Avimimus

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.

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).

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)

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!

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.

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

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.

Updated.

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?

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?

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.