Avimimus

Any word on sensor modelling? Particularly for infra-red guided missiles? That could do with significant improvements (and we are still missing the air-to-ground mode for the R-60). I'm also very curious if rocket warhead modelling will ever be improved (e.g. airbursts fuses) and modelling of fragments. It'd be nice if fragmentation models were improved for those flying older aircraft with less guided munitions.

I like the fact that it makes wookie noises!

It is certified for at least one type of gunpod, correct?

I feel like it was worth it. The MWS makes it feel like a step-up from the Mi-24P, the model's improved detail is actually a lot more of an improvement than I expected. I also re-read the manual and discovered some things. I still wish for an ability to carry less Vikhr per hardpoint (e.g. 2 tube and 4 tube rack options) and it'd also be nice to select individual hardpoints (as seems to be the case with the new wing on the Ka-52)... although I understand not including the latter as it is tied into the WCS. I have no idea why they wouldn't give us the lighter Vikhr racks though - seems like it wouldn't cost much to add (no additional programming, largely the same 3d model) and it'd add a lot.

Yeah, I get that. The cockpits are very different. I was just thinking it would be nice to have the ability to remove the weapons from inside the cockpit (as they wouldn't be allowed in a lot of jurisdictions and aren't very civilian). It'd add to the 'civilianized' experience of flying without weapons or mast mounted sight.

I do really enjoy flying civilian aircraft in this sim (but not civil flight sims weirdly)... so I'd support this... at least being able to remove both weapons and the MMS at the same time... and maybe the interior/cosmetic self-defense weapons/firearms?

Try firing while flying forward... to avoid the engine ingesting the hot gases from the rocket motor. Alternatively, try carrying S-13 rockets on only the outer hardpoints (and firing them two at a time).

There aren't versions of the VIkhr racks with only two or four tubes mounted. This means that one has to carry a minimum of six anti-tank missiles (which means hundreds of extra kilograms if one is expecting just a couple of targets e.g. during a COIN operation) - with negative impacts to both range and agility. In reality the Vikhr often is carried with only two or four tubes on the racks (both in training and in combat service). The full six-tube configuration is only carried when a large number of targets are anticipated. The Apache module has partially loaded (1xAGM-114, 2xAGM-114, 3xAGM-114) and fully loaded racks. We are proposing that Black Shark III receive partially loaded racks as well (e.g. 2x9A1472, 4x9A1472) as well as full loaded racks.

Currently once the Shkval locks onto something (aircraft, building, tank) it tracks it reliably - even sometimes through objects or in low light conditions. It would be great if the ability to track targets (especially moving targets) degraded under certain conditions, forcing us to switch to manual corrections if we're not firing against a fixed target etc. It'd be more realistic (in addition to being a fun challenge). It would also be more balanced if other modules are moving in this direction. Maybe some code could be adapted from another module?

Thought I'd produce a link to this here:

The Ka-52 is often seen flying with 6xVikhr on one hardpoint, and 20xS-8 rockets on the opposite hardpoint. This loadout can actually be carried. However, there is a major limitation - one has to fire off all of the weapons on hardpoint #1 prior to using hardpoint #4. The trick to doing this is to use up the first hardpoint - then deselect the hardpoint and reselect them (e.g. tap 'U' twice). This will reset the system and allow you to use the other weapons. I gather that the Ka-50 lacks the same degree of circuit breaker modelling as is seen in the later Mil modules - but for those who are more expert in the switchology: Is there any way to disable hardpoints individually? It would be nice to not have to completely use up one type of weapons before moving to the other. Of course this solution also works, but it isn't as pretty: That allows the use of either weapon system at will. P.S. I still think it would be a real benefit to have a 2x9A1472 and 4x9A1472 racks as options like in the Apache module... as that would allow lighter symmetric loadouts, and also carrying 2xVikhr, 4xVikhr, and 8xVikhr (when appropriate or realistic to doctrine)... rather than just 6xVikhr or 12xVikhr... the Americans are not the only ones who avoid overloading their helicopters when they don't need to.

I have the same situation. I've got the BS1 case, DVD, and a receipt (managed to find all of it after 15 years)... and I have the serial number for the BS2 upgrade... but I don't have the connection between the old Starforce number (which I can't find) and the BS2 serial number, and can't find any serial number in BS1... so no upgrade option to BS3...

Yes. It seems to be very common (if not the most common) in service. One can fly with just one APU-6 but: - We are still limited to a minimum of six missiles (compared to the Kamov's in these photos which are carrying four). - and as Flanker mentioned, we don't get the option of carrying those four missiles in a balanced way (easier to trim). So it'd be really great and get the feature in the 'Apache' module of less missiles per rack. Perhaps two missile per rack and four missile per rack variants? By the way, it is possible to do the Ka-52 approach of having an APU-6, a V-20 pod, and two drop tanks - but it looks a bit weird: In a perfect world we might be able to use the 'left, both, right' rocket selector to have the V20 and the APU-6 on hardpoint 1 and 4 respectively (with the fuel tanks on 2 & 3).

I upgraded to Open Beta... and it works now! It is just a case of the manual outrunning the stable build (rather than the other way around).

Yes. It seems a bit much to expect people to find a 15 year old serial key for a game that no longer works - especially given that many of us have been running Black Shark 2 (and paid to upgrade to it) for years, but never used the serial key replacer... a replacer that wasn't available initially (for the first few years we had to install BS1 and then we could upgrade to BS2 - but the serial numbers weren't upgraded in the process). Anyway - I've found my old CD-ROM, box and receipt - but I can't find any serial number/key.

Any tips on finding the serial number? I've found my old Black Shark 1 Box and Disk and the receipt from the order - but I can't find a printed serial number.

Unfortunately, I don't have the best sources of information. Just the '400 rounds' every 15-20 minutes to prevent heating leading to primer/cartridge explosion... which makes one wonder why the GUV carries 750 rounds? Especially given the limited endurance of a fully loaded Mi-24. It seems to have also been vulnerable to dirt and jams. The ammunition links apparently also broke sometimes (at least in the turreted installation - the feed path might've been gentler in the gunpod?). Still - it sounds like it was quite effective when it worked. Anyway: Turntables, Afghanistan. MI-24 (topwar.ru) I'd personally be quite happy with either stoppages or a simple overheating mechanic... both would put interesting limits on the use of these pods.

Hmm... well, I think the poor accuracy would be really interesting. The ballistic performance of the rounds would be basically the same as the A-10 - however the dispersion would be much higher... kind-of a a saturating effect. It has a lower rate of fire - but with all three gunpods one would end up with about 1.84 times the rate of fire of the A-10... which combined with the dispersion would be pretty suppressing... Amusingly. I'm the one who rewrote that paragraph many many years ago and put it on the Wikipedia I'm surprised it has lasted. I suppose I'm consistent. Perhaps a better source is the channel paper skies - they did a good video recently:

I can't get this to work either. I wonder if it is related to an upcoming patch? Or if there is an error? It'd be interesting if this would work, as it'd make S-13 pods more useful. I'd already discovered the GUV and bomb combination, as well as the S-5 and bomb combination (although I didn't really that S-8/S-13/S-24 don't work with bombs. I also found it interesting that R-60 is compatible with S-8 or S-24 (but not S-5 or S-13)! The one big discovery is that it is possible to load the R-60 asymmetrically with 9M114 (which is a useful combination - since the spool up time for R-60 can be engaged on only one side at a time, all four missiles are unlikely to be used in the same engagement).

I suppose that is doable with manual override to reduce the cooldown... but one still ends up with the weight of the tubes (as well as their drag). ...so, not quite a substitute to proper modelling (and also can't be used for wingmen). P.S. Reminds me of Janes WWII fighters - where I'd fire off almost all of my ammunition in the Fw-190 A-8 so I could experience the brief period of being of being an 'F' variant since the MG151/MG131 took longer to run out than the Mk-108... so one could get one strafing run with just the F-8 weapon arrangements...

Yes, I do hope they someday at jams for the GUV pods... that'd be pretty neat.

Well, there is another way of looking at it - if you put 100,000 hours into a project and then discovered that one could add an interesting feature for one tenth of one percent of the effort already put into it... wouldn't you? A lot comes down to the personalities of the developer of course. That said, I agree that the rationale for adding this piece of equipment is pretty weak. Thank you all for your informative and well-reasoned answers!

Yes, I'm aware that they had rigidity issues leading to high dispersion and loss of calibration and lacked proper integration into the HUD on the F-16... leading to their withdrawl from combat use after a few hours in Desert Storm. I'm also aware that the idea of sending fighters on strafing runs was increasingly dubious in the 1980s and 1990s (even if the up-armoured A-16 had been built)... ...but until someone makes a Mig-27K - how else am I supposed to experience such a bad idea? P.S. I think there is a big difference from what is wise in real-life and fun in a consequence-free environment like a computer game - sure there is overlap, but sometimes bad ideas are worth experiencing for oneself - putting a 30mm gatling gun (or three of them) on an expensive air-superiority fighter and trying to do WWII style ground attack missions probably is one of those

Thank you for that intelligent and well informed reply. Honestly, it is probably a silly ask. The truth is that I really like guns and rockets... and I found myself thinking that the GPU-5/A would cause me to be much more likely to purchase the module (and invested in learning all of the switches)... I'd honestly be happier with a stick of iron bombs followed by a couple of strafing passes... rather than using guided bombs. While you are humouring me - were there ever plans, even at a really early stage, to equip this thing with unguided rockets? I recalled the GPU-5/A from reading an old book (that came out before the F-15E entered service), but I can't remember if it said whether rockets were ever envisioned. P.S. Part of me still wants the GPU-5/A - and the fact that it was cleared for use on the F-15E just makes it seem almost reasonable.

I suppose this is true of the gunpods too? The flexibility of the mountings for the UPK seem to show a lot more vibration/flexing in video footage than in game (and the same must also go for the SPPU-22 hardpoint, mechanism, etc.) It'd probably actually make these weapons more useful if they had a slightly higher dispersion (of course then they'd be much more effective than rockets given the current limitations in rocket warhead fragmentation modelling).