Leaderboard

Update from Baltic Dragon (on Facebook) for the new Campaign, which will be released with the new Kola Map: After long discussions and deliberations, together with Reflected Simulations we're happy to announce the name for our upcoming campaigns which will be released together with the Kola map: ARCTIC THUNDER As a reminder: they will be set in 2023, where NATO forces fend off Russian attack against Finland. Many missions will be intertwined which means you will experience the same situation seen from the cockpit of US Viper (Reflected) or Finnish Hornet (BD) as parts of the same strike package - or just flying separate sorties at the same time. Release date of course depends on the pace of the development of the map itself, but we're working closely with Orbx to have everything we need for good set of missions implemented at the release. Stay tuned for more information!

That mod is based on the old Storm Shadow I made for the Gripen project. This one will be more than a payload mod. It's based on EDs Su-24M 3d model, but with its own configuration so I can tweak performance (including fix some things from the ED version). It's a Ukrainian Su-24M, so it's been updated with only the weaponry available to Ukraine. Counting both domestic and western systems. You might also have noticed the Ukrainian MiG-29MU2 escorting the Su-24M, carrying AIM-9L and AIM-120C. It will also feature the AGM-88C HARM, JDAM-ER and ADM-160B MALD. And whatever western system they will integrate in the future. Since it's suppose to emulate the MU2, its radar has also been updated accordingly.

I'm not sure if it was posted already. Anyway. The more people see it, the better:

Arleigh Burke Flight III / Ticonderoga CMP (USA) version 2.3.0 released! Changelog Version 2.3.0 Added air target capability for Mark 45 Mod 4 127 mm naval gun Added pennant number liveries (thanks @HighMaintenanceB) Added tags Fixed Arleigh Burke AN/SPY-6 ECM burn through range Fixed Ticonderoga AN/SPY-1 ECM burn through range

From Wags Interview: (on update) - Wags on ED from 2000 to today (23 years). - ED join on Janne´s team on 1998 and work on Janne´s F-18E, move ot NASCAR tiburon studio and after move to SSI - Wags join ED on Flanker 2.0 times and your first big project with ED was LOMAC. - Machine learning has starting to look, but first we have update AI BVR and later BFM, looking more variables about situation and be able to addapt them. Before was very basic, and now, the AI look the hostile, the airspeed, turn on one circle or two circles, from the top, and what is the better situation vs the enemy aircraft. Previously always turn on two circles and super predictable. - Wingman AI expected improve after AI make advances on BFM and BVR not much, after single ship AI, turn more complicated. Has many resources centred on BFM, about BFM tactics has more on the agenda about what is available. - Detail: ED dont like a potencial adversary use them as a trainer vs Us... - Weapons and sensors has Hardcoded. - Comunications with voice recognition vs AI has none on ED plans. Has very dificult to make yet. - Wags enter on Janne´s when F-15E was on final production and start to develop the F-18E Super Hornet on 1998. We has lost the good intros and other issues of the 90s simulator games. - Soldier and Soldiers animations on DCS has very old animations and technology, on progress with new soldier animations and technology. - About "ground combat" on DCS, (the air environment) the 4th Gen aircraft has near to reach to make all available aircrafts, move to Cold War aircrafts, Century series, WW2, moving to the Pacific on WW2, but the ground, with a level terrain on DCS, not sure if will or not come to DCS, not sure, but that is not if, as a when start to work on them (no a CA), a simulator with Abrams, A-10 and AH-64 will be great. - ED dont go to build a "Ukraine map", many sensible on that momemt. The same of Taiwan. - Dymamic campaig two layers with a "Strategic side" with two sides, assets, industry, production and targets. That generate look the targets, the assets, resources and build mission to the ATO. The player on "Tactic level" see the ATO and fly the mission, affect the "Strategy side" to generate new ATO missions. A real "vehicle simulation". - ED dont reach the actual levels without the comunity and passion. - CH-47F has On Progress and next on the pipeline by ED. Boeing helo version F with glass cockpit. - One of big issues to build a 4th gen Aircraft (include helos) has the documentation, and always with come to the game has from open sources and none secret or restricted. Meanwhile a part of the info has not open, the module develop not start. Build modules with reliable and available info and SME. If not get the necesary information, the module has "not go". - All module building by ED has by module sales, no Kickstarter or dotations. - F-6F Hellcat On Progress. That was require found the correct info, reference data, wing tunnel data to build acurated flight model. Found some veterans with fly the Hellcat, about operation procedures. - Other point has be the money inversment and the future sales (if not feasible "not go"). - About 3rd Parties with coming with a "I like build that aircraft", ED get support and get advice if other 3rd parties has making the same project to move to other proyect and not waste your time. - Heatblur working on the A-6E Intruder with a AI unit first, F-14D mayor problem has get acurated data. - The comunity put normaly DCS modules very outside of the flight evelope / system / codifications, etc and report them as bugs, when on the aircraft normal operations, a real pilot never put the aircraft on some situations. Always has required a good bug descriptions, track files, etc, to put on Jira, get a priority and intent correct them. - Over problems with a module release about "sensible" info. Before release a module, ED contact with pymes to review them, if someone has not "public" or "sensible", ED remove them. On the AH-64, a number of items was no added to the module by the actual situation. The same situation with the comunity with rise "sensible" documents on the forum, has a "Not Go". Nothing as a Category B, C, official eyes only, etc, example some Grece F-16C docs on internet. - Wags was a Degree Geography student on the university, and 10 years working on the CIA. - Wags like Praire Beers - The F-16/F/A-18C radar bug has on progress to fix. - Comunity dont like random problems on systems. - F/A-18C flight dinamics FCS has remade on progress. - Expected see advances on the Supercarrier Ready Room and complete prefly deck to the 2023 end year. - Missing info, documentations, to build a F/A-18E Super Horner. - The "Maverick Pack" get a sales spike on DCS. - Destructible trees on plans someday on far future. - One of main important features on progress has the flight directors to carriers and brown shirts from parking to cat launch, from start, sent to another and end to the landing box, and from the landing box to the parking slot. Expected build realistic comunications with the Air Boss, searching a serious voice actor. - All carrier technology on deck crew move to use them to build the ground crew / plane captain on ground bases. - Korea and Vietnam maps coming after other maps. - C-130 cargo version on progress by 3rd Party. Cargo transport funtionality as part of DCS funtionality build by ED. - ED has building pararatroopers. - Logistic side on the CH-53 / C-130 modules, not only as a extension of old warehouses, funtional on helos / aircrafts, implemented on the dinamic campaign, with players fly missions to resupply. - Kola on progress by ORBX (Wags work many time to get into DCS to build maps), - ED continue working on Whole World map and diferent eras (WW2, Vietnam, etc) and destructible terrain. - Live Traffic and Weather will coming on a future, but actualy has only a plan. - Eurofighter builded by HB/True Grit, after the F-4E Phantom II. - Polychop OH-58D Kiowa was delayed by the main programmer was sick. ED has get a evaluation and feedback, and the module is comming. - Saab JAS Grippen (include early versions) has problems with the available data. - Mig-29 version will be available, but build a Su-27 / J-11 has problems with data / aprovals / legaly available info. - ED will make a T-38A, the problem has be the limitated capability of the aircraft, has more plausible to a 3rd party team.

My next release of the Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer and Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser will feature an upgraded Mark 45 Mod 4 127 mm naval gun with air target capability. I will also add pennant number liveries for both ship types.

When MiG-21 was used by North Vietnamise as hit-and-run interceptor operating from ambushes, in most cases doesn't even have gun which was lamented by Vietnamise pilots - the transsonic MiG-17 was perfectly suited for classic close air combat.

News from BD (on Facebook) about the new campaign which will be released together wirh the Kola Map: After long discussions and deliberations, together with Reflected Simulations we're happy to announce the name for our upcoming campaigns which will be released together with the Kola map: ARCTIC THUNDER As a reminder: they will be set in 2023, where NATO forces fend off Russian attack against Finland. Many missions will be intertwined which means you will experience the same situation seen from the cockpit of US Viper (Reflected) or Finnish Hornet (BD) as parts of the same strike package - or just flying separate sorties at the same time. Release date of course depends on the pace of the development of the map itself, but we're working closely with Orbx to have everything we need for good set of missions implemented at the release. Stay tuned for more information!

If the KEPD-350 is fitted to the Su-24M I will add it. I should clarify, just in case. I only make AI assets (where some of them occasionally as a secondary feature may be player controllable). So my Su-24M and MiG-29MU2 will be AI assets. This will most likely not come as a surprise for most of you, since we're even in the Static/AI mod section of the forum. But I thought I'd clear that up, to manage expectations.

Ef2000, what wonderful memories … it was the first flight sim that supported the then new graphics accelerators, the 3dfx voodoo, the most powerful 3d card of the market, yet affordable at us$300 on 1997. The Ef2000 supported easy LAN play, on those times we had to actually meet together with up to 8 friends in order to play .. no internet play was yet possible .. we used to rent large rooms at colleges and played for whole week-ends to make carrying our gaming rigs worthwhile A piece of advice: dont lose time debating with Sharpe, its a lost cause .. Use the forum’s ignore facility, its there just for this kind of people

Seems that the loading screen locks the render thread. For non-VR users this is ok, but for VR this is very bad because the image of each eye lost sync, hangs and gives a far from ideal experience. Openxr show an hourglass when this happens. I'm using the quest 2.

On a lighter, more nostalgic note, look what I´ve found in the cupboard: Funny thing: When you look at the small pictures on the back of the boxes, the graphics look way better than I remembered them. Oh, and I think, I´ve posted this in another thread a while ago, but it fits nicely here as well:

Looks like the last OB update broke several of the weapons in the mod, we are currently working on a standalone version that will hopefully circumvent these issues in the future

It's possible. I've already made the MiG-29KR used in GR videos.

https://www.tumblr.com/hbdcs/724698222971486208

For someone who wants facts and figures to prove an impossible point, it sure looks like you're basing yourself on opinions of others that suit yours (and, in the process, ignoring people's opinions that don't). That guy was selling his product... what else were you expecting him to say?? An honest question - have you even spend time on some of those sims? Say, something like EF2000, Jane's Longbow or Falcon 4.0 ? And I mean a fair good time, like you would when approaching a new DCS module? Because as archaic as those old sim titles may seem (and are today), they definitely got far more depth and quality than what you seem to give them credit for. Quite frankly, I suspect that you may be in for quite the shock, once you realise how good all those actually are (then imagining how it must have been in the day!) and realizing how hard the developers must have had it. And on this last note... Speaking as a (ex)sound designer (and old modder) who had a few excursions in the sim business, I actually think today there is a lot more freedom and far less limitations, it's much easier to quite a fair extent. Today you're protected by modern potent hardware to skimp on optimizations or quality restrictions (a fact, if you now where to look for), you're able to get away with that. Lots of great software ready to assist, more documentation and materials ready to be accessed. And work with fairly relaxed time goals, knowing the project may have no real end, that it may be patched indefinitely after release. Back then there was a restricted budget for anything and everything. Devs had a limited budget for the assets, file size and quality of materials (mostly because of hardware restrictions/performance). Optimization for the exhistent hardware was a major factor (again, something I could definitely criticize on so many modern games and sims today). Everything from basic game engine coding (on its different fronts) to the final art, on models, maps and sound assets, physics, and UI, it had to be all so balanced on a very thin line, and all done with such a team effort that, it on itself, was close to black magic. Complexity was already huge then (to some extent more than now) as there were far less known quantities and, more often than not, people were working with new tech, often on "virgin territory". I look at the file structure, materials and file properties or sizes in modern sims, it's impossible not to snort in disbelief. Lots of work, for sure, but... devs today have it so good. People didn't have the luxury of basing on 20 year old polished code or UE rented platforms, and lots of "known quantities". Or the refuge of Early Access and Free To Play. Remember, there was a set dead line, for all of it to be ready. Sometimes with another project already in line. The project would become "gold" (close to be ready for distribution) and that was it. Really difficult to balance on such restrictions, but oh so satisfying once the final results could be seen (and the reviews of users and journalists!). Those people and those old titles deserve all the respect.

@tripod3 I cannot begin to thank you enough for doing these power plant and structure mods for the community. Where ED and designers have for some reason (no clue so dumb) failed to include some really critical strategic assets on the PG map, you have filled in the gap. Thank you so much for this. This will really add an insurmountable amount of depth and even more mission design and variance for mission editors and content creators. I am sure I can speak for a fair amount of the community when for years we have just piled together iterations of "water towerA" and "structure B" in mish mash form to resemble a power plant or Bushehr etc. This is absolutly awesome, and I will be following this mod pack closely. It is awesome to see creators with the ability fill in the void of things that actually would be targeted in a combat simulator. Map editors are so focused on houses and roads and other things however overlook the strategic targets that actually would be targeted in an engagment. Power plants, Factories, Ammunition depots, train and rail stations and hubs, destructible ports and harbors, destructible bridges and highways etc. I do ask to put some consideration towards any syrian assets in the future that we dont have models for but could be used throughout many other maps and senarios. Obvously with the onset of the F-15E and F-16 Operation Inherent Resolve is rather timely. Syria is by far of the most detailed and beautiful maps still in DCS, as well as maintaining great performance. We do not have any of the critical buildings in the targeted sites such as Al-Safir missile base storage structures, chemical facilities etc. https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/al-safir-missile-base-2/ Barzah Research Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barzah_scientific_research_centre Underground bunker entrances, storage buildings, hardened shelters etc. would be a great target packages to fortify these sites and recreate scenarios. Lastly any type of missile launch facility would be a great target asset also. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/23/iran-likely-had-failed-rocket-launch-preparing-another.html thanks again for all your contributions to the community. You have by far provided us with over a year of mission making content and rich assets to develope scenarios around for any aircraft and airframe.

No, nothing to do with "overspend" and DC certainly isn't a bottomless pit. I'd even say, in the mid-long term, that it can save money and work to the dev-team, and make it more lucrative if it's a long-term project (like DCS is, for instances) as it actually immortalizes your game, replayability wise. Because it renders every mission or campaign forever fresh and nearly unpredictable (it's always different, throughout and in the outcome), makes it an unknow "true conflict scenario" instead of plain scripts that always repeat "those two from the left as always, and next those three at the right... zzZZzzZ", keeping interest from players in your own game, on and on and on. It's worth every bit of the investment, IMO. Every one of the "big" flight sim titles went through bad management, and/or horrible aquisitions from bigger greedy companies, bastardising or ending such series. And (directly or indirectly) it broke those teams of hyper talented people, who went to other places (competitors) or quit the genre entirely. ED is probably the sole exception to all of this, maybe the only true survivor today from that era (a feat on its own, and worthy of everyone's admiration). Add to that the market over-saturation and the "consolization" way of things that went on in the 2000s, sadly it was the perfect storm. At some point it happened with racing-sims, isometric RPGs, and even Beat'em up games, no genre escaped it so far (it's happening now with "Battle Royale" games!). Money and business always mess with creativity and passion at some point. That's the cyclic nature of the gaming industry too (it repeats itself), unfortunately. That's why the "Golden Age" of flight-sims ended. Fortunately there has been a bit of a slow resurgence in recent years, and we're all here to savour it.

I´ll assume you just made up that "30x" number ... but even if it is correct, why should I as a customer care how much it cost to make a game ? What I care about is what is offered to me. If in the 90s, dozens of studios managed to create 95 flight sim titles for me to choose from and still make profits with it, and todays companies don´t, doesn´t that make the 90s more "golden" ? And as I said earlier, EVERY genre was x-times cheaper to make 30 years ago, whether it be action games, adventures, RPGs, Jump&Run ... that´s not special to flight sims.

I watched that yesterday and it was much more fun and entertaining than I thougt it would be. Those 2 hours flew right by. Absolutely recommend to watch.

Thanks for your report, we'll fix it.

I would also love to see the horizon anti aliasing problem as well as the wobbling clouds (when you move your head around) being addressed, as these are big points that ruin immersion while in the air. If you don't have the maximum luxury hardware, you can't set the AA any higher without going down to like 20 FPS.

I've decided to do a bare metal skin. "Bit O Lace" doesn't seem to have been done and has the right amount of wear and tear for some good weathering.

Yes it does! Rather than be any kind of criticism to the modern age of sims, it is why I am grateful we have the enthusiasts we do have as developers since the big publishers abandoned the genre. Developers need to be more creative now how they seek funds, most have commercial projects which help them fulfil their dreams of making “our” products. I often think they could make more money targeting the wider markets but want to make the products they do and I respect that. I hope they do make a decent wage out of us.

Oups, my fault. I forgot to say how to get the Jordanian texture for the EE version... Read the first post, I add this instruction!

Ah yes, 3dfx was a real gamechanger, I remember my first flight sim with 3dfx was Longbow 2. Back then, we thought this was "almost photorealistic" I think my first multiplayer experience was "Flight of the Intruder" in 1991, of course I had to carry my computer over to my friends house and we hooked them up with a cable. But that was great fun, I was shooting down Migs with the F4 while my friend was bombing in the A6. Yeah, the discussion isn´t going anywhere, but it brings back good memories. Edit: Wait no, in 91, I was still playing on my Amiga, so it had to be later, I don´t think I played that on the Amiga, but I´m not sure...

Guys. I told you trying to convince him is futile. It's his MO, and he does because he's bored. He has repeatedly admitted it in other threads. One more thing that made the "Golden Age" was the start of overclocking. I took my Dremel, a soldering iron and a piece of cooper wire to my Celeron 300 MHz and made it go to 500 MHz. Can you make such a difference today, even with liquid Nitrogen? And @Rudel_chw I did actually play ED2000 multiplayer in VR over the Internet in 97. Heck. Even had co-op in Jane's Longbow. Was an amazing experience to be together in the aircraft for the first time. Can't remember what we used for voice comms though. Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Quite obvious don't you think? YTB channels (and the so called "content creators") are a heck of a PR machine for game studios today. It works far better than the reviews and ads on printed magazines did. The pandemic was a major factor recently. There were never more sales in a smalll closed period in time for PCs, Consoles and respective game titles (of whatever genre). A certain hollywod movie with a celebrity actor got its sequel, over 30 years later, a monumental success and is part of popular culture now. Maybe ED can confirm how big was the number of sales of the F/A-18 and F-14 modules then and since. By your logic, as they now sell so much more, DCS and every other modern sim got soooo much better and more complex all of a sudden, in such a small space in time, right? But they didn't, did they? DCS and other sim competitors, already by then, exhisted and were recognized for years. Yet none ever seen as many newcomers than during this period, for sure. It has nothing to do with "better or worse" comparisons of "today vs the old days" sim titles and era. It has to do with circumstances, and a huge quantity of people all of a suden locked in their places, with money to burn and eager for entertainment, discovering new hobbies. Something we may read or watch later as case study, I suspect.

Soooo, Just because they tested it on the aircraft does not mean that the software required made it to the fleet. Plus the weapon was never mass produced. AGM-154B was never part of the SCS-20A A1, X or 21X 23X 25X OFP, as the Missile was never deployed to fleet, so there was no need to include it in the OFP. APKWS was Added in the last OFP for the Legacy Hornet (SCS-25X) in 2016. They are not part of the stores system for SCS-21A, A1, X, 21X or 23X OFP. While they are simply plug and play, for most aircraft. Modern DFCS Aircraft (A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15x, etc) need to have it in the stores management as the weights are different, and the FCS Limiter is governed by the computer, which takes into account stores weight. Having 2 wings full of rockets that the computer assumes weights 13 lbs each when they actually weigh ~33 lbs each and the CoG is Shifted on them, times 7 per LAU-68, x however many are loaded on each wing, Causes Incorrect Trimming, Incorrect G-Limit, Structural and Handling issues. The Computer knowing those rockets are equipped with the 20lb guidance insert adjusts the flight envelope and g-limit per the extra weight.

Citation needed. You keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true. F-22 Lightning II was the best selling military simulation at the time (although a middling game at best), with 360k copies sold: https://web.archive.org/web/20151206091416/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NovaLogic+forms+alliance+with+the+U.S.+Air+Force+Memorial+Foundation.-a019268676 Tomb Raider sold 2.5M in roughly the same timeframe, and it was an absolute smash hit that spawned an enormous franchise, and it came out on two consoles (Saturn and PS1) and DOS. Now, a quick calculation shows the top seller in "military simulation" category the same era made about 14% of that number. This isn't "niche" by any reasonable measure, it was not the top genre at the time but still very much mainstream. Would you consider a movie that pulls in one seventh of an audience that the latest Hollywood blockbuster does to be a niche movie? I certainly wouldn't. Plus, much of Tomb Raider's numbers likely came from consoles. Sales numbers are hard to find for games, except when they're worth bragging about, so it's hard to make a proper apples to apples comparison. We don't know how much Tomb Raider sold on which platform during it first year, but I imagine a significant number of its sales were on Playstation. However, Ace Combat 2 (another contemporary PS1 title) sold 500k in Japan alone in a similar timeframe, and about 1M worldwide (although I don't know over how long). So now you have a console game selling 40% as many copies as Tomb Raider. Again, PS1 only versus PS1+PC+Sega Saturn. Still thinking it's niche? I think we can consider your statement well and truly sunk, at least if the numbers from Wikipedia are accurate. Flight sims, in general sense, were far from niche in late 90s. Not the only game in town (not even the best one), but certainly a big enough genre.

Project 956 Admiral Ushakov Class Destroyer WIP Photos. So far the Sovremenny Class Russian Destroyer AI Ship mod is working out well. Still a lot of work to do. Weapons testing in progress If someone would like to volunteer to create Liveries that would be great as I don't plan to create any. Currently, there are only three in Service. Two are being overhauled and four were sold to China.

Another oldie but goldie request. Please add the EWR task to ships, so that ships can act as EWR and provide target information to AI aircraft. Doesn't seem like this should be too hard to implement. Carriers/ships controlling aircraft is a common concept.

After firing an AIM-120, you will see a countdown on the right side of the HUD, and if that shows a leading T (instead of A), the missile has transitioned to terminal active guidance. As an example, T11 means that the missile is active and the predicted time to interception is 11 seconds. If it shows A14, the missile is not active yet, and the predicted time until it will transition to active is 14 seconds. Hope that helps.

I see you worked it out, but I will clarify that it is deliberate behaviour and it is left for the user to decide whether they want the sight visible or not.

Thank you very much. I watched this and I loved it. Good POST

I quite enjoy debating with @SharpeXB , maybe it is just me!

Dude you make no sense. You contradict yourself in just two sentences. First it's the Dynamic Campaign on that one single game title (and one of the reasons users kept that game alive through modding), so complicated and costly that it bankrupted its developer house. While forgeting that didn't happen with other developers (among others, EF2000 and Jane's Longbow also had Dynamic Campaigns). Meaning, if they did it, then.... btw... have you even tried a Dynamic Mission/Campaign in those old titles, to understand why it's such a big deal? And then the cost difference, they were much cheaper to produce then than today. If it was so much cheaper... why have they gone bankrupted then? PLEESE STAAAP

Regarding Kola, please tell me that you are considering a Tomcat mid-80s cold war gone hot scenario after Arctic Thunder. Set in the winter, giving off "Hunt for the Red October" vibes.

I don't agree with the comment but I'd like to say thanks for posting that vid. That was a great show (thanks to all involved).

Yes please

If you are happy with your current VR experience and not sure, then wait. At least until it is available on Amazon where they have a 30 day money back guarantee. I did this when the Rift came out and was glad I was able to return it. Couple years later I got the G2 with the same return policy and have been using it ever since. VR is VERY personalized with regards to fit, visuals, sound, etc, and buying from a place that allows full money back returns is the smart way to go. That said, I got my Crystal yesterday and I am thrilled with it. You are right that coming from a G2 it just makes sense to upgrade to the Crystal. Hope this helps

i thought there is already a mod for it ? But more options is always good i guess? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3332470/ anw @currenthill can i have a little request? Can you scale down the jassm and lrasm a little bit? They are kinda big now. And maybe make them an update for the B-21 mod? Is that ok for ya

General life advice (unsolicited I know): don’t be ashamed of who you are and the things you enjoy

Всем здрасте Решил доделать-переделать процедуры запуска на КА-50, а так же сделать для КА-50_3, проще говоря добавить нововведения. Ну и закинул тужа-же мануал по пользованию Абриса. Всё это вместе укомплектовал с помощью программки Kneeboard Builder Процедуры КА-50, Ка-50_3 Ну и вообще решил выложить остатки своего барахла сюда, вернее на Яндекс. И-16 Холодный старт - SpitFire IX Холодный старт - P-47D Холодный старт - F-14B Холодный старт с мануалом - Ми-24п Холодный старт + Мисс-15(Особая благодарность парням за файлы по Ми-24 с никами: jager | 313 RED и Garrett & Amarr. . . . может кому и понадобиться

I will ask the team but can make no promises. thanks