Avimimus

Quite interesting. I wonder about getting hit by a fragment (aren't the actual S-8OF rockets supposed to have a minimum arming distance?) ...maybe rocket fragmentation effects are indeed under-modelled in the sim. I do know that the extra hardpoints were offered for proposed export versions - and they seem to not require modifications to how they attach to the fuselage... so it is definitely more of a 'probable' than a 'possible'... even if it never actually happened.

Thank you! It is amusing that this has been asked three times and each time someone has linked the previous post asking the question (without an answer). I wonder if there is still sufficient time for someone else to ask this question and be linked to this thread? P.S. To answer the first reply in this saga (Volk.) - I suspect that they simply only load two tubes (as the tubes are rather modular)... and yes, given how the Ka-50/52 has actually been used... fully loading the racks would be overkill for most counter-insurgency missions. So it is actually probably most realistic to only load two missiles on each rack.

The version we're getting also has the six hard-point wing that was installed on the Ka-52 and offered for export versions of the Ka-50 (which never sold and thus never saw hardware - but could easily have).

Hello, In service, it appears that the Ka-50/52 has often flown with just four Vikhr on the racks (two per hard-point) in order to save weight. In game I've often found that 12 missiles is excessive for most missions so I can see why they would only partially load the rack... The early BS3 screenshots showed the racks partially full. However, the new ones show them entirely full. Is there any confirmation whether or not partially loaded Vikhr racks will be an option in BS3? Has anyone asked? Thanks!

Most of the games I play would stop working on Win 10... a lot of old games. So yes - this may well be the reason I upgrade.

Yeah, that is pretty standard - even generous. A lot of EULAs don't even guarantee that the software will run at all these days. It is how these things have developed - a fact of life, much like DRM - but Eagle Dynamics seems well intentioned and like they want to do a lot better than what is expected. I know this - even if I've been irrationally annoyed at times by them ceasing the FC series. It is hard when there are only two combat flight sim companies - we tend to pile all of our expectations, hopes and preferences onto them!

Only because Eagle Dynamics is a relatively good developer which stands by their products. I don't think we're entitled to that under the law!

Well... honestly, if I were in an Il-28 and this thing dropped in behind me with an R530 - I'd get pretty nervous. A lot depends on the era and whether you're flying bomber or not. If you are in a fully loaded bomber, without counter-measures, flying subsonically...

Yes, all accounts suggest that it isn't a development of FC3 and that it won't be DCS compatible. With no plans for selling an FC4 (and a seeming aversion to non-clickable products) - I think we're entirely dependent on the goodwill of the company to keep FC3 functional for free.

That makes a lot of sense actually - with much of the fuel used on the outward leg, and weapons expended, the ability to pick-up downed aircrews (or even stranded troops) would be greater on the return journey!

I agree entirely - what is the point of having skins and inclusion in a coalition? If the response to simple systems like single hard-points or the CRV-7 rocket is 'cleared for use on this variant, but not used by the USN'...

I've got 16 GB of ram... anyone have settings that'll allow me to actually fly on most parts of the map? I technically exceed the minimum system requirements for the map - so I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong: Minimum system requirements (LOW graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Intel Core i3 at 2.8 GHz or AMD FX; RAM: 8 GB (16 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 60 GB; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 / AMD R9 280X or better; requires internet activation.

It was also here: Mi-24P Hind Development report 21/08/2020 - Page 8 - DCS: Mi-24P Hind - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

Hello, I was really impressed for the first couple of minutes flying on the map. However, I noticed from my helicopter that what I thought was a road was actually a river and: 1) It was flowing uphill 2) It was of perfectly constant width (without any variation, let alone sandbars/gravelbars etc.) This really took away from my experience. So that is my one wish- rivers which flow downhill only and vary in their widths.

How lovely!

Brilliantly done!

Exactly. It couldn't deploy and then support infantry at a useful range (as originally planned - although those plans may have been dubious anyway)... and the Mi-8 has so much more capacity for the same expenditures... that the Mi-24's cargo capacity saw very little use. But I'm sure that having extra helicopters which could ferry troops in an emergency to redeploy behind the lines would be useful occasionally at a strategic scale. Also, the Mi-24 is probably a bit better at evacuating downed aircrews than an AH-64 or Mi-28 is... (although the AH-64 has managed to do that, and the Mi-28 has its tail compartment).

Yes, that was what I was thinking about myself... if only they'd enhance the rockets a bit when facing 'soft' vehicles like trucks. Also, dynamically spawning and despawning infantry (and even earthworks) would be a really nice addition... it'd give the Mi-24 rocket and bomb loads more things to attack.

I'm not sure you understand how vague laws work... there is the risk that you'll be vaguely prosecuted on a vague accusation - but the actual jail is apparently unvague though. Until there is clarity on exactly what is meant - it is best to keep the devs safe. The fact it that the existence of modelling of any Russian system in any simulation could be used for training by an opponent. A Russian who builds such a simulation is actively contributing to that. Obviously the more plausible your simulation is (even if it uses unclassified data) the more it can be used for such a purpose - and just because other countries can build such simulations themselves to even higher fidelity might not protect you depending on the ruling. So I could see why a passage like that would make someone very nervous. *edit - I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert on Russian legal system - but I am a bit afraid of lawyers... hence my post.

Su-17 Pucarra (Or OV-10 or OV-1/JOV-1A), also A-37 Panavia Tornado (Or Sepecat Jaguar) Mil Mi-2 After that... well, a Mig 1.42 if I'm honest... but the community wouldn't stand for that (as it'd be almost entirely speculative). I guess I'm a strange fish.

I suppose this will only be limited to air-to-air missiles? I always thought that a fragmentation model could be added for rockets - although large salvos might require automatically turning the system off. It'd be great to have a better rocket fragmentation model for aircraft like the Gazelle - even if it might be a bit too much for large Su-25 salvos.

Kind-of like the rapid reload (assisted by ground vehicles) of the Bo-105 while on the defensive? Interesting. Note that, if I recall correctly, the missile weighs more in the tube - so something like 45kg... which means probably only two-and-a-half missiles for the weight of reloading a rocket pod. It does sound possible though - even if I've never heard any evidence of it occurring to anyone (prior to you anyway)!

So: 1) Ground unit finds and marks a target 2) Mi-24 (or Mi-8) fires illumination rockets or bombs all over it 3) Mi-24 tries desperately to see something worth shooting at 4) Mi-24 misses but goes home to report destruction of multiple enemy units I'd ...probably enjoy that.

Thanks! I'm actually a bit moved by your reasonable response. It feels rare to be called reasonable these days, so I'm flattered.

This question is made more complicated, because I think one of the devs may be named Petrovich.