALLthe scenery produced, so that one can get a grasp of what is available and what is yet to come? Also wondering - flying with the cultivation in the Northern Parts is even much more enjoyable so, is there a plan to build cultivation for Southern Norway at some point? I had great fun finding the house where I grew up, just a few hundred meters south of the threshold of ENHA and it was huge fun to circle there, but from up close it was of course very obvious that you were flying on top of a "photograph" of the real world, and the presence of some buildings and structures would have made it even better!

    Anyways - thanks again - truly appreciate your work!!!