Mad_Shell

Apache systems will be much more complicated than in the Ka-50. If you want a comparison, I think operating the Apache will be pretty similar to operating the A-10C/A-10CII

I think it's an excellent idea. I know Ate (former Rafale pilot) said that the G effects on the pilot are quite unrealistic currently. In his tournaments he even had to enforce a rule limiting the high G turns on the deck, because you could just pull 7 Gs indefinitely, which is in no way realistic.

I agree, topics such as Vulkan/multithreading, AI improvements, weather, etc... are big priorities, and imo ED doesn't communicate nearly enough on what is done, being done, and left to be done. Either ED should have not made any announcement at all on those topics, or they should regularly report progress. I understand that ED wants to wait until things are quite advanced before giving more information, but when such important features are announced, more transparency could really help in alleviating some of the frustrations in the community.

So, 2 bugs in this one: - the f-18 AI attacks the helo with a Aim-9L, but a few kilometers away it decides to go almost straight to the ground, then launch its missile and tries to recover, but too late and takes a tree in the face. - the helicopter launches flares against the Aim-9L and defeats it, but it keeps wasting all its flares as long as the missille is in the air. It's a bug for all helos and planes AI: the continue to flare, even when the missile is defeated, so they run out of flares very, very quickly for nothing... I guess there is no closure rate check, and the code is something like "IR missile in the surroundings = flares" helo_flares_f18_crash.trk

Any fix planned on that? It's really terrible for helicopter players at the moment... just got killed because a missile continued to track me for 15 seconds while I was flying behing a line of trees and it hit the tree I was just behind, killing me in the process...

What we have in DCS is the NASAMS II. It uses the upgraded AN/MPQ64F1 radar.

Thx. It is logical after all that a launcher can engage several targets simultaneously, as they use active radar homing missiles. The command post can distribute targets to each missile, then it's fire and forget basically (with mi-course guidance updates).

Sorry my 1st message wasn't clear, I put only 1 launcher because the problem is that a single launcher should be able to launch at several targets simultaneously, and putting only 1 launcher shows it's not the case in DCS.

The DCS NASAMS site should have the capability to simultaneously launch several missiles at several targets (according to the manufacturer, with a complete battery including 12 launchers, all the 72 missiles can engage 72 targets simultaneously). I join a track, showing that a NASAMS site with 1 launcher engages 2 targets one after another, and not simultaneously. NASAMS.trk

The AI takes the aspect into account as well. As for the Ka-50, ED wants to add different IR suppressors with Black Shark 3, as seen in the previews they showed, so I wrongly assumed there was none at the moment.

IR system is a bit more complicated. For example, the aspect has an effect on the IR signature too. You can lock a rear aspect jet or helicopter from further away than a front aspect one. As for examples, here are a bunch of tests I did, some with tracks: Distance at which an Avenger can lock with its stinger missiles: mi-8 front aspect no suppressor: 2.5 km mi-8 front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km mi-24 front aspect no suppressor: 2.1 km mi-24 front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km Ka-50 front aspect (no suppressor): 1.5 km Gazelle front aspect no suppressor: 1.5 km Gazelle front aspect suppressor: 1.5 km Mi-28N front aspect (suppressor): 1.5 km mi-8 rear aspect no suppressor: 6.5 km mi-8 rear aspect suppressor: 3.5 km mi-24 rear aspect no suppressor: 5.5 km mi-24 rear aspect suppressor: 3.0 km Ka-50 rear aspect (no suppressor): 3.5 km Gazelle rear aspect no suppressor: 2.5 km Gazelle rear aspect suppressor: 2.5 km Mi-28N rear aspect (suppressor): 3.5 km Also @BIGNEWY , seeing the results above, the Ka-50 seems... strange. It's like it has already IR suppressors. Gazelle_Front_IR_cover.trk Gazelle_Front_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Front_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Front_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Rear_IR_cover.trk Mi_8_Rear_no_IR_cover.trk Mi_24_Front_IR_cover.trk Mi_24_Front_no_IR_cover.trk

Contrary to all others helicopters able to equip an IR suppressor, the one on the Gazelle has zero effect on the distance at which an IR missile can lock. So while it's not fixed, PSA to all Gazelle players: don't equip it, it adds weight for nothing... Attached: 2 tracks (one Gazelle with IR suppressor, one without) where you can see that I can lock at the same distance in both cases with an Avenger. Gazelle_no_IR_cover.trk Gazelle_IR_cover.trk

While trees and buildings block ground units radars, aircraft radars can see through them. As a helicopter player this makes it basically impossible to hide from jets or break locks by flying NOE behind tree lines or cities. I would consider it a priority bug, as it can severely affect the survivability of helicopters and negatively impact the gameplay. No track, but Grim Reapers made a video about it, and 100% reproducible: I get it that it may use more CPU cycles, but I hope it'll be corrected once Vulkan gives more CPU room for it.

Yeah, this one is driving me nuts. It has existed FOREVER, and can be a real annoyance when flying helicopters, yet it seems so simple to fix. I mean, There are plenty of objects with cables which render correctly in front of the clouds, I can't see why powerlines would be that hard to fix. But what do i know...

Track file attached (be sure that the sounds settings are high enough to hear the traffic) Sound_Civilian_Traffic.trk

I tested with Combined Arms, and ground units are blocked by all the bushes, and when it does, it is sometimes impossible to go backward and they remain stuck. Also, no problem to reach max speed off road, but on some roads impossible to go faster than 18-20 kmph. See the 2 tracks attached. Slow_Roads_Marinanas.trk Stuck_Marinanas.trk

The MIM 72G missile (derived from the AIM-9D) used in the Chaparral SAM seems to be considerably underperforming: - in DCS it has no proximity fuse, contrary to IRL. - its acceleration and maneuvrability are very poor. It can't even turn fast enough to follow a plane flying at 1000m when fired almost vertically. Compare in game maneuverability with this video: https://youtu.be/WNmdB97-oBk?t=86 Here are 2 tracks showing Chaparral needing to use a large number of missiles to shoot down a non maneuvering, non flaring M2000-C at 1000m altitude. useless_chaparral.trk useless_chaparral_2.trk

Hi! Will the new Mirage DM use the new DM developped by ED, or wll it be an "in-house" solution?

Yeah this is ridiculous... A proximity fuse HE fragmentation warhead going through any MBT front armor, how to say... As for intercepting AGMs, the SA-19 has a FCR and missiles similar to the ones used by the CIWS Kashtan, so it wouldn't surprise me if it could intercept some missiles.

If you notice in the OP video, he's not at any sensible distance from the MBTs. At this distance the rounds will easily have 120 mm RHA penetration. Also, when he's shooting at the Abrams he's aiming at a very specific spot, where the armor is weaker. Do the test yourself: aim anywhere else on the Abrams side, and it won't penetrate. For the Leclerc, the all around protection is against 30 mm rounds only. So it's not a stretch to imagine there are quite a few weak spots on the sides and the rear against 57 mm rounds, especially when those are fired at point blank range.

Reminds me that time I was playing the Gazelle in VR, observing a soviet tanks batalion just above the treeline, and suddenly my JTAC screams "ATGM! ATGM!". A sneaky russian tank was on my left and had a clear LOS on me. I barely have the time to lower the collective, plunging just between the trees, and an ATGM passes a few centimeters above my rotor disk! It was so close I instinctively lowered my head XD

sorry for the ping @BIGNEWY , but at this point the thread derailed totally off-topic...

A few more examples: Hellenic Tank Trials (2000): Test 11 : Evaluation of the precision on still target (still; @2000m; target : 2,3x2,3m still; 10 APFSDS). Test 12 : Evaluation of the precision of firing on the move on still targets (40km/h; same conditions as before). Test 15 : Evaluation of the precision on still targets by night (still; @1500m; target : 2,3x2,3m still; 10 APFSDS). Test 16 : Evaluation of the precision of firing on the move by night on still targets (40km/h; same). Results for test 11 + 12: Tank Abrams M1A2 - 17 hits of 20 Tank Leclerc - 20 hits of 20 Tank Leopard 2A5 - 19 hits of 20 Results for tests 15 + 16: Tank Abrams M1A2 - 20 hits of 20 Tank Leclerc - 19 hits of 20 Tank Leopard 2A5 - 20 hits of 20 Now me in DCS using Combined Arms (note that the target used is bigger than in the Hellenic Tank Trials!) : Still, target at 2000m (still Abrams front aspect): Tank Abrams M1A2 - 16 hits of 20 Tank Leclerc - 16 hits of 20 Tank Leopard 2A5 - 17 hits of 20

Test in DCS: target: static Abrams, front aspect (about 8 or 9 m^2), distance 1000m I tested Leclerc and Abrams with combined arms, and the dispersion made about 5-10% of shots miss while not moving. IRL, MBTs have a 100% hit chance at this distance for a target that big. Actually if they aim for the enemy turret, the shell would land on the turret, not even the chassis. A few examples: - modern Russian and Western MBTs rounds have a MAX dispersion of about 0.2 mrad. That means that the max deviation at 1000m is 0.2m. To miss a front aspect Abrams, you need at least 10 times more... - In the paper Is There a Tank Gap?: Comparing NATO and Warsaw Pact Tank Fleets (Malcolm Chalmers and Lutz Unterseher, 1988), it is said that a M-47 Patton fitted with a laser range-finder could hit a 2.3 m square target (5.3 m^2) with a probability of 86% at 1000m. This means that DCS MBTs basically have a worse dispersion than IRL WW2 tanks... On the move, it is worse... IRL, Leclerc is known for consistantly landing shots at 3000m while moving at 50 km/h on rough terrain. In DCS good luck doing that with Combined Arms. If we set AI at excellent level, they miss the majority of their shots at that distance. Now about the speeds (on flat terrain, in DCS same speed on terrain or on road): DCS Leclerc max speeds: forward: 70 km/h ; acceleration 0-32 km/h: ~ 4s ; reverse speed: 9 km/h (!) IRL: forward on road / cross country: 71 / 55 km/h ; acceleration 0-32 km/h: ~ 5s ; reverse speed: >35 km/h (!) DCS Abrams M1A2 max speeds: forward: 64 km/h ; acceleration 0-32 km/h: ~ 4s ; reverse speed: 23 km/h IRL: forward on road / cross country: 66-68 / 48 km/h ; acceleration 0-32 km/h: 7.2s ; reverse speed: ~32 km/h DCS Leopard 2 max speeds: forward: 69 km/h ; time to reach max speed: ~ 4s ; reverse speed: 25 km/h IRL: forward on road / cross country: 68-72 / 45 km/h ; acceleration: no data ; reverse speed: 31 km/h For all tanks, the time to reach max speed is way too low (less than 15s, while IRL it's > 30s). I didn't test all the tanks in the game, obviously, but I expect similar trends.

mmmmh, I have to admit the effectiveness against MBTs in the video surprises me a bit. For example the Leclerc is known to have good side protection, and even the back of the turret is designed to resist RPG-7 hits. 57 mm HE rounds going through seems questionnable to me. Edit: Oh wait I didn't see he switched to 57 mm AP for MBTs. Yeah at point blank range, why not.