Jump to content

Avimimus

Members
  • Posts

    1377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Avimimus

  1. It has a forum and has been convered in weekend updates - so it is announced - unlike the others. However, they also mentioned in an interview that the IA-58 is simpler than the Super Tucano (with the main complexity in coding being the engines)... so we might see it released fairly quickly once they get around to it (e.g. both in 2024).
  2. The question is whether they'll complete the IA-58 or Super Tucano first...?
  3. I agree. That said - I think it is reasonable for people to offer to pay extra for additional variants/eras of an aircraft - or for the export examples. I'd love to pay for an export Mi-24P with PKT door guns and UPK gunpods... even better if it was an Mi-24V and came with the MBD bomb racks for it.
  4. Do either of you have references for this? Or is it based on your DCS experience only? Anyway, it is possible - one just has to fire off the first hardpoint and then deselect/reselect to reset the system. With the Kh-25L this is pretty easy, since it is only one missile: So just carry it on the first hardpoint and fire it off first.
  5. I'm hoping for good news - I have had the money for pre-ordering squirreled away for some time
  6. I'd just like an ability to low two or four (rather than six) missiles per hardpoint The Apache has this feature for its Hellfires, and it should be really easy for the devs to implement. Some of the early BS3 screenshots showed a model with only two Vikhrs per wing - so the 3d models were almost created in development (and this is a case where they could probably modify the existing 3d model to just have less tubes). It should be pretty easy.
  7. It is really noticeable if you create a COIN mission for a Gazelle and then change it so you are flying an Mi-8... all of a sudden you can't hover near the infantry safely!
  8. Ah! That does mean that the cosmetics of the cockpit (e.g. weapon stowage) will likely come in multiple variations! Anyway, that decision probably moves me to a day-one pre-order
  9. I do think it'd be a nice feature to be able to remove some of the items from the dash. Some of us will be creating peacetime scenarios (or scenarios which are a bit too early for the gunsight)... so having options to hide some of the dash items might be very good for immersion (and clean up the forward view a bit). I do intend to fly this thing as a 1980/1990s era 'CH-136' in Canadian use... I know it won't be completely accurate (especially the avionics), but it'd still be nice to clear up the dash. I'm sure lots of people have other scenarios for which the smoke and model of rifle don't fit.
  10. The Mi-8 forum had an Mi-24 thread (begging for the Mi-24) for many years - consider this thread an homage to that...
  11. Avimimus

    MI-24VP

    Honestly, I'd like that Yak-b 12.7mm gun. It potentially allows engaging multiple soft-skinned vehicles during a single pass. It also has some utility in increasing the area in which MANPADs can be suppressed. I've often looked through the gunsight while in the front seat and wished I could fire a burst at what I was seeing!
  12. I think the issue is that mods don't have a budget for maintenance... and tend to get broken with DCS updates. So, I still think it would be ideal to have two DCS versions - one which only allows full-fidelity modules, and one which allows simpler systems modelling modules (kind-of like the existing WWII asset pack). I agree. I suppose it is just - with no simulator covering modern aircraft - it might be good to have some ability/compromise which allows the DCS engine to cover some of these aircraft (perhaps in a separate environment like MAC, but also not in a super-arcady gamified way).
  13. The ones which bother me use cockpit components from helicopters... fever dream stuff. Apparently the designers were asked to do a study about what could be built after a war where most factories are destroyed but a few parts of the production lines survive. So these frankenplanes would be built to police what remained after a major war (think counter-insurgency after a moderate sized nuclear exchange). You can't build helicopters anymore, but part of the factory which can machine an Mi-24 cockpit survives... so you use those parts etc. A more practical prop (or hybrid) Su-25 competitor is MAI Foton: Soviet COIN and light Shturmovik Projects | Secret Projects Forum The basic idea was to reduce cost, target size, and signature through creating the smallest aircraft possible using high lift devices... hybrid jet/turbo-prop... given that the Su-25 often in combat only uses two or four hardpoints these days the reduced payload probably wouldn't have been much of a problem. There is an interesting picture comparing it to a WWII Il-2... interesting to see how much smaller they got it.
  14. Very interesting! That means that Paralay's drawings (e.g. the outer wing) are based on more than just interviews! In terms of late Soviet projects - I always thought the T-12 would be interesting. For one thing, the early versions could re-use the existing cockpit - which would make it easy to make flyable as a mod. Apparently Gunin himself worked on the renders/article - so they should be pretty accurate (if some hindsight hasn't crept in). Anyway, definitely worth a read: От штурмовика Судного Дня до Штурмовика 90.: pkk_avia — LiveJournal English translation here: Sukhoi T-12 | Secret Projects Forum You might also find this article interesting (although it will haunt your dreams): Штурмовик Судного дня.: pkk_avia — LiveJournal
  15. That isn't entirely true. One can use a mixture of knowledge about what is physically possible and technologically possible/probable in order to 'interpolate' a best guess. There might not be detailed flight-test data for the Mig 1.44 - but there is a huge difference between what a serious aeronautical engineer, working with someone who knows fluid dynamics (and has some time to run CFD simulations) would come up with for a flight model and what a typical arcade game developer would. The same goes for the N014 radar - having an idea of the dish size (likely number of elements), processing power, available power, and doctrine at the time can lead to an approximation of what the radar would have been like that is is much more accurate than making no attempt at realism whatsoever.
  16. Reassuring to hear - I've worried about that for three years It'd be nice if there was a version of MAC that kept the same basic quality of flight modelling (and even some of the systems modelling) and used an up-to-date version of the DCS engine - but allowed 3rd parties to add aircraft that are still classified. I always thought it'd be great to have some 5th generation aircraft (or aircraft that never saw service) in this game engine - something like the Mig 1.44 or F-35 for instance... part of me would like to be able to use regular DCS modules against them as well (even if not in 'DCS' proper).
  17. Core: Improved rocket warhead modelling (better fragmentation models) Improved missile sensor modelling (e.g. to make spoofing incoming missiles more realistic, and make it harder to beat the AI) Possibly more reactive ground units (I liked Gunship! where the ground units would sometimes hunt the helicopters)! A move towards providing more AI assets from a specific time or place (similar to Great Battles)... I'd like to see a version with some Flaming Cliffs/Modern Air Combat level of detail aircraft, but modelling more modern types (that can't be modelled realistically) or even some types that didn't see production. I'd love to test my skills against an AI piloted Mig 1.42 in an alternate history scenario where the Cold War lasted another ten years and there was no peace dividend. More realistically I'd like some more Red aircraft (Su-17, Mi-2URP, Mi-24V) and some COIN aircraft (A-37 Dargonfly, Eurocopter Tigre, IA-58)
  18. Avimimus

    MI-24VP

    I'd take an Mi-24V, with MDB racks (4xFAB-100), PKT door guns, and UPK-23-250... and maybe a couple of additional rocket warhead variants. I'd definitely pay as much as I did for the Mi-24P!
  19. I'm trying to break off at 2 km (as that keeps me out of the effective ranges of heavy machine guns and 20mm/23mm anti-aircraft guns). This requires me to start firing at about 3.5 km - I then observe the fall of shot and correct. Ironically, I have to start the run so far out because the bullet flight times are so long that I need to wait quite a bit to observer the fall of shot before correcting for the next burst (and it often requires three bursts to get onto the target). At these long ranges I suspect that most of the flight time of the bullet is subsonic - certainly, the first burst will appear to fall out of the sky onto the target (it looks more like a maximum range shot from an M230 than a GSh-2-30... almost indirect fire)! P.S. Interesting to hear about the longer burn-time for the Ka-50 tracer. Btw. I've often wondered if the ammunition on the SPPU-22 (Su-25 carried) has such a short time fuse - as they tend to self-destruct if I fire them from high altitudes. I do wish that the greater dispersion of gunpods from the relatively more flexible mountings provided by hardpoints was modelled - it'd make the UPK, SPPU and even the GUV better at suppressing MANPADS.
  20. I'd go with all AP against soft-targets - the lack of a self-destruct fuse means I can attack them from a safer distance
  21. I came through look for news... so the text of this message and thought 'poor fool'... then saw that it was me!
  22. Some type of contrast or tracking limitations to the sensor modelling (increase the challenge of the Shkval). Also the ability to carry only two or four Vikhr per hardpoint. I don't think it is worth feeling entitled, but given that I've bought this product three times now... it'd be nice if it had at least those Apache module features that are relatively easy to implement (e.g. racks with less weapons). P.S. Black Shark 3 was originally planned a couple years before the Apache was developed, but ended up being delayed. So perhaps it is unsurprising that the module is already a bit outdated upon release.
  23. I gather that an OH-58 with a pair of hellfires is a lot cheaper to operate than an AH-64 with a pair of hellfires... and in a COIN or patrol type situation having a couple of Hellfires can be pretty effective fire support to buy time for a squad of infantry... In such a situation a few APKWS look pretty attractive in terms of both cost and flexibility/effect. Of course, if one is facing a scenario with heavy enemy forces then keeping the OH-58 light and lasing for the AH-64 makes the most sense. Context matters... I wonder what context would justify ATAS/Stinger?
  24. Looks rather neat. I don't have the WWII assets pack - but I think the last time I flew a Natter was in a mod for SWOTL... so it'd be interesting! Weren't the rockets fired in salvoes though?
×
×
  • Create New...