ARM505

I just fired four ET's at a C17 (tailchase situation) - all four detonated just far enough behind him not to kill him. His tail was full of holes, but he kept flying. Edit to add: Yup, not 4 ET's, but 3 ER's - 4th one killed him, just looked at track again. Seemed reasonable enough, just a freak of the damage model I guess.

'K, that's just a liiiittle bit condescending :) Yes, oddly enough I'm aware what a difference weight makes, and again, wierdly enough I've tried that. Same feeling. Again, just my personal impression, based on watching everything I can of the Ka50 in flight, then watching my own tracks using (for example) max pedal authority in what I judge to be a similar configuration and weight. I'm not going to argue though, I know it won't change anything, so no worries.

Yeah, I constantly have the feeling in game that the helo has more inertia than IRL, based on all the vids I've watched, so it bobs around far more, and is harder to stabilise, even briefly, on a point. If I had to guess, it definitely looks easier to aim IRL, but then again the pilot does have the benefit of a full set of controls with all the feedback needed!

....sigh....Yes, thanks for the tip, I should remember not to intentionally fly into the enemies obvious engagement zone as an experiment in a simulator... :) My point, is that judging by what I've read about the use of the Apache's cannon in combat, it would be less accurate than it is portrayed when used in an air to air role against a fighter. Also, by saying 'attack from high altitude', you're obviously not aware that in game, the Apache does some pretty spectacular moves to point at you, and of course the crew aquire and track you instantly. So, almost ANY gun attack against an aware Apache holds (IMHO) an unrealistically high level of risk. Again, it's just my opinion, based on some very limited experience of similar systems. In my brief experience of watching automatic target tracking systems at work, (image stab and radar, laser ranged etc) they're not so super smooth as everybody seems to think. They tend to jump and jiggle all over the place, with the cannon then jumping even further out to try and apply lead. Against a rapidly crossing target, in an air to air role, from a moving platform, with the relatively low ROF of the Apache cannon....I just don't believe that it would be that good. But anyway, it's just my opinion, and yes thanks, when it counts I'll stay away from the little bundles of death that they are.

I tend to agree that cannon fire is a little too accurate. Its one thing to be respectful of the fact that they can fire them at us, it's another for them to be laser guided terminators who've been duck-hunting since age 3. Also, try tangling with an Apache with guns only. Su27 0, Apache 1, with alarming frequency. Seriously, they're dangerous. I can't see the Apaches gun (an Area Weapon System, as they call it), combined with image auto track managed to be quite so sniper-ish. Plus, those crewmembers are like greased lightning on the switches.... :)

As I said, I've had all of them, and the 5 is definitely the best (biggest view angle, best stability due to higher resolution, faster scan rate). However, again, if you already have a 4 it's not really worth the upgrade, but if buying new, I would go for the 5.

Programming the joystick to recalibrate itself to a new centre when you use the trim button, thus bypassing the trim system in game. It works very well, but I found it too picky to use (and I forgot to reset it properly the whole time), and then they brought out the Mk 2 version of trimming with the patch anyway. But it does show the awesome programming ability of the Cougar.

How do you even recognise that as a mouse?! Why would there be two of them? I agree it's in the right place, and there's no other mouse visible.....I'm curious too now. Edit: Ok, wierd looking mouse!

Ive had Track IR 3, then got the vector addon, 4, and now 5. Upgrading from 2 to 5 is absolutely worth it. From 4 - 5 is a bit of a waste, and from 3 - 5 is ok, the wider field of view is great.

Face it, online will devolve to the most effective killer, barring a few hardcore holdouts who love the underdog, or the specific aircraft. Thats the nature of PvP, it's to be expected. The number of available slots per side would have to be limited (ie 5 F15 vs 8 Su27 for example) or some other way would have to be found to achieve the 'game' requirement of balance. IL2's (not inbuilt) way of limiting aircraft and pilot numbers was a nice idea, but not currently doable in LO AFAIK.

One expects more polygons to equal some kind of fps drop, hence lod etc, but the Su25T Shkval fps drop is ridiculous, since it seems NO optimisation is done on it, ie it will even display individual trees out to the visible horizon.

Yeah, I fly 737's (-2/3/4/5, soon to be -8 as well, for what thats worth) for a living too, hence my comment - just to clarify: - As much time on a realistic sim (I suppose PMDG's is fine) as possible, with all sim documentation, which can actually be reasonably thorough, given what it is. So, assuming the sim pilot knows how to use all AP modes he/she would require in other words. So, they know about both AP's, how/when to disconnect the AT etc. - Using all available automation, all the time (ie take off manually, the rest is on AP, hence my -600 comment, less likely to scrape the tail during the only manual bit) - As mentioned, an autoland, and I'm of course assuming appropriate ground facilities. - Assuming perfect conditions and no failures. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Maybe I underestimate my job, but on a CAVOK day, perfect conditions, all the time in the world, I think it's doable by somebody who has never flown a real plane.

This is an age old question, and it's actually becoming more and more relevant. The thing about helicopters, is that compared to other forms of flying, they're VERY hands and feet on, if you understand what I'm saying. ie, You really have to get the feel of it, since the aircraft is essentially attempting to crash at any given moment, and the feeling of real flight in the maching will be utterly overwhelming at first if all you've ever used is the sim (which can't really replicate the sound, vibration, panoramic view, and all around sensory overload). Sure, the stab in the BS would help, but I still reckon the easiest thing to get off the ground, fly about, and land if you've NEVER flown before (using ALL automation of course!) would be something like a B737-600, or A318.

Thank goodness for early adopters, they pay for all the R & D. Thanks guys!

Again, read Ed Macy's 'Apache' and 'Hellfire' for an example of why two seaters won't be implemented in a way that can match up to expectations. For AI control whilst you occupy the other seat, you'd need stupendously good AI for it to be of any worth, with some sort of amazing ability to communicate fast and effectively and behave in a human-like fashion. Alternatively, you could have no AI, and thus eliminate flying that aircraft for the vast majority of users, including ALL solo/offline play, ie thin an already sparse client base. I've had the tank commander in Steel Beasts (good tank sim) swing my gun tube away from the obvious tank threat to the harmless infantry once too many times to trust an AI to do anything other than a terminally frustrating job. So, the choices: - Stupid AI control, with ensuing bug fixing, development time, and whinging. - No AI, and therefore no solo play. Logical?

Also, the intel available pre-mission in these sims can be a little 'lacking' to say the least. IRL, an amazingly detailed picture of threat types and location (may not be exact, but at least enough to be useable) is built up. In BS, it's generally 'The target will be defended by six S300 sites, but we're not sure where they are. All we know is you'll definitely have to go deep into their defended airspace to do what we told you to. So, goodbye, and I'll be taking those nice shoes you have once we've got final confirmation of your certain death.'

It's not possible. You aren't the first to ask this question, nor would you be the first to complain when you discover the answer. Since this sim has no dedicated servers, each copy is the entire game -and is therefore only allowed to be installed on one pc. Yes, it does suck. If it's any consolation (and I'm really stretching here!), you are actively being supportive of future developement when you buy another copy, and 30USD isn't really that much for the complexity and time invested by the developers. If it was a big money hog like EA or Ubi, I'd be cross, but at least I feel that ED does actually care, even if they are limited by resources.

....but you just must get that one last unlock. Yeah, it sucks.

Actually its not really 'boring' at all - a sim, even the best ones, contain almost NO detail. In reality, you're busy studying manuals towards watch keeping certificates etc (there are a LOT of machines/systems onboard, some not very exciting, but definitely needed, like fresh water evaporator for example!), doing maintenance, talking %$^ with your buddies. The sim is so utterly task focused (kill the enemy!) that the rest just doesn't exist - hence, no combat = boring. Same with IL2 - in reality just flying around is great! But again, no combat and things start to get boring. It just shows the gulf between pc and reality.

Optimism ftw.

Because he was in an FC2 server in a Ka50?

Ka 50 gets birdstrikes from behind....

Actually, you do see the birds....at least up to 250KIAS, and probably more.... :) Whether you can avoid them, that's another question though...

You may as well start by eliminating stuff. Here's what it WON'T be (my guess, feel free to add/argue/rant). It WON'T be: - AH64D - Any older Euro/Brit aircraft (Jaguar, Tornado, SAAB's etc) - Any older US aircraft (F4, Starfighter, Thud etc) - Eurofighter (Typhoon in Britain, forgotten what they called it elsewhere) - F22 - F35 - Any carrier based aircraft, so no F14's/18's/Rafale etc (my best guess, the effort involved for this round of DCS to get carrier ops up and running to a decent (DCS) standard is not worth the investment yet.) I also can't see it being an F16 or Mi24 somehow, but that's just gut feel, nothing more. You can cry and moan about some of those choices, but that's my GUESS based on the support, info available, and effort involved. As I said, feel free to eliminate further options, you just may end up with a very small list of what they can ultimately do. But I must say, endless requests for flat out impossible projects (AH64D, F22, F35, weird future Ruski planes) is simply doomed to be a waste of space, IMHO.

Putting a smoke rocket close enough to a target to point a fast mover at it is a hell of a lot easier than putting a rocket directly ONTO a target - that is assuming that one rocket will even kill the target. And with the limited modelling of splash damage in this sim, even more so. So it's ideal - a fast mover can't look in detail at the terrain, and the helo struggles to put weight of ordnance on target. It can work nicely.