Avimimus

Hello, I tried making several tracks here is the issue: - To be accurate at long range the Mi-24 has to be going ~200 km/h - To stand a chance of hitting multiple trigger pulls are required and the flight time for the 30mm bullets at those ranges is long enough that multiple bursts are in the air This makes it very difficult to evaluate the range at which a shot was actually made. So I'm not sure how useful the track is to assess ranges. After missing the convoy - I also fire a few bursts on the road near the buildings in the hope of having a range reference. Observations: The rounds are still modelled even after the tracers burn out. However, they cease to be modelled/produce impacts shortly after the tracers burn out. Given the ballistic performance of these rounds against soft-targets extended the amount of time they are modelled after the tracers have burned out might be worth the edit. I do often engage anti-aircraft units in the 2.5km to 1.5km band... so trying to extend this to 3.0km or even 3.5 km is likely viable (although it might take several bursts to hit a target). 30x165_range_test.trk

Hello, Somewhere between 2.5 and 3 km the bullets from the 30mm cannon are disappearing. However, thanks to the accuracy of the Mi-24 - I could actually aim at and hit targets at more than 2.5 kilometres! I've actually taken to engaging anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles at a range of 2.5-1.5km with the cannon before turning away... So having my first few salvoes 'vanish' in mid-air is actually making it harder for me to line up shots! P.S. I think the impact of vibration at the hardpoint attachment on gun pod dispersion may be too small. I also suspect that the effect of downwash increasing the dispersion of rockets is missing. However, the GSh-30-2K appears to be realistically amazing in accuracy/reach.

Hmm.... well, I don't have the AP yaw channel on - only the pitch damper... so I honestly don't think it can be the YAW AP which is doing it! No one to blame but me Yes, this is definitely the case. Sometimes I'll have it lower - but often I forget to reduce the amount of fuel!

The first page is a bit out of date (as plans have shifted multiple times) - However, that thread was the only place consolidating news from the various 3rd party devs - it was a major reason why I regularly check the forums.

I honestly don't trust such opinions unless there are multiple sources. A NATO test pilot says 'The Mi-24 seems to produce slightly less lift in a hover than one flying forward slightly' and the Mi-24 is noted to have landing gear permitting a rolling take-off... and all of a sudden it becomes 'the Hind can't hover'. Someone states the the UPK-23-250 pod is lighter, more reliable, and more powerful than the GUV pod (which suffered numerous gun-jams - no doubt partly mitigated by having three guns per pod) and suddenly everyone is saying that the GUV pod is ineffective... Aircrews say they prefer the 30mm GSh-2-30 and all of a sudden the jam prone Yak-b's 12.7x108 is totally ineffective as a cartridge (and clearly not as effective as the 12.7x99).... etc. etc.

Having watched the video - I'm pretty sure that is what is going on... I might even have been using one form of LTE to get into another form of LTE

I think it tended to happen when I was going >100km/h in one direction but managed to get the helicopter's nose facing more than 100 degrees for the direction of travel... sometimes I'd succeed in slowing down and turning around - but would then end up spinning two or three full circles. It could be some form of exotic VRS in level flight leading to a loss of tail rotor effectiveness or it could be that I've somehow confused the flight control system... or I wasn't leaving enough power for the tailrotor... the thing which is most odd about this behaviour is that it'd fix itself if I let the helicopter pirouette enough times. That seemed much more curious than the fact that I'd somehow broken the helicopter. I have found that the double-tap of the trim reset seems to help... but it might also be just that I've found other ways to fly the helicopter like an idiot which allow me to do even more reckless turns without losing control.

On what was essentially my first attempt - I took out 9 vehicles with just two pods... so I should be able to get above 20 vehicles if I carried all four... and that is without practice. I think the trick is to avoid any side-slip and fire at the correct range.

I'd go with the Mi-8 or the Mi-24 as they are a bit less sensitive than the Sa-342 (which is fast and manoeuvrable - but a bit of a handful) and the Mil helicopters lack the extensive automation of the Ka-50... so they prepare one for flying normal helicopters in a way the Ka-50 doesn't. The Ka-50 is the easiest to fly though.

Add an independent control for the Canard flaps... (even as an easter egg)! It isn't flying correctly 'by the book'. But it is possible in real life. Pilots have done it. I'm really curious to the experience it.

For the S-13 and S-24 (which were incompatible with the automatic ranging sight)... sort of. The ballistics aren't similar enough to just use the sight from the cannon. What I'm actually doing is comparing the automatic ranging sight and the fixed sight... and selecting a point in between. It helps me intuit what to do - but firing is still largely instinctual... I have a feeling that doing this - and using the Mi-24 generally - will make me much better with rockets in the Mi-8... one just has to learn how to gauge range and side-slip instinctively!!

Hmm... one can develop intuitions. I've actually found that switching between the 30mm and the rockets can make it easier to aim the rockets which don't use the automatic ranging sight (since the 30mm cannon has it and one can gauge side-slip etc. quickly with it).

Well... I prefer the gun pods to the rocket pods... and I have a Mi-24P with a GSh-2-30 as well (rather than being stuck with the Yak-b turret)...!

Quick question: What is the command to order the AI operator to shut down the sight? If I give an order to stop targeting anything it is still left on and my manoeuvres damage the system!

Well... thanks to the dismissive attitude in this thread (overall) I'll now have to be contrarian and get really good with the grenade launchers

They seem able to take out infantry, light vehicles, and even armoured cars. You get a lot more ammunition compare to a rocket pod... but it is even harder to use, more vulnerable to side-slip, and shorter ranged.

Hello, I keep entering a state where the helicopter yaws uncontrollably (or almost uncontrollably) to the left... after a few rotations I'm able to arrest the rotation and keep flying as usual. What causes this?

Is there a way to tune the axis for the operator mode (missile guidance) separately from the cyclic? My X-52 is too sensitive to use for guiding missiles. However, I can't find any separate axis bindings in the control settings - and I don't want to reduce sensitivity on my cyclic!!

Interesting. Are you sure this works? I found that loading KOM on the inner hardpoints and OFP on the outer hardpoints allowed firing all four rocket pods at once. However, loading KOM on the left hardpoint, and OFP on the matching right hardpoint meant that they wouldn't fire. Selecting just the left or right rocket pods didn't help. I think this is actually an attempt to model the limitations of the real aircraft. It appears that the S-24 and S-13 can't be used with anything else (except maybe drop tanks). There are a few other mixtures which aren't shown though. It seems that S-5, S-8, bombs, and gunpods can usually be mixed - albeit with some limitations (e.g. I haven't gotten S-8OFP and S-8KOM to fire from opposite hardpoints, however both can be carried if they are on inner vs. outer hardpoints). The GUV pods can also be mounted asymmetrically (e.g. with a drop tank on the other hardpoint).

I've managed to get Petrovich into VRS many many different ways... I think someone will have to write a manual about what constitutes the few sets of save orders you can give without entering VRS!

I'm bookmarking this thread!!

It would be nice if they implemented a small probability of a larger fragment doing more damage further away (even if not fully modelled, but just using an RNG check). If one looks at actual manuals for explosives one sees that they can generally still be lethal at larger ranges... but there are just fewer high-energy fragments (so the probability of being hit is lower).

The nice thing is that we'll have the R-60 for the Mi-24 and the Igla for the Ka-50 (hypothetical production version)... I'm not sure we need the Igla for the Mi-24 as well.

Thank you both! I've gone from zero solutions to having two solutions!!