Avimimus

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.

I think it is also worth noting that we are risking stereotyping the Mi-24 a bit. Yes, it couldn't deploy special forces at a useful distance and then support them as had originally been hoped (under the airborne IFV/BMP concept). It had to choose between range, weapon load, and cargo (the latter being something it wasn't very good at). I do think there are situations where the VDV might have used Mi-24 to help redeploy troops faster in an emergency. I can also see situations where one Mi-24 (largely stripped of weapons) might evacuate some troops while armed Mi-24 protected it. But it wasn't suited to these roles. However, if one looks at the Ah-1... near its maximum range its weapon load decreases (and becomes more equivalent to an Oh-58... which is surprisingly fuel efficient and long ranged). It is hard to get both payload and range out of a helicopter. So the Mi-24 never delivered on the original paper vision that the Generals wanted (but was beyond the technology of its time)... it doesn't mean that it can't lift things. Similarly, just because the Mi-24 has wings which give it a lot of excess lift at cruise but slightly decrease lift in a hover, doesn't mean it is unable to hover (as some people have claimed)... it just means it is very good at cruising. P.S. With regard to the earlier discussion - it is also worth remembering that rockets are quite a bit lighter than infantry.

With two crew and without the Shturm... the Mi-24 could carry reloads for all four UB32 pods and still carry 92% of its fuel at MTOW. That would drop to 80-85% with a third crew-member to reload, however only carrying reloads for two pods would easily allow excess power (and still increases the firepower on the sortie by one and a half times). Of course, the helicopter idling while reloading is burning fuel - so it'd be interesting to see how much fuel the Mi-24 goes through during fifteen minutes 'on the tarmac'. Also, as I mentioned earlier - parts of Afghanistan are 600m ASL, and Afghanistan can go below zero during the day in winter (and colder than minus 20 at night), so it also isn't all hot and high. There would be plenty of situations where an Mi-24 could carry a couple of pods worth of reloads and also have plenty of fuel and power to spare. So I don't think the argument against this should be 'hot and high' or that the Mi-24 can't lift enough. The more central argument is - how does one provide security for the helicopter? How much time is saved compared to flying back to the airfield? I suspect the truth may actually be something in between - that in Afghanistan some Mi-24 ferried reloads to forward rearming points at locations controlled by ground forces. This then allowed Mi-24 to land and reload in an emergency without having to fly back to the airfield. Basically self-deploying reloads to a forward re-arming point controlled by friendly forces.

Some of the newest versions are different - but the Cold War era ones (like we are getting) have a maximum of of eight Shturm/Ataka using all four outer pylons. Earlier variants (Mi-24D) could only carry pairs of 9M17 missiles on the outermost hard-points. If you want 12 to 16 anti-tank missiles you'll need to go with the AH-64 or Ka-50. Interestingly though, these attack helicopters often flew in practice with less than the maximum number of anti-tank missiles. I think the feature I most anticipated for Black Shark III was the possibility of only carrying four anti-tank missiles... I've often found twelve to excessive, so the options for four or eight missiles seemed like a nice way to reduce weight and improve performance. Unfortunately, work on that module is suspended for the moment.

Any source for that? Obviously in the highlands on a hot day the helicopter could be quite limited. But some parts of Afghanistan are as low as 600m ASL and can go sub-zero in January (and below minus 20 centigrade at night). This means that the helicopter could lift more than in many parts of the U.S. Note that, with two crew, no shturms, and 4xUB32 rocket pods with an additional 64 rockets in the cargo compartment the aircraft could carry its full internal fuel load and still be >150kg below its maximum take-off weight (which is actually enough room to put the shturms back on). I really don't see it as impossible that they created some impromptu forward air reloading points (possibly near allied troops for protection). It is certainly within the capabilities of the helicopter. P.S. Heck, if it can do it when fully loaded - it could probably also do so in higher/hotter conditions -dropping the shturm and 1/3rds fuel would but it a nice >650kg below MTOW...

I agree - even if the dials are in English it doesn't mean we have to go non-metric.

Ah - but this is the Kord mount... not the window mounted PK guns... and even then, they often would only carry one gunner (who would operate both guns).