Avimimus

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.

1) There are many ways one could get equipment into enemy territory IRL: Mi-8 cargo choppers, commandos, friendly paramilitaries/guerrillas etc. 2) I believe there are a number of new helicopter ground support objects (see the screenshots on the website). Remember, I'm not affiliated with anyone who knows anything here.

Thanks for the effort. This is one of the few items that hasn't been significantly overhauled since Flanker 2.0 File0118.tif in this *.zip has a scaled diagram: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/su25wita.html Some more info: http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/anur/s8.html http://warfare.ru/?catid=346&linkid=2512 S!

The question about time frames reminded me of the predator screenshot that was shown early. This in turn causes me to if the Hermes 450 be included...

What about "none of the people none of the time"? :D Time to celebrate!

I personally would like to try taking off in the middle of the night from an airfield which is being over run (due to defecting units or an ambush by urban guerrillas). It will be a great use of the very limited NVG set up we're getting in BS (and the triggers as well). Regarding deep penetration: Can anyone think of a strategic scenario in which a team of Kamov would be sent (or lent) to destroy long range air defences? I suspect that even the S-300 would be vulnerable to helicopters if the could get through its associated SHORAD unit...

Now that it appears that Lock-on: Flaming Cliffs will be the definitive Su-25 sim (at least until around 2015), I was wondering if anyone could produce a new 3d model for the B-8 rocket pod? I've held off asking until now, but couldn't help myself ;)

:D I thought the 3d model we currently have in Lock-on:FC was pretty good. This is a surprise indeed (so many surprises!). Thanks for the answer, heres to hoping of the the A in ...2014!

Very nice information. Especially about the Hind... (By the way, as a member of the team I would recommend using the special access to the code to try flying the Mi-24P the fixed gun is a lot more fun than a turret to use based on my experience with mods in other sims) Also, as I'm sure people will ask eventually, what happened to the Su-25SM? S! Thanks for the update.

Not sure if this was posted. The bomb tumble is quite a bit different than in Lomac ;) There's also some neat footage of salvos of high diameter rockets (S-24?) at one point. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hhrn0scK0gI S!

It might even work for Kamov. There are some smaller airforces out there that might be won over if enough of their pilots were won over by playing the sim.

Ahh... Thanks for the APU talk. I found it very pleasant to listen to. ...so where do you find it? I've a feeling that I'll need this tidbit.

Doesn't the B-2 have a 286 processor? Which means some data has to be entered by hand during the mission by the crew? Meanwhile the Russian's have almost perfected the aircraft gun (eg. GSH-301 or GSH-23-6 vs. M-61 in dimensions, weight, firepower and reliability)! Seriously though: the impression that I get from the videos is that, in terms of both the simulated world's modeling fidelity and avionics detail, will easily surpass any of the Falcon 4 derivatives. I almost think there is a small chance the game will be prevented from release at the last minute for security reasons or that the Kamov production line models will have a "start up abort switch" stuck in place of one of the switches in the sim in order to prevent people from taking one for a joyride... Of course, I have no better basis for these wild beliefs than you do (and I'm not talking to the beta testers this time, unfortunately...)

How is 1 modeled? In FC the distribution of mass changes as parts are lost, but I believe the question was actually aimed at partially broken off parts, warping of parts, denting of the fuselage etc. I personally agree that rebuilding damage models to incorporate this feature is too much work (and they would have to be rebuilt). On the other hand one could do the following for vehicles without modifying the existing models or adding much to the game's code: - have smoke pour out from where the engine is located indicating engine damage - have the cargo on a truck catch fire (with the driver ignoring it and keeping moving) - have the crew abandon the vehicle (with smoke coming out of the open hatch) - have the turret jam at a specific angle and be unable to move - depress part of a wheeled vehicle so that the lower section of a wheel is below the terrain (indicating a blown tire) - spawn a 3d model for a length of tread behind one of the tracks (the tank would still have a full tread on it, so there would now be two treads - but who would really care? In combat you would barely have time to note the length of tread behind the vehicle and figure out the critical fact that it is now immobile)" By the way, can impacts impart kinetic energy (ie. cause vibration, knock the nose of the aircraft off-course etc.)?

And a button that removes the pilot's glove: so you can read bleary writing on your wrist with the start up sequence! (Just in case you didn't train yourself properly.) Seriously though, I think you're idea about the kneepads is a great one. It could be a simple text file or a *.jpg

I would be interested in Russian formations (eg. two-ships sliding back and forth past each other to confuse gunners, two pairs taking turns attacking a target from different directions)

Thats nice to see again. Its five times more impressive then it was the first (several) times I saw it. Why isn't it on the website proper? S!

My assumption is that the cold war escalated at the end of the 1980s (leading to mass production of some types) and then ended abruptly in the mid-1990s (leading to those types not getting replaced).

I'm undaunted. The Hind has a similar, and in some cases superior combat capability when compared to the Cobra. While being a bit less maneuverable, it was capable of acting in the roles it was assigned to and it also has the capability to act as a transport if there is a need (which gives the force flexibility). The reason why a dedicated combat helicopter wasn't developed in the Soviet Union was largely due to tactical doctrine. The effectiveness of the AH-64 in a hot war is strongly in doubt (at least the losses/tanks destroyed ratios that were proposed to justify its cost). The Mi-28 and Ka-50 were only developed in anticipation of good targeting avionics and night attack capability (that latter still isn't fully developed). Furthermore, if you are a small country you are going to be flying you're hind force all the time (acting as transport and patrol aircraft or making repeated sorties against guerrillas etc.) The reason why countries are buying new ones isn't because they have spares so much as because they have used up all of their examples. If you can only afford a dozen helicopters you want them to be multi-purpose and a design you are familiar with. So, yes, the Hind isn't an Apache. But then again, the Apache isn't a Hind...