Avimimus

Bombs are useful for low intensity warfare and demolition purposes. There are reports that Mi-24s in Afghanistan carried up to ten 100kg bombs (presumably four on each of the inner pylon and one on each of the outer pylons). The Ka-50 is also reportedly cleared to carry the KGMU (I read somewhere that you can fire each chamber separately - but I haven't been able to track down the source).

Three reasons: 1) Its more realistic 2) You can try to survive multiple missions instead of repeatedly dying on the same mission until you memorise it perfectly (cheating) 3) You can employ your weapons in relative peace and take a bit of time to actually enjoy it I personally could never play OFP, as the default campaigns and 99% of missions required exploiting flaws in the game and playing like some kind of slightly more realistic rambo. Technically, the gun equipped variants of the "Hip" (mi-8 ) ;) could theoretically engage five targets simultaneously. This should be fairly effective at suppressing manpads. At least in theory one could combine fixed forward firing PKs or gunpods, a flexible bow machinegun, a door gunner and two window port gunners). Is this correct?

Or stupidity :D

I always figured the effects of such helicopters would be light attrition and demoralisation (eg. akin to sniper teams) or completing destruction (ie. mopping up after fixed wing SEAD and CAS strikes). I can't really imagine attack helicopters having the battlefield endurance to bog down troops even with a FARP on the battlefield, they just have too much fire-power and too little armour. Of course, at a larger scale, a series of strikes could block up roads with tank hulks etc. You underestimate me, sir.

It isn't as much of an issue with the Ka-50. The Vikhr is one of the cheaper missiles out there (~20% of the price of a Hellfire?). Compared to what the cost of fuel will soon be... But what about collateral damage? Since the early days of Flanker 2 I recall that civilian/scenery buildings would be listed as destroyed in the debriefing. It would be nice to have an option whereby mission builders could set "mission failed" or "subtract points" for the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It would certainly add a different pressure to tactical decisions. Of course, if the building was set as a target in the first place it would be considered as a military target. What do you think?

'ecause it is...(seriously, its not just the looks)

Option 8 would be choice. Unfortunately, I can't edit it at this point. Option 10 might be the closest, though? It is a lot of options, isn't it? Nuclear weapons are a complicated topic which has very simple implications, I think.

*cough* January *cough*

First: I am not affiliated with ED. I have no influence in the development of Black Shark nor am I any better indicator of what they will do than a dead chicken is an indicator of the future. This poll is being done out of my own personal curiosity: Nuclear weapons have always been a touchy issue in flight simulators. I created a poll on the subject some time ago and it stimulated an interesting discussion. Unfortunately the poll was to simple to to capture the variety and complexity of positions people had. So, I decided it would be good to make a second attempt. Anyway, to break up the monotony while we're waiting for the next bit of news: Should sims like DCS eventually model nuclear weapons? In conclusion: I am not affiliated with ED. I have no influence in the development of Black Shark nor am I any better indicator of what they will do than a dead chicken is an indicator of the future.

:) That is a cool set of smoke generators ...really confusing for NATO??? :D I have a question while we're asking: In Lomac all rockets appear to deduct the same amount of hit points from a target (despite some randomisation). This means that it always takes several rockets to destroy a target. On the other hand a direct hit by an S-8KOM or S-8T should destroy any vehicle that has weaker armour than a main battle tank. So: - Do the armed forces in Eastern Europe regularly mix different types of rockets in the same pod? - Are the different types selectable or are all tubes fired in a standard sequence? - Have probability values been added in DCS:BS to simulate the wide variation in effectiveness of different types of rocket warheads against targets? - Or is it eventually planned to be able to select different warhead mixtures for your rocket pods? Thanks,

It might be good to have this in the installer... remember the old Jane's sims? As part of the setup you chose one of two (or three) default configs.

Hello everyone, While we're waiting... I found something... A firm which has built a couple of professional military tank sims had just made a WW2 tank sim. I was surprised both by its existence and its features. I'm impressed enough to call it the "Il-2 of tank sims": - Immersive details like 3d tankpits with hatches that can be opened by gradations. - Very high production standards (for instance the music is subtle, unnoticeable and appropriate) - Infantry in a trenchline popping up for just a second to snap off a shot before ducking again (or trying to throw grenades into your tank hatches) and allied infantry running at full speed behind thanks. - A next generation approach which takes into account a lot of real limitations (you must have the throttle up before the tread brakes allow the tank to turn, at any given time you can only change azimuth or elevation for the gun - simulating moving hands from one position to another). Download the demo: http://steelfury.info/index2.html An after action report: Getting caught out in the open by an enemy armoured counter attack and having to flee a hundred metres to the east into a village. Winding up with the allied force (both tanks and infantry) annihilated. Now trapped with the engine disabled blasting at unwary enemy infantry as they cross through the town. The enemy's armoured force was taken out by your allies as they fell back and died, but a single StuG III remains. As it creeps past the nearest building - less than a hundred metres away - can your turret give you the advantage? But you only have two of your original seventy-six rounds remaining and they are both high explosive fragmentation... if you can hit the tread at this range you can keep the StuG from turning and bringing its gun to bear. This is your chance. If you succeed you may wind up waiting for a day or so, unable to move the tank and unable to leave your seat (for fear even one of the enemy infantry is still alive in the town) and hope your positions is recaptured by Soviet troops before it gets recaptured by Germans. If you fail ...at this range your side armour won't... no, you won't fail

Interesting to know... Thats good news for Mi-28 lovers btw. According to ED's rough estimates they should get through the existing aircraft list sometime in 2014-2016 which means that the information will have a bit of time to get declassified... 8) That said, there are a few birds I'd favour first if it were me...

If it is done I have a suggestion: The biggest problem is that if there was one print out for the entire cockpit it would both make the switches really really tiny and produce perspective problems. Instead, it would be better to have a print out of each different device. Halfpastseven is most likely right though: The best solution would be a pit trainer. Ideally there would be several different exercises (eg. two or three different tasks such as setting a waypoint, changing a waypoint) for each panel. One could go from system to system completing different exercises without even taking off. I found the Lomac training videos almost impossible due to the lack of interactivity and actually used the Flanker 2 flip book to learn most of the procedures. I've also found interactive training missions, in other sims, that could be "broken" by deviating slightly from the designers procedures or shut off too many systems frustrating. A non-interactive trainer would be alright if it consisted of smaller chunks (ie. watch the video take five steps, do the same five steps yourself, watch the next five steps, do the next five steps yourself, repeat etc.) Clearly this is one of the big challenges that ED faces.

*Pst...* (whispering) the Mi-24 is already there...

Acedy is the one who came up with the Hindsight, all credit should go to him (I just formalised it by adding the DCS). I agree that DCS:Hindsight would do well, though. The Hind is a subject of fascination, but it is also all too often dismissed by Westerners as a result of lingering cold-war bravado. Hindsight would imply that we can now look back impartially on the helicopter, its historical importance and many capabilities. It also could be interpreted as referring to the symbolic importance of the airframe and the elegantly simple PKV. Its also a pun (which is fun). S!

DCS: Hindsight 8)

Hear, hear! Yes, this thread is long, long overdue. (to the devs, as well as, extended to include all who have provided useful information) Thank you, you've made waiting for the sim more than worth it. Thank you for encouraging our curiousity and interest with many informative answers. Thank you for making APUs interesting. Thank you. S!

I suppose it is possible to use the predefine target point in concert with an active laser in order to fire a Vikhr at a fixed piece of terrain (eg. a bowler hat)? I'm sure I was told somewhere that doing so was impossible...

I wonder if there is a Russian equivalent of the -ski as in Amraamski etc. eg: 1. DCS Rookski etc.

Its nice to see some people who agree (...they seemed to think I was crazy when I made the same argument at the BIStudio forum...) Jousting with a single rocket pod...

But is the engine start up sequence different on the french version...? These things matter now. :( +1 though on the Jaguar (or Mig-27 which could act as the Soviet A-10)

I think the definitive issue here is the combination of the two characteristics (ie. flying a long way in order to die). I could never get into OFP ('cept for the OWP Mi-2 and BAS OH-58 ) because all of the missions required you to kill 20+ enemy soldiers and half a tank platoon. The same goes for the default single missions in Lomac, they take a good deal of skill and multiple tries before you develop "a walkthrough" for carrying out them mission without dying. I can see the appeal of hard missions to their designers, in that virtually unwinnable missions have to be replayed more in order to complete them, but in reality an easily winnable mission is also just as enjoyable and offer the player a greater variety of approaches and more chances to admire the mission's design. I'd much prefer a campaign where are skilled player could reach mission fifteen without dying or being overly heroic. Imagine typical missions where you totally outnumber and outclass your opponent and your goal is instead to win the battle with no allied casualties... I'm not saying there can't be "white knuckled", desperate and heroic missions. I'm just saying that they should be the exception instead of the rule in any campaign. Does anyone agree with this idea? S!

Last I hear, at the current time the game engine just treats infantry as vehicles that can't be seen until they open fire and may not even be included in the release. So the answer is most likely that its "too early to say". In any case I am personally am looking forward to seeing a Hind with Fab-100 MBDs, GUV-8700 pods and a cargo compartment that could be any combination of: 1) Empty 2) Cargo 3) A team of observers 4) A full team of soldiers 5) Medivac 6) One door gunner with a single gun 7) One door gunner with two guns (one on each side) 8) Two door gunners with two guns (ie. each gun operated) 9) Empty with the armour plates removed in order to save weight 10) Extra ammunition for self reloading near the battlefield ... or so I dream...

Peace on earth and good will towards men.