Leaderboard

DCS Screenshots (on Develop) Persian Gulf

Hi, pilots Flora. We have updated the main types of trees. Fields and trees of England: In England, the trees are oak (lat. Quércus), pyramidal poplar (lat. Pópulus nígra), ash (lat. Fraxinus) and this is our habitat Fields and trees of France: For France trees - birch (lat. Bétula), maple (lat. Ácer) , beech (lat. Fágus) Video recorded on PC: i7 7700K, 32Gb RAM, 3060 8Gb

I put the Oculus Quest on the table for a few minutes, and they got de-centered. Putting them on I got to behold the incredible details on the side of the seat. Wow!

As someone who actually does project management as a job IRL you don't have a public test build, you have a primary public release that you are releasing as WIP, and a backup stable build that your community barely touches. There are a wide variety of methods used by software firms to keep their open betas and test builds from becoming the primary version their customer's are using, in order to avoid this very issue. ED does pretty much exactly the opposite of that and spends all of it's marketing promoting the open beta releases while barely mentioning the stable version. As an extremely predictable result the primary product your customer base is consuming is the open beta, and that customer base is going to have some expectations of a base level of functionality. And honestly, it really doesn't matter what you think about it, what you label things, or how much you argue about it. Your customers have developed expectations as the very predictable result of decisions you've made in how you position the product, and they're going to be upset if you don't meet them. Telling them they're not allowed to be upset is just going to make them more upset; this is marketing 101 stuff. Positioning it as a WIP/Open Beta buys you a lot of leeway to have glitches or temporary downtime in functionality, but tapping the open beta sign at your power users when they're upset it's just straight not working for them anymore is not going to get you anywhere productive.

Final Adustments on the Bolts. null Adobe_Substance_3D_Painter_btEe6uT98P.mp4

DLSS = Deep Learning Super Sampling. Renders a Lower Resolution and uses Tensor/AI Algorithm to Filter, Clean, and Super Sample the image to desired resolution. DLSS Renders Low, and Super Samples Higher, DSR Renders High and Super Samples Lower. If you think DLSS is the answer, Set DCS to Render 1280x720P, Launch a Mission and see if your FPS Problems are fixed, I guarantee they aren't, as I run a DCS 720 Window'd profile for deep testing, and there's no FPS Difference greater than 1-2% between 1440p and 720p, the bottle neck isnt the pixel fill rate, it's the API's Draw Call Processing and DCS's Core.

Thanks I will take a look at this next week and report as needed.

Final post has just been added! It took me a while to complete all this writing

Couldn't put it better myself. Excellent post.

Well, then you are posting in the wrong place, this is the Western Europe 1944-45 forum and this thread is about finishing of a coherent plane set for the maps we currently have. In iL2 I've flown a Sopwith Camel against a Bf-109E-7 and shot it down.

*Facepalm*

The P-47D-30 (INCORRECT): The rear armor (XArmor01) - The shape is generally correct, however for some reason left and right outside edges slightly fold forwards. Not entirely sure why, as it's not reflected in schematics for the late 47D. As you can see in the photo above, it is given again, the same value of 22mm. However, the armor should be split into two separate pieces like was done for the P-51D. While the head armor and body armor are welded together, they are of different thickness. The head armor should be 3/8" thick, or 9.5mm. The larger, body portion of the armor however is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (XArmor00) - Interesting that DCS identifies this as armor. If you look at the second photo in this post, you'll see that "XArmor00" (the instrument panel's ID) is set to have a thickness of 22mm. However, in truth the instrument panel was only 1/8" thick, or 3.2mm. This means that DCS set the instrument panel to be almost 7x thicker than it was intended. The P-47D-30 (MISSING): The bullet-resistant windshield - It's evident in the 3D model that the glass is of the protection type at least, but it also shows in the drawings. Yet in the damage model, it is not there. You can even see it (or rather, NOT see it) absent in the photo from the Modelviewer, at the top of this post. The glass is of the same thickness as that of the P-51D's, at 1.5", or 38mm. Here you have the bullet resistant glass for our bubbletop P-47: The frontal armor - This is a smaller cut of armor, that was mounted just forwards of the windshield, at a slope, just inside the upper cowling, intending to give further protection below the armored glass's reach. It was 3/8" thick, or 9.5mm. On early P-47Ds, without the bubble canopy, this was at a significant slope, somewhat parallel to the armored glass. However with the introduction of the bubble, it's slope was reduced and it was shortened in height. In summary for the P-47: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.0032 -Break up XArmor01 into XArmor01 and XArmor02 (head armor) and give XArmor01 a value of 0.00635 and XArmor02 (head armor) a value of 0.0095 -Add "Reinforced Glass" windscreen, give a skin value of 0.038 -Add frontal armor. Material "Steel", and a skin value of 0.0095

12/16/22 Preface: In this Friday's OpenBeta update, the easy coding fixes have been added for the P-51, 190s, Spitfire, 109, and 47. However, the Mosquito has been missed. Additionally, the armor plates that are missing from DCS entirely haven't yet been included. Items that were fixed in the 12/16 OpenBeta update will be highlighted in green, and marked with the update date. TL;DR: Many warbirds have incorrect armor values, or are missing armor. If you open the x-ray.edm in the Modelviewer, and the individual aircraft's Lua, you can see the IDs from the Modelviewer and see what those objects' properties are. Please click on the photos here, as while I've minimized them in this post so it doesn't get cluttered, but if you click on them you will see them in better resolution. The P-51D (INCORRECT): [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest and seat back armor (aka XArmor01 and XArmor00) - If we open Aircorps Library and look at the drawings for the late P-51D, like ours, we will see that these are two pieces of armor welded together. The headrest being 7/16", or 11mm...and the seat back being 5/16", or 8mm thick. Meanwhile in DCS, it is given a thickness of 22mm! For both plates! Almost three times the value of most of the area of the armor. I have an idea on how this value came to be, but I'll drop it into the spoiler below: [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored glass (aka XArmor02) - In DCS, it is given a thickness of 75mm. Using the schematics from Aircorps Library, we can again see that it is 1.5" thick, or 38mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The instrument panel (aka XCockpitElement02) - In DCS, this is given a thickness of just 1mm! In truth, the instrument panel is a part that's for once, thicker in truth, coming out to 0.128", or 3.25mm. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The firewall (aka XArmor03) - This is given a value of 12mm in DCS, or just a scratch under 1/2". For our 51D, it appears that a more possible value would've been 1/4", or 6.35mm. The P-51D (MISSING): The coolant header tank armor - This is a piece of armor that has been missing from the Mustang's damage model. It is 1/4" thick, or 6.35mm, and lies just forward of the coolant header tank within the engine nacelle, between the coolant header tank and the spinner. In summary for the P-51: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.022 to 0.008 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.022 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.038 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.012 to 0.00635 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XCockpitElement02 from 0.001 to 0.00325 -Add coolant header tank armor. Steel, 0.00635

Since 2.8, when in the F-10 Map and using the ruler line to get Distance/Bearing, the information is no longer in the top bar? Its on the actual line and most often obstructed and unreadable. Is it possible to get this info back at the top so we can read the info? The example below is not a good one as it is readable for the most part but I just wanted to make sure it was understood what I am referring to. null

It's funny how many people are trying to tell us that our "wishes" are wrong. Maybe there should be a dedicated "Anti-Wishlist" subforum for them? Personally I have added the single-press command decribed above into the UI Layer "default.lua" and bound it to the right Window key on my keyboard. And should I accidentally press that key I shall feel nor pain nor regret - it's a game!

The command will make DCS not start at all, only a black screen.

Seriously, cut that cr*p with DCS vs Il2 players. Absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I for one have played DCS since early days and it's my "main sim", for that exact reason i wish at least somewhat historically correct planesets per map to it. Devs have already correct things for Focke-wulf by bringing A8 to game (and F8 is supposedly coming later), now if they would do same with 109 we could have acceptable base to '43-'44 planes for western front.

@BIGNEWY it may be time to close off this thread since the official version version of the MB-339 is now for sale. Also the Free Version does not work properly after DCS ver.2.7.x I noticed if you were able to edit a .lua file to get the free MB-339 to work in DCS 2.8 it seems to conflict with the Official Paid Version of the MB-339. Glad I own the paid version.. Cheers.

The Spitfire (INCORRECT): [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The headrest armor plate (XArmor01) - This is the only warbird in DCS that appears to have unique armor values, that aren't 20 or 22mm, so I was at first inclined to think that the armor had been set correctly. However this doesn't appear to the be the case either. DCS, as you can see above, has set the headrest armor to 18mm. This plate in fact only reached a depth of 6mm in truth. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The body/bottom armor plate (XArmor00) - In DCS, this plate is set to 12mm. This plate should be set to 7mm [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The bullet-proof windscreen (XArmor02) - Like all the other aircraft, the Spitfire in DCS has the windscreen set to 75mm. This was in truth 41mm..or apparently 44mm with the glue between the layers included. The Spitfire (MISSING): The 20mm ammo box armor, and more - There was a plate just forward of the ammunition boxes for the Hispano's ammunition. I cannot find more specific details on it, other than it being featured in an exploded view from the Supermarine Spitfire Owner's Workshop Manual (that I haven't bought, but it's where the photo was from, online), and this schematic showing the armament placement within the wings of the Spitfire, and it includes the armor. It refers to drawing 34662/Sheet 4 for more specific information and dimensions on it, but unfortunately this appears to have been never uploaded to AirCorps Library. Nevertheless I'll upload what I have up to now.... In summary: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.012 to 0.007 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.018 to 0.006 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.041 -[If further information can be found] Add 20mm ammunition box armor, spinner armor(?), bulkhead/fuel tank armor(?)

As stated, there are 2 Main Bottlenecks in DCS, the Core, the Graphics API. Core: Being a primarily Serialized set of code running on often a single thread, gets bogged down in heavy missions with scripts, AI Routines, Physics etc etc etc., when the thread is saturated with commands and scripts, it causes delay in processing, which causes FPS drops, freezes, sync issues, and delay in sending commands to DX11 API due to the saturation of the Main DCS Thread. Going MT Removes 1 Bottleneck, by allowing DCS to Run on multiple threads, thus not allowing the Render commands to DX11's API to get held up waiting in line for Simulation Scripts to be processed. Thus more stable FPS, and likely an increase due to the fact that DCS's render commands are no longer waiting in line behind a bunch of AI, Physics and Weather Scripts/Functions/Code GFX API: Being also a serialized API, with a large overhead in high object count scenes, the more 3D Objects in a scene the higher the CPU Overhead, the higher the overhead, the slower your GPU receives instructions, the lower the GPU Utilization and the lower the FPS. Going to Vulkan removes that overhead, so Large object count scenes do not slow down the commands to the GPU and thus, Utilization and FPS remain Higher. going Vulkan also removes DX11's Hard Limit on resolution, MSAA Type, Single Channel Instruction paths, HDD->CPU->GPU Memory Access Overhead,and about 20-30 other things I wont get into due to the complexity of the things, and outside of programming a normal user honestly wouldnt understand any of it. But they all affect GPU Usage and throughput, which affects FPS. Until they are both gone, your GPU will not run Full tilt. however if you remove the ST Bottleneck, then the only bottleneck remaining is the GFX API, so if you plop your F-16 at FL30, over water, with no other objects in sight and remove any limiters, you'd get a glimpse of that. But as soon as Objects start to populate the scene and the CPU Overhead builds up, those FPS will do down like a rock.

Hello Viggen drivers! Since I'm not in the habit of making big speeches, let's get straight to the point: During the last months I spent a few minutes re-working the DCS-AJS-37 Viggen Manual RC2 which is delivered with the Viggen module. This was done: - For the community - In accordance with HB (POC IronMike) - For HeatBlur to be used on their purpose, e.g. to extend it further in case deemed necessary by HB authors/SMEs - For beeing used in a new Viggen training project (other story, details upcoming soon) What the manual RC2.1 currently is made of: - All original RC2 content - Hundreds of repairs of community bugs reported over the last 6 years by fellow pilots - Several bugs/issues repaired that came up during the re-working process - Changed/extended many headers in order to have a better and more detailed "Table of contents" - Added numbers to the "big" chapters (01 to 09) - Added bookmarks for all headers - Added "List of figures" at the end of the document - Changed the background picture to a single one (not mirrored like in the old manual) [currently not part of the document] - Changed numbers for better readability, like 1700km now reads 1,700 km - Changed number ranges for better readabilty, like 13,000 - 14,500 kg - Added captions for all figures with no exceptions - The typical "Caution:" text appears now in an amber box - Changed contrast and readability of nearly all pictures - Changed some pictures - Added some pictures - Added RB24 (AIM-9B) section in chapter 04 - Changed the background pictures of the "big" chapters to fit the whole page - Changed this & that here & there in terms of formatting - All additions in this thread >>> see all later posts within this thread with title "Manual Update / Revision". Here you find the link for direct download: DCS AJS-37 Viggen Manual RC2.1 Last change of document: Revision RC2.1.2503 as per March 19th, 2025 Note: This document hase become part of your DCS module in February 2024! Look into the folder DCS\Mods\Aircraft\AJS37\Doc and find the file "DCS_AJS37_Flight_Manual_EN_RC2.1.pdf". Thanks in advance & have fun with that one! Yours sincerely, TOViper

According to LunaticFringe, a member of the closed beta testing team, ECM burn through ranges are defined by three simple categories: Strategic Bombers - Burn through at 12nm Fighters - Burn through at 23nm Attack - Burn through 29nm null However in recent community testing on the current open beta, we've discovered inconsistent burn through ranges for fighters. For example you can burn through the ECM of the F-14, F-16, and F-18 at 29nm, while other fighters such as the Jeff, the F-15, and the Su-27 are protected from burn through all the way to 23nm. Just wondering why the F-16, F-18, and F-14 are in the attacker category and not the fighter category? Is this a bug, or by design? PS. There could be even more inconsistencies, I don't believe an extensive test of all airframes has been performed.

Saved games install location only,.

DX12 is not the golden ticket everyone thinks it is. To Fully Utilize DX12_0 Features, the engine still has to be entirely re-written, MS's Easy Conversion path, is simply a conversion to run on DX12 Libraries however the engine will still be DX11_1 mode, while using the DX12 Libraries and Limit to DX12 O/S's. Vulkan handles CPU Threads as well as GPU Commands more efficiently than DX12, especially in larger scenes.

If thats in response to me I noticed the .EDM files for those that are in the /bazar/world/shapes are missing after the 2.8 open beta update and I know I didn't delete them. *edited I see what your saying! install the stable to snag the .EDM files or if somebody that has both installed could kindly just upload those that would save a lot of people a lot of headache.

Thanks to the mission editor feature with sunset, sunrise, moon phase preview it's way easier to get this.

Your tests are faulty. Dont look at stuff at 100+nm. The DL symbology getting removed is correct. BUT it also removes raw radar hits/bricks (NOT DL!) which it should not, even with MIDS to „TGTS“ or „NONE“, according to a very often referenced document about a certain tape. The function is well documented there. the OP says RWS shows no more contacts, which means raw radar data disappears. He‘s not talking about DL symbology, which disappears anyway when the mids filter is set to NONE or TGTS. i suggest you take the time and watch the tracks in my linked bug report.

Roger! Beautiful shot!

On in both cockpits? I think, there are two, one for each cockpit and pitot sensor.

Agreed. I think after support for undo and band-selecting multiple objects, being stand-alone is one of the most commonly suggested enhancements to ME. Just imagining to be able to simultaneously edit a mission that I'm debugging makes me salivate

Due to the large size of the DCS installation which is required to use the misison editor , it is very prohibiting to install and use the mission editor on simple laptops that are easy to carry and use on the fly or while on the road. This would also make sharing and collaborating with others so much easier and faster. Creating the basic mechanics and formats of missions and campaigns by simply using the misison editor as a standalone app would be ideal so that we dont have to be constantly remain on our main gaming pc or on a powerful enough pc , just to run a scripting engine with limited graphical interface , which is all that is basically needed. This would be so ideal for long journeys , flights or even sudden spontaneuos ideas to just whip out my simple laptop and fill the flight and journey times creativily. I can't imagine the ME with basic assets (map images and module basic models for placement) wiould be more than 10-20 GB as opposed to the massive 120 right now which would load so much stuff that is not even needed for the mission editing and creation process .

Sometimes ppl should think twice what they type..... and this is a great example..... Dude you have gone off topic 20,000 kms. away

If you say so, only that my post referred to one specific fix, in one specific patch, which broke one specific thing, and has absolutely nothing to do with "backtracking". bug fix introduced error -> bugfix adjusted to fix what it was supposed to fix minus the error.

ATLS - Asymmetric Thrust Limiting System, F-14B only (middle of the left side console, left of the throttle), on with cover closed With operative ATLS, the magnitude of any asymmetric thrust in MAX power will be reduced, thereby reducing the control requirements to maintain the flight condition or reducing time to recover if a departure has occurred. ATLS should be engaged from startup to shutdown. ATLS can be turned off if required for tactical considerations such as single-engine ACM bugout. (basicaly if one of your engines craps out if you are in full burner, the other engine will be limited to min afterburner (? I think) only as not to send you into deadly flat spin right away. BIDIRECTIONAL - Hydraulic Bi-Directional Pump, F-14 A and B (back of the right side console), normal with cover closed To assure the continuance of main system hydraulic pressure with an engine or engine-driven pump inoperative, a second source of pressure is provided by the hydraulic transfer pump. This unit consists of two hydraulic pumps, one in each of the main hydraulic systems, interconnected by a common mechanical shaft. Thus, a pressure deficiency in one system is automatically augmented using pressure in the other system as the motive power. The result is bidirectional transfer of energy without an interchange of system fluid. The efficiency of the pump is such that a 3,000-psi system on one side will pressurize the other system to approximately 2,400 to 2,600 psi.

1. I'm referring to the file "default.lua" under "K:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Input\F-16C\joystick" (K being the Drive). 2. The best place for adding key commands is just below these lines at the top of the file so you can easily find your edits. local cockpit = folder.."../../../Cockpit/Scripts/" dofile(cockpit.."devices.lua") dofile(cockpit.."command_defs.lua") local res = external_profile("Config/Input/Aircrafts/common_joystick_binding.lua") join(res.keyCommands,{ 3. Make sure you don't miss any of the commas, parentheses, curly braces. Syntax errors may invalidate the entire file 4. Use a program editor like Notepad++ (no office program!)

I do. Don't speak for others or about things you don't know about. If this feature isn't useful to YOU it doesn't mean it's not useful to plenty of OTHER people. Don't be so selfish or entitled. You don't speak for everyone.

Man you've come a long way! Can't wait!

Alright. I'm ready. Sell me this map.

what could be done instead is have an optional bind that is, by default, blank. And for those building simpits they bind the ejection handle to that.

Since you bring the helicopter bundle deal to our attention, can we expect the Mi-8 cockpit texture bugs that were introduced with DCS 2.7 to be fixed any time soon please?

No ETA and I'd be hard pressed to actually tell you which pack is going to be released first. What's left to do isn't the most exciting to do (LODs, night lighting for the ships, adding drivers to ground vehicles, etc). Finished the night lighting for the Akademik Cherskiy Polishing the old airport services pickup trucks yet another new ship coming to the pack

The Bf 109K-4 (INCORRECT): Due to lack of hard evidence, I've had to rely a lot on earlier 109 versions to get my information. To my knowledge however, there weren't any changes to the armor on the Bf 109 after the change from the 109F to the thicker 109G armor layout. From that point on, the only change in the armor was what naturally came with the Erla-Haube canopy, and I believe a reduction in size of the aluminum plate behind the fuel tank (more on that later). [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The seat armor (XArmor00) and head/neck armor (XArmor01) - DCS has these both set to 20mm, but it appears this was something closer to 11mm for both. [FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]The armored windscreen (XArmor02) and head glass (XArmor03) - DCS, as per the norm now, has these set to 75mm currently. The actual values of the armor thickness is actually 60mm for both. This will make it the warbird with the thickest armored glass, albeit not as sloped as the Fw 190A-8's. The Bf 109K-4 (MISSING): The Galand-Panzer frame - The metal framework that holds the armored glass behind the pilot's head. This was of a similar thickness to the seat armor, at 11mm. This is especially useful as partial protection from hits coming from the 109's high six. The duraluminum laminate plate (IT WAS FOUND THIS WAS REMOVED FROM BF109s WITH MW50 INJECTION, INCLUDING THE K4) - This was a bit rough to find information on. From what I gather, it was a plate placed 6" behind the fuel tank. It seems that when it was introduced with the Bf 109F, this plate was more like a bulkhead, that fit inside the tail from edge to edge. However, by the time we got to the G6, this plate may have been cut down to fit to the shape of the aft face of the fuel tank. What is for sure however, is that this plate was made from 30 laminates of aircraft skin dural, bolted together. This made a "solid" (if all the laminates were perfectly flush with each other) armor thickness of 0.735 inches. Based on ballistic testing on the version of this plate on the 109F-4 (called a bulkhead then), it appears that the combination of the dural plate, fuel tank, and 11mm pilot armor would stop .303 incendiary rounds. However, .50 caliber incendiaries could punch through all three with some success. Edit 11/20/2022: It was found that this armor plate was not featured on the Bf-109K-4, or any Bf-109 that featured the MW-50 injection, likely due to the Mw-50 tank's placement nearby the dural armor plate. However, this was armor featured on 109's without Mw-50. And on the 109F series, this plate also was enlarged to fill the entire inside area of the tail cross-section...essentially a 21mm dural bulkhead behind the fuel tank. To reiterate though, this plate was shrunken on 109s from the G-2 and on, and was completely removed for 109s featuring Mw-50 injection, such as our K-4. Here are some further photos: In summary: -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor00 from 0.02 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor01 from 0.02 to 0.011 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor02 from 0.075 to 0.06 -[FIXED: DEC 16, 2022]Change XArmor03 from 0.075 to 0.06 -Add full Galland-Panzer 11mm metal frame, behind the pilot's head

Yall catch a lot of flack (very passionate player base) so I figured I would share my mind. There is nothing like this game out there. The visuals with 2.8 are a decent improvement, the BFM AI is extremely fun... I know 2.8 hurt some performance (myself a VR player), but I do know that rewriting an engine is no joke. So keep it up, I get to spend countless hours getting smoked by my old man (former adversary pilot) and many other things. 20 years ago I could never imagined I would be strapping into a F18. Keep working the core of the game and the future will be bright! Keep the glass side up

+1 to Northstar's comment on just trying the Hind. Personally, although I like both, I prefer the Apache for a few reasons: I prefer the western avionics and terminology as I'm just much more familiar with it I prefer the more modern avionics (although the Hind systems are "old school" cool, I'm just a sucker for mfd's) I prefer the laser (and buddy lase capability) weapon delivery in the Apache over the optical ATGM delivery of the Hind The Apache gun! Although the Hind gun has far more punch, the Apache gun follows where you look.. How's that not utterly awesome? FCR for the Apache (Later in EA) But there are certainly some features where the Hind wins from the Apache, such as sling load capability, troop transport, higher top speed, flying tank, maybe looks (the latter one being quite arguable... like choosing between your children) anyways.. you should just get em both, as they're both great fun

Like Northstar said, it really depends. If overall module completeness is a factor for you, Hind is almost done, while Apache has some ways to go, which is to be expected, one released a lot earlier, and is a lot less complex than the other after all. Aside from that, Hind is like a shturmovik or Su-25, but with a rotor, and Apache is a flying server rack with a lot more in the way of offensive and defensive capabilities, and more ease in traditional way of helo attacks from hover, as well as well more agility. I personally enjoy Hind a lot more, but that's mostly because it's more down my alley: Cold War, simple systems, it's like the warbird of attack helos, and it's been an iconic "scary helo with lots of dakka" for me since I was a teen. But if you want advanced navigation, targeting, defensive capabilities, more guided missiles, FLIR, night capability, flexible gun, Apache would be more of a fit.

+1 would love to see more variety and more realistic explosions.

I like flying the Apache, but I feel I have to be so careful with the controls. The ka-50 is more forgiving. Feels more robust and I can fly it like I stole it.