Weta43

More imaginary arguments that I never made. Find a single post where I even hint that no Ka-52 could ever launch an IGLA. The Ka-50 & Ka-52 are different aircraft, and the discussion is about the Ka-50 Because they are different aircraft, commenting on the Ka-52 would be completely irrelevant to the current argument and so there would be no reason for me to raise the issue of what the Ka-52 can, or cannot do. All I've ever said is that your writing "KA-50/52 platform" does not mean that such a thing exists. There is the Ka-50, and there is the Ka-52. There is no Ka-50/52. The Ka-52 evolved from the Ka-50 as the F-15C evolved from the F-15A. An F-15A with an AESA radar, AIM-120s and a cockpit full of glass panels is not a real F-15A. It is as imaginary as a Ka-50 with a Ka-52 cockpit, 6 hard-points & Igla. No. You're simply wrong. Logically, it can be cancelled before it has started, but it can't be ended until after it's started. Yes, exactly as you would do if you were a vet and you tried to try to come up with a well reasoned - and grounded in science - description of the probable anatomy of a unicorn. But it would still be a work of fiction.

That's good news. Good luck to you too.

Unfortunately, this is typical of your position through the entire discussion. Something else was perhaps possible on another aircraft, so surely this means that this thing is possible on this aircraft. No proof, no evidence, just hypothesisation. No, I never mentioned tv shows or your interest / non-interest in them (Martinistripes did). What I mentioned was your apparent interest in having fantasy systems added to the Ka-50 so that you could engage in unrealistic employment of the helicopter. If I'd said we should ignore your request because you you were whatever, that would be ad hominum. What I actually said was that the requests weren't grounded in reality - either of the aircraft or its use. There's no more reason for Kamov to have produced documents saying that the Ka-50 couldn't carry Igla than for them to have written a document saying that the collective cannot be removed and used as a potato peeler, or that the user cannot attach beer kegs to the hardpoints. They write documents saying what it can do. If it could do that, they'd have written a document. If you could find a document saying the Ka-50 could carry Igla, we wouldn't be having this circular argument. See the translation Tippis provided of S.E.Bulba's quote above. The Ka-50 plainly did enter serial production. You're conflating unicorns and triceratops again. Neither exists now, one used to exist, and you could try to make a realistic model of it based on reality (Ka-50), the other never existed and any model of it is based in imagination (Ka-50 + Igla) This is true even if you imaging the biology of the unicorn to be based on ponies and narwhals (or Ka-52). All the rest was - as you yourself said - based on your opinion, not evidence [edit] This has all been said before, so I will take a break from the discussion.

Thanks for the translation and the confirmation. Obviously it's not possible to discontinue serial production unless serial production has commenced, so perhaps we can drop the whole 'it was only ever a prototype' argument from the forums ?

If they say yes to 1 day, how will the people that bought it the day before you feel ? Why 1 day, but not 2 ? Why 2 but not 3 ? . . . which leads to: Everyone should get the sale price from day 1 which means no-one gets a sale.

I've only ever seen you post pictures of the Ka-52 & say 'if this had them, that could have'. That's only speculation, not proof. If you had photos of Ka-50 with Igla, could you kindly link them ? Oh, and that wasn't an 'ad hominem'. Ad hominem is attacking the person, not the idea. I didn't say your idea was bad because you were a bad person, I said your idea was bad because it was unrealistic. Again - If you had photos of Ka-50 with launchable Igla, could you kindly link them ?

To the Ka-50 ? Source ? Images ? Generally, a helicopter is not something you want to fly on a modern battlefield where you don't have control of the airspace, or effective CAP. If you don't have those, you wouldn't be flying to engage the enemy. What you seem to want is a helicopter that's an A2A fighter, and that's not what they're built as or used as.

Good luck :-/

Would you like me to start a bug thread to have it removed ? Edit - All joking aside - at the time of development E.D. were working directly with Kamov. Presumably they included the Kh-25ML because Kamov said it could theoretically carry it, but didn't include a functioning MLWS (despite the external mounts and cockpit switch) or the ability to mount Igla (both of which would have been more useful than the Kh-25ML), because Kamov said the real thing didn't have one/couldn't carry them.

I'll tell you, as someone who was on the beta team for the Ka-50, and has flown the Ka-50 since before it was released, you don't know what you're talking about. Some people want E.D. to model the aircraft as they were built. That's all the OP was after. Some people don't care whether what they're playing is an accurate representation of the aircraft or not - they want something that will let them win, and if that means adding fantasy elements - then so be it. You appear to fall into that group. By this reasoning we should have a PESA radar & R-77 on the Su-27... They're real things that were added to other aircraft, they were in the advertising brochures as available to export customers if they wanted to pay for them, and they only reason we don't have the in DCS right now is that they were never added to the aircraft in real life

The Chinese Govt, the Iranian Govt, the Italian Govt, the E.U., the British, the WHO, NY state, the POTUS & the US media ??? -'cause obviously there's a group that all have a common interest in over-blowing the threat & sabotaging their own economies.

Su-27 probably has more people 'eagerly awaiting it', and would add more to game-play, but as Harlikwin pointed out, F-15 probably represents more sales dollars returned per dollar of development invested...

The problem is not how many people are dying now, it's it's not even how many will die - it's how fast the infection spreads. If you can spread those infections over 2 years, most of the sickest will be treated & survive. If infections are unchecked, the disease will increase exponentially & more will be sick at the same time. If they all happen over 3 months, hospitals will be swamped, most of the sickest people won't get into a hospital & will die.

You're probably right. The more interesting question is whether it's deliberate. I suspect not originally, but in the end, if it's left that way - that's a decision in itself.

See: CWiwDrh4iNs

The real thing seems to have more reflections than they've modelled... CWiwDrh4iNs

My guess is still F-15C. If it is, maybe E.D. should change the name to DC(U)S.World... ;)

Thanks :-)

Chizh runs a circular argument though... There are Red aircraft that are famous in the west, but most of them are not. I doubt there's a male in any Western country who doesn't know what an Su-27 or MiG-29 are, but I bet the % that know what a Yak-52 or L-39 are is in the low single digits. (probably similar for Huey & Ka-50 - probably even Mi-8. Huey is every westerner's mental image of a helicopter - most would never have heard of a Ka-50, and might know the Mi-8 is a Russian helicopter, but that's about it.) If Western audiences are offered a choice between iconic Western aircraft and obscure Russian aircraft, then of course the Western aircraft are going to sell better, but this says nothing about how well one of the 'iconic' Russian aircraft would sell. From a few posts that I've translated it seems to me that Chizh is more of a fan of Western aircraft than Russian, so perhaps his personal preferences come into play too (as in why will the Ka-50BS-III have extra pylons, Igla & MLWS ? "because we want it to"). (If you feel I'm putting words in your mouth Chizh please feel free to correct me) I've said this before too - it could be that they don't want the customer agro. I suspect that because the aircraft is so iconic in the West, if they did a DCS level Su-27 and modelled the avionics as they were in the early versions of the production aircraft (which presumably is what they could get away with), without a decent GCI system people might be disappointed with the capabilities of the aircraft, and certain people might throw their toys and complain about E.D. nobbling the aircraft....

It's always done that if you haven't used the rangefinder / used it for a while, and you're moving the shkval mark around.

According to E.D. the current DCS engine can deal with curved (spherical) maps, but all the current maps are flat with the effects of curvature post processed onto the SIM.

Move the date by 7 days

They've always had a closed beta team

The three switches work in 2D, but not easily from the default viewpoint - I know you said it makes no difference, but are you sure you're moving your view point enough that you're looking at the switches not the cover when you try to flick them ?

Actually, past E.D. modules did simulate this. Then they stopped...