Avimimus

Astute observation. I hadn't thought of it that way. (Although the depressible cannon for fixed wing aircraft in Russian design philosophy far predates experience with helicopters. See: http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/RAM/pe-2sh.html , http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/tskb-18.html)

Il-2 certainly was (colour saturation, specular lighting, water)

I don't think so. I've only ever seen references to the SPPU-6 being mounted on the Su-24 (and I wouldn't be surprised if it has specialised avionics requirements). The SPPU-22 has been used on the Su-25, Su-17 and Mig-27. The new SPPU is largely unknown. The SPPU series pods are really for suppressing targets from a high-speed platform - there is no reason to carry the extra weight in a helicopter. The unpopular GUV-8700 helicopter pods are far more likely. In any case, in terms of dimensions & weight for a given muzzle velocity/rate of fire/caliber Soviet aircraft guns have a clear lead on the NATO equivalents. Compare the Gsh-6-23 with the M61 for instance (and then realise that the M61 weighs as much as two Gsh-301...)

I would wish for having two wishlists: - Additional content (aircraft, ground units, weapons, countries, terrain) - Additional features (mission file improvements, weather system, sensor types, infantry improvements, AI)

+ and have the addition of a CIV traffic on/off flag in the mission file... (requested feature list never ends does it?)

Very interesting... now this raises a question. Can there be two "arts" and therefore two "state of the arts". I can't help but remember that the VBMP requirements (for the Hind successor) stipulated an ability for the turbines to run on diesel fuel if necessary. Perhaps, there is one "art" or design philosophy and role/requirement in the east and another in the west?

What does "state of the art" mean?

In the early versions at least, it was possible to exit (and reenter) a landed helicopter. This was reported by Simhq,

The troop compartment was also emptied/had armour removed to lighten the airframe, carried defensive gunners, extra ammunition so the helicopter could reload itself and a number of other things. I think in the first couple of versions of DCS we will have to use triggers to simulate landing zones (ie. spawning infantry around landed helicopters). I look forward to the possibilities though - insertions can be a lot of fun.

Thanks Viper, I suspect that the range stats are actually for the missile system. While the video likely shows engagement of tower mounted static fake airborne targets, I believe that the missile system can be guided into a point on the ground.

Who's the best at jousting only using rockets?

.

If you guys want to repost updates from last year, I'll read still them... :D

This one: (despite how wonderful some of the newer ones are - this one make my heart soar).

You know, at maximum range on internal fuel the AH-1 has the same armament as the OH-58...

Say, can't the Tunguska engage ground targets as well (using the missiles)?

Er... Arneh old boy, what about the S-25 340mm rocket? If I'm not mistaken it has rifling in the O-25 launcher (as well as angled booster rockets to help it "spin up"). I think the distinction between rockets, rocket-assisted projectiles and guns largely has to do with where the majority of the kinetic energy comes from (ie. if the majority comes from gravity, it is a "rocket assisted bomb", if the majority comes once the projectile has left the tube/rail it is a "rocket"). Recoilless designs are best defined as designs in which the recoil on the barrel is cancelled by an equal force in the opposite direction. It could be argued that tube launched rockets are a form of recoilless design (but not necessarily a gun - see above) as the rocket derives all of its energy from the gas efflux (and thus is largely independent of the launch system). Of course, a system like the RPG-7 doesn't qualify as it uses an additional explosive charge to get the missile clear of the barrel. So far as I know "recoilless gun" and "recoilless rifle" are reserved for systems that fire a second projectile backward. Usually the forward firing round is a traditional "killing" shell, while the rearward firing round is a higher mass and therefore lower velocity counterweight (eg. a bean bag soaked in oil or containing lead pellets). The downside of a recoilless system is that it takes twice the charge to achieve a given velocity for the round. The upside is a lighter launcher that doesn't have to withstand recoil. I recall that the french in Algeria paratrooped motorcycles with fixed forward firing artillery calibre guns this way. The Ov-10 was also originally planned to be a recoilless rifle equipped system and the German's in world war two developed 350mm recoilless anti-shipping guns for bomber aircraft (but never fielded them). If anyone is still confused see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_third_law

Personally, I find it hard to imagine any website better than the DCS one. It is relatively simple, crisp, easy to navigate, easily loads on a 56k modem, has a gentle colour scheme and still manages to integrate a system for file distribution and purchases. So, honour and glory to the designer of the original DCS website for certain (not that I have anything against stealthtemplates designs, or his nice offer to ED, its just I also really like the current DCS website and I'd never realised how much I like it).

Its funny, I'd actually prefer a flyable C-130 to an AC-130 anyway...

Not to mention screenshots of an indeterminant Hind variant (Mi-24V was announced as planned, but the gunners pit was recognised by Arneh as a likely P variant - and he should have a good idea)

I couldn't find any pictures of that crash (I remember it was impressive). But I did find these (the pilots survived, although a lot of other people didn't):

I think the current situation will be much more realistic than Apache-Havok (lots of pairs of helicopters flying at each other, little clusters of five vehicles etc.) Helicopters play a very different than fixed wing aircraft and it is harder to auto-generate scenarios without giving up realism in order to ensure they remain playable (by making unrealistic distributions of enemies, weaker AI etc.)

Yeah, what's with that? Seriously, the Ka-50 was developed for an anti-tank helicopter role to be used in a major/apocalyptic land war. Just because it wasn't designed to go up against heavy air defences doesn't mean it is designed only for low intensity combat (I doubt Apache crews really train for taking out entire AD battalions without heavy SEAD support - they'd have to be crazy to do so). In other words if the Ka-50 (and Ka-50Sh) were designed for low intensity conflicts then so was the Apache. Of course, the Ka-50 is marketed as an ideal helicopter for such a role. There is a simple reason for this: It is the only role for which there is currently a market. I would like to see some screenshots of a group of 12-20 Kamovs catching a Tank Battalion while it is relatively exposed. Of course, the helicopters should be preceded by a SEAD strike to take out enemy radars (and radar-sams) and to cause confusion. Imagine the fire power of approximately 10 Vikhr's every five seconds from 7km...

Thanks for the video. The details in this sim are truly amazing (I think the movement of the DUAS-V and the shadows from the rotor blades are worth it for immersive value - its pretty amazing though) A couple quick questions about the weapon salvo switch: - How many settings does it have? Is there a way to set the delay between rounds as well as the number? - What effect does it have (salvo size) on the S-8 and S-13 respectively? - Does it effect bombs? Does it effect the number of KGMU chambers fired? - Can Vikhr's be fired in pairs like on the Su-25? S!

Point taken regarding maximum speed. I was wrong, the figures I had for the Ah-64 and Ah-1 were inaccurate (both are faster than the Mi-24). I was also under the impression that lift generated by the passing of the air through the rotor disk and over the stub wings will reduce the torque on the rotor allowing the collective to be lowered and allowing more of the torque to be directed to the cyclic (thus increasing the forward thrust of the rotor relative to what would be possible if the rotor system had to generate equal lift to that required in a hover and the power for maintaining velocity at the same time). Is this correct? I looked this up. The anhedral was actually introduced for stability (the original prototype showed signs of going into a "dutch roll" at higher speeds). The anhedral does also have the additional effect of helping to introduce a natural yawing motion in response to a slight banking of the helicopter when at speed. This is supposedly one of the unusual characteristics of this aircraft. When considering its effects on stability and turning moment it is also a good idea to consider that the stub wings have a higher angle of incidence than in fixed wing aircraft. This was exactly my point. Not only do you lose the lift from forward flight but you also suffer from the swings "shadow". Sorry for any lack of clarity. Thanks for the corrections,