Volk.

@Vantskruv yeah that's right. I've been reading and answering @Fakum's request out of "on a mission" = in mission editor. The mission editor forces consecutive waypoint numbers, and duplicates them ABRIS & PVI-800. The ABRIS ones you can load/unload/delete/mixup quite a bit, but the PVI-800 waypoints - once that number is loaded, it's there to stay - all you can do is override those numbers. I have yet to check if one can in-mission clear the PVI-800 memory, might be possible, but also might not be something you can do given in a cold-start in the sim it still has the PVI-800 memory, so not sure a power-cycle of the system would work. @Fakum, specifically answering your newest wording: not that I can think of. Once a point has been captured, it's there to stay. CLEAR button only cancels/clears your current inputs in ENT (input) mode. And for nav wapoints you can only manually captured typing in the decimal coordinates, ie. you can't use the 2 extra options of capturing you have with target points. @Fakum if you really want those on-the-fly created waypoints gone - an alternative - might be to use data link targets instead, presuming it's something you can see with the Shkval's laser, is to just use data link targets instead. If it's for destinations you can't see, there's also stuff like reference points you can use from the ABRIS, though it's bit less intuitive, not nearly as fast as typing in a target point and you'll have to manually steer to it eyeballing the ABRIS rather than relying on auto-turn/route modes.

Just by extension to tha:, 3 and 4 will still be on the PVI-800, and if you were to engage Route mode, then the Ka-50 would follow the PVI-800, so it will automatically go to waypoint 3 from 2, then to 4 and finally 5. So once you reach waypoint 2's end, you'll need to manually select "5" on the PVI-800 for it to do the skip. Unless of course you went and coded over WPT 3 on the nav panel of course.

Waypoints set in the mission editor add a flightplan on the ABRIS and PVI-800 Nav points. In-game/mission you'd need to do them separately. I don't think you can delete nav points from the PVI-800 (only replace them), but you can definitely edit/clear your FlightPlan (FPL) on the ABRIS - I think that bit's in your manual. Is that what you're trying to do? Target points and other references get a bit stranger - I should be finding time again soon continue my data link series - of which the ABRIS vs PVI-800 vs mission editor is the next in line, though that won't necessarily cover nav waypoints specifically. Airfields - I'm a little hazy as to how they're created on the PVI-800.

Unfortunately the dials only affect what you (the pilot/human) sees on the IT-23 screen. It in no way affects the Shkval's ability to gain a lock. You get set it to be completely grey and it can still lock. Lock is seemingly only affected by (a) being in the maybe 9.5km max distance, (b) weather effects like haze, (c) time of day - it can still appear to be broad daylight outside, but the approximation ED has implemented means you can't lock something at 2.5km out and (d) fast moving targets or those in clutter can be harder to lock or lose the lock more frequently.

well, crissiloop finally got his answer and closure ;-)

So (assuming the laser itself is of the same calibre/quality) it's more resistant to atmospheric effects as it only has to cross the haze once and only once it hits the smoke (i.e. possibly very late down the flight path, almost at time of impact if it's the target itself popping smoke). But does the beam itself go full-strength all the way to the target, or does it focus/increase beam power as the Vikhr travels (measured by time of flight only, since there's no communication of the Vikhr's position by the Shark, only as estimation based on ranging)? If it's the latter then surely that a laser warning system won't trigger if you ranged elsewhere to get a similar ranging without being in proximity to trip sensors. Or rather put their laser warning might go off in the last instant before impact. Or is even the feint, low-power/unfocused rays enough to trip the warning receivers from launch?

@Isegrim ummm. Dunno how to break this to you, but you necroed a 12 year old thread ;-)

I read the Vikhr used/developed/explored the beam-riding tech rather than conventional laser designation explicitly because they figured all Western armour would get laser warning receivers and pop smoke the second you tried to missile them. The beam increases power to stay atop the projected range of the Vikhr's receivers thus giving no warning. While the ground vehicles in DCS never pop smoke from any LWS (those that have), I know painting another Shark does trip it up. Should it? By extension, if one laser-ranged something nearby the target Black Shark, Laser Reset, and then fire a Vikhr onto a Black Shark it shouldn't get any warning at all right? I think last time I tried this just slewing over/near a Black Shark with a laser-ranging that's been reset does trip up their LWS.

It was in the HIND successor contests requirements being day-night. It seems Russian FLIR+NVG tech in that regard was bit behind vs. the West. They did build the first Ka-50 Night Attack model in '97, and then followed on a few years later with a second model. They had some issues with the safety regulations saying the NVGs needed to be plugged in as backup, which meant there were some design issues for the newer stuff where that cable could injure the pilot when ejecting. From what I understand their primary issue was simply fall of the Soviet Union and a dire lack of funding - the Ka-50 project itself, as well as the Russian developers of that tech. They did have some super-swanky helmet planned at one point, but with the dissolution that country splitting off left them without that option. That and when the FLIR was viable, the Russian ministries just lost interest in the Ka-50 and only funded the Ka-52. Random fun fact, there was even a Ka-50I 'fighter' proposed in the late 90s, mounting a radar and pure air-to-air layout to take out hang gliders, drones and aircraft - which never got funded, but sounds like what one needs for that Battle mission.

And the missile warning system (on the Ka-52). I think they ditched the mast-mounted (L-band?) radar though, or rather incorporated it into the nose, so unsure what it's detection of jets would be. I don't recall reading that the Night Attack models had the MWS/DIRCMS. No idea if they mounted IGLAS/R-73. But if the MWS is a no-go, that would be a pretty sweet option to have. Still no easy ride in terms of warning you of incoming jet missiles, but your awareness should help find some of those pesky SAMs/TOW missiles before a missile warning system would be needed.

Uncage Shkval (think the default key is O, might be wrong). This makes the Shkval follow the Helmet sight ring as long as you hold uncage Shkval. The Shkval will stop following the helmet sight once your release Uncage or lock something up. No idea if the below translation came out right. примерно переведено: “ЦЕЛЬ УКАЗ” (думаю, что ключ по умолчанию - O, может ошибаться). Это заставляет Шквал следовать за кольцом прицела шлема, пока вы держите Шквал без клетки. Шквал перестанет следить за прицелом шлема, как только вы отпустите его из клетки или заблокируйте что-нибудь.

That's a hell's no. A lotta tech has been developed to catch up to Russia. As with most military tech it's a case of oh look, they got that, we need a new X to counter it, and btw how did they do it. There are periods where one country/faction seems behind playing that catchup, e.g. when the Tomcat came out, while the Russians had nasty Mig31s/25s (I forget which one is not the scout), it took them a while to come out with the Su-27 and then 33 which I'd wager is a direct counter. Yes, they started slipping on the jet front, but then again their SAMs are nasty. Economics also plays a factor - not every nation the weapons-makers would like to approach can afford maintaining an airforce. Ground based defenses are cheap (in comparison), and while it takes them a while to go somewhere the ground clutter they're on makes it far harder to spot them and easier to hide. Yes you can even hide from FLIR. As for the argument on HARMS, think about how expensive a HARM is and weight constraints vs. a ground based platform, where even your stealthy plane is clearly silhouetted in the sky without ground clutter or the ability to mask quickly behind a tree. And yes, the jet can also be detected for it's radar looking for things. Clever ground commanders have been known to switch off the radars and stay mobile, which makes it really hard to knock out. You also generally know where an aircraft carrier or airfield is, and can focus efforts on some likely angles of entry for those jets, whereas any terrain with some cover that can be driven through the SAMs could be hiding anywhere. In terms of the effectiveness of US forces in 'Arabian' countries - superior numbers, planning and coordination had a lot to do with that as well. Not just the tech of any aircraft on it's own. Now Russia did kinda fall behind in attack helo tech around the '80s/90s, which is where our Shark is from and the fall of the union meant we never got the Shark after it got polished up (as every helo takes a few initial iterations to get good - rarely is the "A" model what people remember fondly). Maybe they've caught up with once the Ka-52 and then Mi-28 was operational. I know spec wise they have pretty much similar gear to the Apache E guardian, but can't tell you how they truly rate up, as yet again many specs you can read up outside of classified sources is marketed up. In terms of present day strength/development of the forces they're probably behind in spending. If Apache gets radar, it should have an advantage if the radar can get a lock on an appropriately low moving Shark, which could then be fire & forget. Dunno, the radar's is, or wasn't perfect. Hellfires definitely don't outrange Vikhrs, and travel slower. I'm not sure if the AGM-114K2A Hellfire II with the frag-sleeve came out in time for our 2002 AH-64D we're getting - without that you need direct hits, whereas Vikhrs are really good at taking out tail rotors, while Sharks don't have that tail rotor weakness themselves. If they don't get the radar - then the Apache is using - wait for it - a contrast locking system, which was not always perfect. There are vids of IRL Apaches locking stuff up, but a lot of vids the front seater can be seen manually slewing to keep track of a moving truck. Now while the laser-guided Hellfire may smart enough to head to the last point it had a laser return, that helps you zero on a moving helo. So similar/shorter range, with slower moving missile than Vikhr. Maybe FLIR helps it spot, but otherwise it's who sees who first. That said, Sharks & Apache's shouldn't necessarily be at each other's throats given their designed role. And if one really wanted to factor the economics stuff in, then it should be almost 2-3 Black Sharks facing a single Apache Longbow, which even with radar I'm pretty sure will go one way. So a slaughter...no. Maybe at night, but then again the Sharks shouldn't really be flown then. But either way the Apache will also have frustrations locking up other fast-moving helos, unless ED implements it like an Ace Combat aircraft.

@ResonantCard1 at day, with targets not hidden to hell and gone the Apache isn't going to lay waste to more things than the Black Shark, if that's the bar. Hellfires have similar range and should kill most armour targets from most angles in one hit, just like a Vikhr. Apache more iconic/history, yes. FLIR helping you find that target a bit faster, yes. Though a small pixelly blob of white is still a blob and doesn't immediately get a chevron above it saying baddy, so you'll still need to get closer to tell if it's a civvy car or a BMP. Maybe we get radar, but it shouldn't be a magical launch-16-missiles every payload. 16 Hellfires is massively heavy, as is that 'carry 1200 rounds' thing - you'll find the airframe can barely carry other munitions and/or is sluggish. Ka-50 is 20% heavier, but has far more powerful engines, so that typical full load doesn't bother it that much. If you don't have a personal attachment to the aesthetics, nationalities or history of one airframe over another, then the main reason to play Black Shark over the Apache is this - you're never twiddling your thumbs. You're always doing something, and it's your skill level making it happen - very little is given. If you're learning it from scratch, and restricted yourself to learning only one seat (coz Apache is very complex), then Apache will be easier, but in terms of offloading your stress and acquisition. So you'll get that multicrew experience, but you may find you're doing less than you'd like, e.g. you're just looking around while the other guy flies (once you've maybe done nav), or you're sitting back doing less as hover mode's engaged while the front seater takes shots. Hopefully the AI isn't a disaster (as there's even more stuff that can go wrong that low vs. Jester). There's a key bit. People flying a HIND won't as frequently pop up on a server dominated by tech 20 years later. Even if it's not PVP, you're just not going to have much room to feature with threats far beyond you capability to deal with and likely that F/A18c has already cluster-bombed/HARMed that target long before your Apache could get in there, nevermind a HIND. A HIND would be better suited on maps made for the 70's/early 80s. BS has been out for ages and a lot of people have it already. In time the Apache may outsell it, given the amount of nations using it, history and capability. But it can't replace the coaxial nor the single-pilot experience. In terms of dominating the map in daytime vs. a Shark...doubtful. Slight edge, but not dominating if you know what you're doing.

Also, importantly, if an Apache & Shark were to dogfight, and run out of munitions, the Shark can still charge up and utilise deadly "Tail-Slap" maneuver it can limp away from.

I like what you did there. But not sure I agree with your intent. While there's that rumour of the V-80/Ka-50 having tricked the West by painting on fake windows to make them think it was an helo-hunting helo, that's never what the Black Shark nor Apache were built for. They're there to hunt tanks/armour/soft ground units. The ability to engage air-to-air is a plus, not a core role. If the Apache gets the radar - which is to be seen, then it will pick up some stuff, you're just hoping that stuff are contacts you actually want to shoot at. There's a fair chance you may get the D but not the Longbow radar, in which case the Apache is hunting you with - wait for it - a contrast locking system, painting you with a laser and having the Hellfire ride in. If he has a spotter lasing for him, he can do it from concealment, otherwise he has to expose the bottom of his nose, same as you. If I understood correctly the Hellfires have some logic to go towards the last lasing point if the laser is terminated, but against a moving helo that's useless. ie. for all intensive purposes the Hellfire is then a slower-moving, more expensive Vikhr. We might be getting the AGM-114 K2A has a frag sleeve like the Vikhrs. The Hellfire might have a smaller warhead, and typically an Apache that wants to be mobile will only carry 8, but a direct hit from a Hellfire or Vikhr will down another chopper, and you have ample and I wouldn't think those matters number unless you're in an extended "Air-Quake" of helos. The only slight advantage may well be that fragmentation sleeve on a Vikhr can easily take out a tailrotor of an Apache, while the Ka has no tail rotor. The Apache has FLIR on it's side, a front-seater that can dedicate most of his attention to acquisition and the Kamov has to rise up a little further from when you spot the top rotor (if you can even see that). Long story short, other than spotting, which is going to be hard anyway - if you've seen those FLIR camera resolutions back then on targets not under 2km it's not that easy if you're not trained to look for stuff. There's other things on agility, etc. but it boils down to who spots who first, which is mostly pilot skill, mixed with a bit of luck. If you were spotted and launched at while in a hover it's probably tickets. The Kamov is not necessarily lagging in a "dogfight", and more importantly, they weren't designed to take each other out like 2 interceptors were.

@GGTharos / @S.E.Bulba - I'm guessing you're in the know, and yeah this is slightly veering off from what they said BS3 would have - but was the Ka-50 ever tested fielded for the HARM (radiation seeking) Kh-25s? If not did it come in on the Ka-52?

Not sure it ever got RWR. A missile warning system as the stuff goes down (at launch) but not a pre-warning (I think). Also except for that 1 Night Attack model with a glass cockpit no place to put an RWR screen from the cockpit photos I've seen. IGLAs would be neat though. While not fully modeled they are in DCS atm. Unless there are tech restrictions involving the Shkval/helmet sight and how it locks on, but that one should be fairly declassified. How would one select IGLAs though?? You can only select inner or outer pylons, but never wingtip mounts. Unless one presses outer station twice?

It's definitely a think, but 99% of the time it happens when pushing limits you shouldn't in any helo. If ED models it fully, with all the ETL/transverse flow/RBS/LTE that the tail-rotored Apache should have, you won't find that you suffer imminent death from rotor intersection, but you'll have a whole lot else on your plate to deal with (/test patience, depending on how you feel). What did you want out of BS3 that's a deal-breaker? The exterior is still getting it's upgrade. The IGLAs would be a nice-to-have, but you have no radar, no RWR and at best a missile launch warning system, which may or may not work that well looking up through your rotors - so you'd usually be on the back foot. Nice to have teeth, but not your primary mission to hope the jet strays close enough to eat IGLA. And especially once they know you're a Ka-50 potentially with IGLAs they'll just stop coming in for a gun-run and use a missile that outranges you. The missile warning system and automated DIRCMS would be cool, but don't think that would change your gameplay. You mention Mi-24 is day 1, cool, you clearly like it. You could practice those strafing runs with the Mi-8 in the meanwhile, but that has less power/agility, but you could also do those attack runs with a Ka-50 - more agile and faster power/climb and better sensors to find enemies (though still not FLIR). From bits I've read, it seems Vihrs do outrange Hellfires a bit. Not sure that fully matters in DCS all the time as long as you have stand-off from whatever can shoot back, and can get a good spot within range. Both can melt most armours. Difference just being you get the ludicrously expensive (ie. you never get to carry/shoot them expensive) radar Hellfires, which we may or may not get, and the laser Hellfires can be buddy lased by other ground forces and Kiowas etc. So if it can do that, you can fire from relative safety. Then again if you can stay sub 10m AGL in DCS and outside AAA/TOW range you're pretty much immortal, so lofting less applicable for now. I think the Kh-25s should also be able to be laser from ground forces and/or be compatible with Su-25s, though I don't think that's in DCS atm. Hellfires are at least x3 times more expensive, maybe more depending on source than Vikhrs. So yeah, capability wise it can do more, but at much greater cost. Same as Ka-52 and even more-so Ka-50 compared to Apache.

Not sure the Apache has Direction Infrared Countermeasure systems. At least not the version we're getting - think that's only passive. Older tech = can be implemented. That's also assuming we get everything on the Longbow - entirely possible the US won't allow them full/enough access to the Longbow radar and the radar-guided Hellfire missiles.

@3WA I think even on the Ka-52, only the middle pylons (ie. middle ones there, outer ones on Ka-52K and Ka-50) can carry Vikhrs. So if you meant third pylon as in something that carry ATGMs, might not be a thing even on the newer models. Also you'd have less SHP on the engines to carry that 2.8 tonnes the Ka-52 can equip. Unless you mean 3rd pylon as in the wingtip under mounts for IGLAs. A FLIR capable Night Attack one would be pretty cool though in terms of added functionality.

It's most likely they put work into gathering the information, did some work on it like those December 2019 post on the external model, then got wind of the new law and then between legal team and/or military liasons they've been trying to figure a way around it, or how to still include the bulk of it. If it's not just a clear-cut case of reading a multi-page document with a clear conclusion, or someone comes up with an idea, you typically need to be negotiation/lobbying to someone in the powers that be to get it cleared, which likely would take time. Would be great if they said there was an unexpected delay, check back in X months, but may be that it is with some external government body to come back to them which ED has no way to rush. Possibly some of the bug-fixing was on hold if it relates to code that would change should they get the greenlight on BS3, but definitely not all bugs are related, e.g. the wingman AI and campaigns.

It doesn't. I've checked. Put on Altitude Hold at some consistent altitude, maybe in a hover with no wind. Move your collective so it powers out of that range. Trim while perfectly level. It will attempt to return to the aforementioned altitude. The only things setting the altitude hold channel's parameter/setting/target is (a) collective brake and (b) whenever the altitude hold channel button is put on, so you could also flick that off-on. Altitude Holds effective authority "feels" like it's not very strong. Note Collective brake itself, while held, doesn't disable the "resistance" that alt hold brings - if you don't want your collective deviations slowed down, then you need to disable Alt Hold. All it does in the sim is set the new alt hold parameter upon it's release. I'm extracting a small part of your sentence here, but not entirely true. The collective brake's primary purpose arguably in the real Ka-50 is to release the collective so you can actually move it. Normally it has the brake on so accidental touch and shakes don't move it. Where the handle is placed you naturally clamp down this collective brake lever before moving the collective, so there it's natural. ED had to remove it so people without a custom-built stick could fly without serious hassle, always holding in an arbitrary button instead of just moving their collective stick/HOTAS throttle. The second this is does is it sets you new altitude hold AP channel's target altitude when it's released. Whenever the collective is moved, if the change is radical enough it will affect especially your pitch as well. You just notice is less because of the pitch hold channel. Alt hold channel only affects you collective, pitch hold channel only your cyclic up-down. Agreed turning ON heading hold channel sets a new heading hold target. It along with Altitude hold are the only 2 channels that set their parameters/targets when the button is turn on. Just Alt Hold itself isn't set by trimming, whereas Heading Hold So often in Hover Mode: heading hold off, rudder over, heading hold on avoids any slight buck you'd get if you tried trimming without perfectly level. huh...so then you were essentially flying with a stiffer stick?

Unfortunately not. Russian laser tech vs. NATO - different standards. You're supposed to be able to lase for the Kh-25s of the Su-25, and them for your missiles. Not Vikhrs as those are cheap (but effective) beam riders. Also I'd imagine some ground forces should have laser kits to do it for you, but as far as I know that functionality doesn't exist in DCS. That said, the Kh-25s are very niche/limited use - I mean you can bust bunkers and ships, maybe get a bit more range - but you're sacrificing 12 missiles that one-shot pretty much everything for 2. The coming Apache should be compatible with the Kiowa, and the Kiowa itself's big thing is it can lase for the FA18 / A10, etc. All that said - the Ka-50 can send targets to wingmen with 2 buttons and slew on target with another 2. And more often than not, unless you needed to cross no-mans land to get to a dangerous SAM, odds are between your Vikhrs and Cannon you can kill anything you spot yourself. Small consolation. I think there was a mod which makes the Shark lase for A10... not sure if that still works or passes Multiplayer integrity check.

oof. That's....that's bad. Even not trying to lock stuff and just looking out your side window you'd be completely oblivious till you get the laser warning. You definitely won't be able to lock reliably looking out the canopy then. If the shake isn't too bad or given nausea, I'd still recommend using the helmet sight to scan the terrain ahead, ie keeping one eye on the Shkval - doing rough scouting, not locking. You can then try to lock with the helmet looking at the Shkval, but it's at closer ranges or extreme ranges quite jumpy, so in your case you'd probably just need to use slewing hat. Shkval scan mode is not reliable with slew-locking, so it will be the hat. I've heard some VR users/sets have shadows only appearing in one eye, ie that the units then from a really far-off distance appear to glitter and are thus easier to spot that with conventional screens. If that's not a thing, then maybe consider the dots/caret 'cheat' symbology (assuming you're not playing on an MP server that disallows it).

Ok, lemme rephrase. I've done various tests of turning bank/rudder explicitly comparing FD vs Hold-Trim vs all AP Channels off vs channels on but not holding/tapping trim. Not holding trim made no discernable difference in the speed of the turn, nor reaction times to when the Black Shark starts moving. I'm not saying it shouldn't affect it, but in the sim it doesn't. It can't just be the movement went over the authority limits of the AP channels (think it might be 20%, not 25%, but anyway), as then the timings would reflect that 25% resistance, but they don't. This is from tests about 4-ish months ago. What I haven't tested is small minute adjustments to see if it fights one then, but definitely not on the larger movements. Definitely it'll start 'fighting' you when you're trying to settle in on your new heading when you start easing up the controls and don't trim. I agree flying without trim is bad technique and I definitely don't recommend flying this way. There's footage of Ka-50s where you can hear the clicking. I'm not sure it's exactly the same mechanics running in Mi Mil's stuff and Kamov at that time though. I am not super-familiar with FFB usage - simply am not fortunate enough to own one or fork out on a Brunner. But from your further description, it doesn't trim. I agree tapping trim in FD is still necessary for it to retain you stick position (though it slightly sucks at maintaining your AP channel parameters compared to hold trim once you let go of the stick), but surely it also relieves the force necessary to move the stick from it's trimmed position, otherwise you're fighting the hydraulics all the way, i.e. hold trim = FD while you're holding down the button. Once you release trim, it's trimmed and as stable as it can be (if you've settled on the flight path etc), but of course FD they stick might not have the same impetus to stay in position perhaps?