Weta43

It must be possible to do something like allowing the first on / off to be instantaneous, but adding more lag the more frequently it's switched back & forth over a rolling timeframe (the limit of that being you can only turn it on once every 15 seconds and can only turn it off once every 15 seconds, but they'll be instant). The exploit of adding a macro to have the ECM switch on and off rapidly & so denying both HOJ & STT lock while appearing to have ECM on constantly was enough of a PITA & caused enough grief online to get E.D. to implement the delay, but until the whole ECM modelling is upgraded a better solution should be found...

@ 300 km/h 83.3m/sec, so you'd have to lead a bit. On the other hand, it's not going to change course a lot in a second, so you only have to lead the current course.

... & on the subject of the all-conquering F-16 - it was less capable than the MiG-29 variants it faced when they were fielded, and it wouldn't have won the competition to be the NATO fighter if the US hadn't put so much pressure on Europe. It is a good plane now, but with 46 years of development time, and the amount of money that's been throw at it, they could have started with a Cessna Caravan and still had a good multi-role aircraft by now...

I played lock-on, moved to FC with the Su-25T (though I prefer the A), and was a closed tester for E.D. from before the Ka-50 was released until after the F/A-18C was in open beta. I have so little interest in flying US aircraft I didn't know how how to read the F-15 radar till I had to learn the F-18 for testing. I enjoyed testing the Huey, but the Mi-8 is a more interesting module. Mostly I now fly the Su-25A (instant buy if they do a DCS module), the Mi-8, the Ka-50 and the Su-27 (in that order) I get the F-18 out to practice traps, but find the US fixed wing aircraft more sterile to fly than the Su-25A or the Su-27. Ironically, given the primary complaint of many against the FC3 aircraft was the need to memorise key combinations, there's more need to memorise keystrokes (hat-switch toggles anyway) in the computerised modern aircraft than there was in the FC3 aircraft. I have zero (0.00) interest in the F-16. I'll buy the Mi-24 as soon as possible, I doubt that I'll buy the AH-64. I'll buy the Mossie, as that is a truly iconic aircraft. If E.D. can sort out the GCI I'll buy the MiG-29, and Su-27 if they ever do that. Eurofighter's a nice & capable aircraft, but standoff button pushing isn't all that moving...

LOL Was the OP a prayer to the E.D. Gods or a very long exercise in creative visualisation (wishful thinking)? "I love American aircraft, I want the world to bow down in front of the alter of magnificent American aircraft ! I only want E.D. to make US aircraft." X 1000 If I say often enough and loud enough and long enough that Red aircraft are impossible, no one wants them and no one will buy them, maybe I can make it come true.

They could make it that it comes on immediately, but you can only turn it on once in any 15 second period (to stop blinking)

If you replace "think" with "hope", and "people" with "I", you'd probably be closer to the truth... & I know this, because 100% of the people that think the same way I do agree with me...

The ka-50 shkval is not 'broken' because its operation is inaccurate, or because it doesn't use actual contrast detection, but rather uses lookups depending on time of day, weather and target type to decide whether or not to lock. That's simply the technology that was available (in that it would run on a home PC) at the time the product was released. That's what you ( & I ) were happy to get at the time - the most accurate simulation available for home PC at the time . Time moves on and so do technology and expectations. I don't expect Nokia to update my old 3G 2008 phone to 5G because all new phones run on the 5G network. Perhaps it would make you happier if E.D. simply tied support of products to the base version of DCS they were released against (in the same way phones are tied to the network Hz in use at release), and adopt a model where if you want the product updated to use the features and resources available to new generations of computers, you explicitly pay for that. As it stands, ED keep the old models current with whatever version of the base DCS world they're using & do so for free, so with no extra outlay you get improvements to the terrain, AI, more units, improved scripting & triggers, graphics, lighting, MP environment, etc, etc. There have actually been free upgrades to the 3D model, cockpit and weapons, but because this comes for free the attitude seems to be - I want MORE ! I want features I never paid for & the inclusion of systems that were explicitly excluded at the time of purchase - & I want them for free ! If you got BS1 / BS2 at release - you've had damn good value for money. BS-1 came out in 2008 & for a small upgrade fee you got to roll it into DCS world. BS-2 came out in 2011. What other 2011 software are you still using ?

I guess the difference is that if an infantry soldier takes a shot with a .50 cal at the engines of a Huey or Mi-8 and the cockpit & pilot are in the way the bullet will pass through the windscreen or skin, through the pilot / co-pilot if they're in the way then proceed on to punch a hole in the engine / gearbox. If an infantry soldier takes a shot with a .50 cal at the engines of a Hind and the cockpit & pilot are in the way, the bullet stops at the bullet proof glass or the armour protecting the pilot & co-pilot. The armour isn't to make the entire aircraft bullet / AAA proof, but let the pilot be reassured they aren't going to be killed by the golden BB, give them more of a sense of security, and let them concentrate on flying the aircraft / engaging the target. Given that most of the armour is at the front, and that the hind tends to fly at its targets, it's probably reasonably reassuring knowing that the tracers you can see coming at you are aimed at the only reasonably protected part of the aircraft...

"Most Shark pilots I know of, if they're not stuck on using FD all the time, fly by holding in the Trim button, then maneuvering, " Yes, that's me too. FD is a rarity.

No problems with the yaw with my crosswinds - maybe post a track ?

LOL

Were they ? Yes, NASA ran the capsules at a higher % of oxygen, but they also ran the capsules at well below atmospheric pressure, to get a partial pressure for the oxygen levels equivalent to that on earth. NASA did have a catastrophic fire on a capsule, but that was more a case of crazy human error (they wanted to pressure test the capsule with crew on board, so pushed the capsule up to atmospheric pressure + 5 lb/in^2 - which meant there was an insanely oxygen rich atmosphere, and a spark sent the module up like a torch.) than there being such a fire hazard in the crew compartments that the couldn't use a pencil in case it burst into flames.

The vast majority of users (myself included) are mainly single players that rarely venture near an MP server. Of the people that do go online regularly, few would use the multi-crew feature regularly. To them it makes no difference whether multi-crew is implemented or not, as long as there's a sufficiently competent AI option to hand some of the flying / fighting off to - & E.D. have said they're working on that. So while it may be an important feature to you, saying they should sit on the release until they've finished a feature that < 5% of module owners will ever use is ... let's say "not community spirited"

Yeah, that is a good video. YouTube put it on my feed last night, and I was wondering as I watched it - what's the pilot supposed to be monitoring with the very big and very prominent ammeter (marked in milliamps) mounted right by the HUD ?

It's much better than the old version on my phone, & if you squash your window horizontally to as narrow as it will go, it's fine If you full-screen your browser on a monitor - I preferred the old version. Shame you can't swap between layouts depending on the platform you're using.

Maybe because I live in a country that uses the sensible and intuitive metric system, maybe because I started with the Su-25 & Su-27, but to be honest I don't really love operating US aircraft (...), everything's in imperial (Knots - I mean - are we sailing ?), and the HUD and Avionics are never intuitive ;)

Slightly O.T., but that's some pretty violent downwash effects the've implemented in that video - but I guess in a FFS having the trees thrash around adds to the immersion i& mental workload n tight landings near trees

Also again ... If it tries to jump diagonally across the CL of the stick, swap axis in the FFB tune.

Remember too - you can't have curves with FFB in the Ka-50. If you add curves to the stick, they're not added to the FFB, so when you release the trim, the stick tries to move where that place is in the uncurved FFB schema

No, I just meant DCS.Ka-50 II like flaming-cliffs II

They're doing a Ka-50 II, not Ka-52

& how do you know that ? Because you've seen it, or because you read a post by someone else that also hadn't seen it which said it was so ? (& now someone else will use your comment as a source for another post, leading to the establishment of a fact).

Depends if you're after appearances or outcomes. In reality, in a rockets run on some soft targets reasonably close to each other you should be able to kill a few things on a pass... Without fragmentation, you have to either hit even a soft target, or hit very close to it for it to die (& if it doesn't outright die, it will continue on as if undamaged until it does). Without dispersion, you get a higher density of rockets on the ground, and so in the target area get a reasonably good kill pattern, but over a much smaller area than you'd expect. With dispersion, you'd just get (essentially) nothing happening but smoke generation over a bigger area. The odds ofanything being killed would be very low. Dispersion without fragmentation would look more real, but have an even less realistic outcome than we have now.

Isn't it how big the expected target ('s return) is ?