Avimimus

Could you ask for better rocket warhead modelling and more variety in rocket warheads (for the Su-25, Mi-8 etc.) Some aircraft really depend upon rockets to do their jobs I just discovered a post from 2004 made by me asking for this - so it has been 18 years apparently...! But if you're somehow lucky?!

Give me a CRV-7 rocket pod for the CF-18/CF-188 and I'd have actually bought it. I haven't picked it up so far. IMHO, the Canadian version is so close the decision to not model it is silly - especially given that the armament is also certified for American versions, just not actually carried operationally. If you want to uphold that gold standard - then be consistent - delist the F-18 for every other country in the game, remove all of the skins for every other country which operates it. Then - of course - one has to recognise that incremental upgrades mean that the aircraft modelled is only accurate to a three year period - so make it so that it can't interact with any other AI aircraft or ground unit unless it is prototypical to the exact three year period that the airplane is modelled to represent.

Not licensed yet though, and there is another dev whose almost finished the art (but doesn't have a license either)... so it looks like three devs were interested - and one has fairly complete art and another has a partial test implementation... which is promising. Anyway, we should probably let the conversation go back to the F-100...

Now all that they need is the F-104 and F-105... and they'll have to develop a Su-22 or Mi-2 or something (as they'll have exhausted the popular American aircraft)

Part of me wonders if this might be an oversight on the part of the devs? Updated the 23mm round but didn't take into account the belting for air-to-ground use? Also, I strongly suspect that the semi-flexible mounting, combined with the hardpoint attachment points, should lead to a lot more vibration and dispersion than a fixed mount. When it was first modelled it had much higher dispersion (very useful for clearing out MANPADs).

Here is an attempt at some rough performance data: It has the rotor area of a UH-1 Huey but weighs a bit less (bringing it a bit closer to the Sa-342 Gazelle in terms of disk loading). Its speed is also closer to the UH-1 than to the later light scout helicopters - as is its loaded weight. So if you like the UH-1, but want more varied armament... it might be the thing for you. It is the closest to a scout helicopter that the Soviets ever produced though... so it should also appeal to those who like to be small, hard to hit/spot, and sneak around in their Gazelles, Kiowas, and Bo-105s too...

Updated with helicopters and currently planned modules

I ran across this and thought it was amusing: So, the situation has improved somewhat - but only a tiny amount... and in two years it'll be the twentieth anniversary of me suggesting this might be a good idea Especially for the Su-25A, Mi-24, and Mi-8 - aircraft that really rely on rockets. IMHO, I'm hoping that the rocket warhead improvements for the AH-64 module will eventually lead to improvements for rockets in general - and that the ability to have partially loaded missile racks on the Apache will find its way onto Black Shark III (if not the Mi-24P)... hoping, but not that optimistic. Still, it is a bit funny to discover how consistent one is

There are AI ASW helicopters and aircraft. There was also an experimental mod at one point (if I recall correctly). The Santa Fe was also hit by helicopters while surfaced during the battle of South Georgia...

Well, it has a flight model. Albeit one with a few issues and which is becoming increasingly obsolete compared to other modules. However, compared to pre-2010 helicopter flight simulators it is clearly superior to a lot of them.

Interesting - so the opposite of what we tend to do in DCS: Firing off the R/ER to get the opponent to go defensive, and then launching the ET once they've shown tail or afterburner! I do hope the IR rework they are doing eventually extends to the missile seekers.

I do hope this is the case. They really need to revisit how rocket warheads are modelled at some point - and expand the number of options as soon as the system is upgraded. I'd definitely pay for an Mi-24P Hind II module with an export variant equipped with UPK gunpods and more rocket warhead options! Maybe AI controlled PKT door gunners as well or the 4xFAB-100 multiple bomb racks used in Afghanistan. There are actually a number of options for expansion (in spite of the surprising diversity already included in this module).

Yeah, I think my perspective is that they'd be good to have as an AI only option (much as is the case with the Mi-8)... in order to simulate door gunners in the pre-Kord era... it is nice to have some type of suppressive capability on your helicopter, and for Afghanistan era missions I believe the PKT was the weapon equipped? P.S. I believe there is a photo of an AGS-17 set up to be fired from the side of a helicopter... that would be interesting - probably more effective than the gunpod version is!

For many years the Mi-8 forum had an Mi-24 thread... I think it is time we continue that tradition, but extending it to the Mi-2. Why the Mil Mi-2: 1) It is the next most produced Soviet helicopter at ~5500 examples (after the Mi-8 with ~17,000 built and the Mi-24 with ~2650). 2) It pioneered the twin turbine roof arrangement of the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (and other later Soviet helicopters). It is also cute. 3) It is the closest Soviet equivalent to the light NATO helicopters (e.g. OH-58, Sa-342, Bo-105). Although it is slower at 210 km/h, with a lower disk loading, its payload and role put it in the lighter utility helicopter category (good for spotting, medivac gameplay etc.) 4) The Polish variants (particularly the Mil Mi-2URP) have a remarkable armament including: Fixed forward firing 23mm cannon Flexibly mounted door guns Air-to-Air missiles (Strela) Rockets (up to 32 rockets) MCLOS anti-tank missiles (4xMalyutka-M ready to fire, four reloads in the cargo compartment). Furthermore these weapons could be carried asymmetrically in the URP version - allowing up to three types of weapons to be carried at once (giving it a more varied armament than the Western light helicopters we are likely to get).

I just want to know if we'll someday get modular racks allowing us to carry only two or four Vikhr per rack! I could be patient for release if I knew we were getting this feature (similar to what the Apache has).

What I don't understand is the getting rid of the buttons for a touch screen... I mean, tactile responses to ensure one knows that one has successfully given a command to the aircraft would be pretty essential one would think... Lots of head down time if one can't feel the spot to find the right button and feel oneself press it.

I think that the improvements to the Apache - namely the ability to carry less than the full amount of Hellfires per rack ought to be eventually passed on to the other helicopters (i.e. Mi-24, Ka-50). It would seem to be fair. That said the Mi-24 is relatively well off since its racks only carry two missiles per rack (rather than four or six)... so there is already some flexibility there. On the other hand the Mi-24 has the smallest useable payload out of the three so it needs to be even more cautious in terms of what it carries.

That is assuming the weapon control system allows mixed payloads, rather than limiting us to one unguided weapon type at a time. Honestly though, with only four relevant hardpoints... we'll usually probably want four rocket pods or four bombs... or two rocket pods/bombs and two self-defense missiles... so it is likely much less of an issue than it would be on other aircraft. Also, it has an internal gun (unlike the AJS-37 which frustratingly can't carry gunpods alongside rockets or bombs - only missiles).

Hmm.... but money carries essentially no information - how are they to know why I bought the product? Maybe they think I'm just interested in higher resolution rivets or the Igla? That I don't care about being able to carry fewer missiles or asymmetric loadouts? How are they to know why I do what I do?

If it is Su-22, should it not have R-29 engine?

Obligatory 'must think in Russian' reference: It is supposedly easier to fly than the Mig-23... Anyway, I'm personally really curious about its sustained turn and high-aoa stability... as that is bugged out in the current AI flight model (and also a bit wonky in some mods in other sims that tried to model this aircraft). I'm curious what it is like in a higher fidelity flight model (and/or real life).

Most of us suspect that rocket fragmentation is undermodelled in DCS... which means the use of a rocket pod for area effects (cluster bomb style) isn't going to be as effective as it is in real life in any case. Still interesting to try the technique though. At those ranges cannon are almost always much more effective!

Hmm.... at least the Ka-50 is largely built around the Vikhr... the lack of detailed modelling of rocket warheads on the other hand really impacts the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (and Su-25A)! Thanks! Now that I know they've notice - I'll stop mentioning it

My two big questions: - Will we be able to load only two or four Vikhr per rack (as is done IRL)? If the Apache gets the ability to load multiple types of rocket per pod (and multiple fire modes etc.) but the Ka-50 doesn't get the chance to carry less missiles... well, it'd seem a bit unfair - Will the new six hardpoint wings (Ka-52 style) have a new weapon selection system, and will it allow asymmetric loads (as are operationally used by the Ka-52 e.g. Two drop tanks, 6xVikhr, and 20xS-8)?

*edit* It appears to be an M4 so my comment below probably doesn't apply: It appears that the OctopusG model may be a Su-22M2... so I can't help but wonder if there might be room for both modules (Su-22M2 and Su-17M4)? Something for ED to decide I guess? It would be good if ED could provide official word as to whether they would be open to that.