Avimimus

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).

Thanks!! I'm glad they are aware at least. Honestly, it'd improve my enjoyment of the module quite a bit (I tend to fly COIN and it is unreasonable to carry twelve anti-tank missiles, but one still desires to have a couple).

The Mi-8 forum had an Mi-24 thread for several years (in the main section, not the wishlist section... so putting this here is just an extension of the tradition. The Ka-29 would also be interesting (very interesting aircraft with interesting armament option), although I suspect it is too heavily classified (as it was produced in small numbers for special forces). The Mi-4 would also be interesting... although it doesn't fit the light helicopter role. So, yes, I generally would agree. Still, the sheer number of Mi-2 produced, and the relatively small size, recommend it in my mind. It'd be nice to have something roughly equivalent to the UH-1H, Sa-342, Oh-58D etc. This is as close as it gets (at least if no one produces a scout version of the Ka-226).

Any word on this?

I have seen some documents from when the F-15E was in development, and they claim that it could carry three GPU-5... Considering that it apparently doesn't use AGM-65 in service, but we're still getting those - where is my GPU-5? I mean... no rockets or guns? Just guided bombs? It needs more spice.

Give me a key and I'll tell you Seriously though - I doubt anything could compete with the unique flight characteristics of the Hind... the fact that it looks like a dragonfly and that one has to rely upon gunpods, rockets and SACLOS missiles... rather than Hellfires... gives it a nice primitive flare. I just wish that the rocket fragmentation model was updated... as the Mi-8 and Mi-24 really will not be that competitive until warheads are modelled in more detail. Honestly, I'm hoping that rocket warheads in general get revisited when the Apache gets the MPSM rocket warheads and the ability to carry partially loaded missile racks gets added to the Ka-50... if both of these features remain Apache only... well... it isn't really a contest if these other modules are being neglect, is it?

There is every indication from export marketing materials that the additional hardpoints were being offered on the Ka-50... so it is likely for a production version. The question I have is whether it will have a WCS closer to the Ka-52 - one which allows asymmetric loadouts - that way we could carry 6xVikhr and 20xS8 rockets opposite and two drop tanks (as we've seen Ka-52 do).

I thought I'd quote this post as well - which quantifies the benefits:

Thank you! That is very interesting. I do rather appreciate the ASP-17V... so I might end up hoping for an Mi-24V with MDB-4 racks, PKT door guns, and maybe the UPK-23-250... (as the 'Mi-24 II' product should they ever make it - and an Mi-2 URP-G for the MCLOS experience). I'll admit that the Mi-24D with its 9M17 missiles is pretty iconic though.

The Mil Mi-2URP-G would probably be the best bet for MCLOS then I take it? I suppose we could end up with the SACLOS version though - if they ever decide to do the Mi-24D (also, what of the Mi-24V - did they universally carry 9M114)?

It is a pretty good looking loadout: Note: I can drop four bombs (including two from the inner hardpoints) - but after that the WCS doesn't release any further bombs - so six of them stay on the racks. You can actually test this with the Mi-8 - there is an option for a PKT door gun (albeit one with slightly better ergonomics I suspect).

Yes, the MDB racks for the inner hardpoints (allowing each of the inner hardpoints to carry 4xFAB-100 instead of 1xFAB-100 100kg bombs).