Weta43

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 ?

See all that bit in capitals ? The action of installing the module on their computer will simultaneously erase all the bits in capitals above from the brains of 25% of everyone that downloads the module. They will then create 95% of the posts made on this and every other forum they can find complaining about how the module is unfinished, full of bugs, and they were ripped off by E.D. ( & that they now feel a messiah like need to explain to the world that E.D.'s entire business model is finding people that can't read a disclaimer & somehow tricking them into agreeing to pay for and download an unfinished product that clearly has a disclaimer on it)

2 things to considered: 1/ That maybe having looked at it maybe E.D. (while recognising that it's better than what we have now,) feel the architecture of Jester isn't structured in a way that makes it suitable to serve as a starting point for their long term goals. 2/ If they've been developing their own A.I. in conjunction with their plans for the dynamic campaign/RTS engine, it may be more work to re-start that integration with Jester than to simply finish what they've started. Asking for Jester may look to E.D. like giving pain killers and an Elastoplast to someone with a broken arm. - It might make them feel better right now, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Depends which AI. Fighters, ground attack aircraft, air defence, armour, infantry, ships ? Generally it affects how quickly / at what range they detect you, how long it takes them to react when they do, how 'complex' the reaction will be, and how well they use their weapons.

^ yes, we use dd/mm/yyyy here, but files are always yyyy-mm-dd (optional .hh.mm.ss) then they sort correctly. 09-Sep-2021 would avoid any confusion though (even for the Japanese here :-)

I'd love an "A", but as far as newer variants go, there's always the Su-25KM (scorpion) - it's wholly Georgian (not Russian), with Western style upgrades (So Russia wouldn't mind the avionics being reproduced, and it's not giving anything away about current Russian avionic capabilities), & Elbit might even be up for the advertising....

I'd buy it...