Korshtal

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head exactly which folder it's at but it'll be in the DCS/Mods/Aircraft/(Module Name), there should be files in there somewhere that you can edit. (That is if I'm remembering it correctly.)

That's because the Mirage F1 is the direct predecessor of the Mirage 2000.

You can already edit kneeboard contents in the DCS file system. Alternatively there has been the ability to bookmark certain pages for quick access for a while now, so you can simply bookmark your important pages to get to them right away.

I recently took a look at the manual for the Mi-8 and found some bombing tables that I previously assumed didn't exist, and in several parts of the manual there are notes that there are no fusing options available and low altitude delivery isn't able to be performed safely. With delay fuses starting to be implemented on modules like the Mosquito I wanted to ask if there was any possibility of short delay fuse options being added to the general purpose bombs for the Mi-8 (and Mi-24) as well? Few people know about any of the weapons release tables for the Mi-8 and put the weapons aside as being useless or not able to be aimed properly, and I think making bombing a more viable option would breathe a little bit of life into the aging Mi-8.

While doing some initial testing of the new LANTIRN features (great job on that, by the way) I did notice a couple new Bombing Mode menu options for JESTER, namely the addition of Manual bombing, and Computer IP. In my scan of the patch notes I couldn't find any mention of this change and was wondering if this was an intentional addition, and if so is there currently a way to have JESTER set up IP parameters?

The MB-339A's Wikipedia cites Jane's as sayin that the MB-339 was capable of carrying AIM-9 and R.550 missiles. Reading another thread that listed planned weaponry both of these items were not mentioned and I wanted to know if these weapons were being planned? If so would they be implemented in their full capacity, or in a limited short range rear aspect only mode as the C-101 and LZ-39 currently have with their Magics, Sidewinders, and R-60's?

They most certainly do, if you go back and read the Mi-24 interview with HeliSimmer most of the questions were regarding things that were "possible" to be mounted on the helicopter, and most of the answers from the team were "No, it's not worth doing" or "That never really happened". It has nothing to do with politics. It's clear that the Russian team has a different standard for what the simulation should or shouldn't include over the teams working the F-16 and F-18 projects who stretch what's possible with features. That's.... entirely untrue. The LITENING II pod is only ever used by USMC and Spanish land based hornet squadrons. It's not rated for carrier use and was the primary TGP used for the Legacy Hornets as a replacement for the NITE HAWK pod. In all reality, the ATFLIR should have been the first targeting pod made available for the Hornet and is the exact opposite of a niche feature. This argument sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about regarding the history of the Hornet. There are plenty of guesses and abstractions when it comes to various systems, but you don't seem to understand that if ED uses or guesses what is classified material from the United States, that's going to be espionage charges for ED, and literally anybody the government can pin a conviction on for supplying that info, and in Russia you're likely to disappear for something like that. "It's not worth" isn't only "It is not necessary for the simulation" but is also "The KGB/CIA are going to be outside my house at 3AM for this." Politics has everything to with this. ED and most developers are alright with skipping on features that they have to guess on that for both that reason, and the general reaction of the community when you guess and are wrong. (See Mirage 2000C.)

Better question: Why would he not mean Human GCI?

I've seen several former apache drivers say that they're not capable of carrying them (even though the general consensus is that the electrical hardware is there), and ED's decision to not include it makes perfect sense. "Technically correct" doesn't really mean "should be simulated." ED's team that's working on the Mi-8 and Mi-24 seem to have much different standards than the Hornet/Viper teams when it comes to what should and shouldn't be there. The Mi-8MTV never saw use of the S-5 or S-13 rockets, and while it's possible to use them IRL, it's not simulated because nobody ever did it. Same for the Igla, it was possible, but not worth it to track down documents and info regarding it when it was such a niche item. You have to remember that if legally acquirable documentation (not just words from a former pilot, doesn't cut it) doesn't exist for a feature or item they cannot implement it, even if it's common knowledge.

Unfortunately the in-field reloading is a myth. The Mi-24 in high and hot Afghanistan was severely weight limited with regular/light combat loads so carrying extras in the internals is a no-go. There aren't even really any provisions for securing said ammo in the back of the hind anyway, and a rearm would require pilots to land, turn the engines off, get out, rearm, and then start back up again. Why would you do that when you can just go back to wherever you took off from and rearm safely? Rearming in the field just wasn't something that happened, and it would be very unsafe to do so.

12.7mm seems REALLY good until you realize that the AI gunner is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than you are about it. I'm hoping that we'll see some greater use of the GUV pods on the Hind. As far as the YakB turret goes, It's most likely going to be an even worse version of the Huey's flexible sight without the benefit of having thousands of rounds of 7.62 on board. You would have to manually range and lead the target and aim using tracers, and at somewhere around 2000-3000 RPM you're gonna end up out of 1,200 rounds of 12.7 very quickly.

This exactly. The AH-64D exists in the same world as a bajillion vipers/lightnings/mudhens to protect it. You have to remember that attack helicopters were never intended to be operated in the same theater/time where hostile air would see you as a major threat, they should be focused on your own fast movers coming to get them. It makes sense for a scout helicopter like the Kiowa to have ATAS in the event that some random Syrian fitter or hind or whatever gets too close while they're out doing their scouting thing, but for a dedicated attack platform it makes much less sense. I'm not aware how weight/power limited is the apache is, but adding a bunch of missiles certainly isn't going to help that. As far as the Igla, I don't think that's a very valid point at all due to the fact that the hind only has one method of mounting missile-type weapons; on the double racks (or something very similar) that the sturm/ataka exist on. There is no fancy wingtip pylon for you to attach an R-60M/Igla V to anyway so why not put a better missile in the same place? You could also go double-ugly if the game allows you to, with four ATGMs on the wingtip pylons, two rocket pods on the inner pylons, and one double R-60M rack on one middle pylon, and some other store on the other inner pylon (Probably an ATGM.) Unfortunately the Vikhr missiles suffer the same disease as all air to ground coded weapons: they do pitiful amounts of damage to air vehicles. I've shot a parked hind with 40+ 30mm, a Vikhr, and 6+ rockets and it still wasn't destroyed. I'm hoping to see some major improvements to that kind of things as helicopters increase in prevalence.

Unfortunately you're going to be left hanging in both of these items. The Russian devs said in their January interview with HeliSimmer that the R-60M was the only air to air missile coming to the Hind, as the Igla V was an "exotic loadout". And wasn't worth their time to simulate. However with significant closure rate I can see the R-60M ending up being quite a threat to fast movers in a self defense situation. As for the Apache: There will be no stingers. Plain and simple, the American Block II+ AH-64D was never equipped with stingers, and it's been confirmed by various ED employees that it will remain that way in DCS. A shame, yes but it does give the upcoming Kiowa another niche to fill in DCS to separate it from the Apache. I personally look forward to the day when many Hoggit-visit Hornet drivers who are interested in no helicopter but the Apache are met with the rude awakening that they get no air to air self protection and A-A hellfires are no sidewinder.

Is there a confirmation on how much ammo load will be available for the Mi-24P in DCS? I've been looking around online and have seen sources quoting both 250/260 and 750 rounds, but no real official documentation.