Weta43

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/11/worlds-first-fully-electric-commercial-aircraft-takes-flight-in-canada

I posted a couple of RL videos of just that on the previous page.

Not apples with apples though, Mi-25 & S-5's.. & 1/ doesn't matter how big the rocket it, it's how much surface area the exhaust gasses have to work on. 2/ Your video doesn't show a Ka-50, it shows Mi-24 with the rockets mounted in a completely different configuration. I tried to explain why that made a difference before. There's a competition shooting discipline that involves rapid firing 3 groups from a pistol from a standing position at 25m with one hand. 5 shots in 8, then 6, then 4 seconds. They're only .22s, so the recoil's not great, but it's enough with a normal configuration (high barrel) to mean you have to aim again. The Russians built the MTs3-1 Rekord with the barrel in line with the shooter's arm, so no flip-up on firing. Same amount of recoil, but a different alignment eliminated the tendency of the barrel to rise (actually it probably kicked 'down'). Watch this video slowly. At 4:00 an AH-1 fires a rocket from the left station and the aircraft is kicked into a yaw by the rocket launch. OHdPxRka6y0 or watch the kick on the launcher here from 0:59 148PF_UZ5uo

Perhaps, but helicopters are entirely without ground bracing and free to move under the influence of the back-thrust. You could move one like you could move a boat, except air is less viscous & so it would be eaisier (& you can move quite a big boat by hand).

Depends where the rocket sits, and so there the thrust is, relative to the COG. There will be a point that if you push there, the aircraft will simply move back, not pitch up or down. Push below that and the aircraft will pitch down, above and it will pitch up.

^^ also - see the video I posted - MLRS without jacks are knocked about by the launch of what you're suggesting are recoil-less weapons. MLRS with jacks have jacks to keep them stable while launching. Edit : See 1:16 in this KcbUxq6ymDE

"Where is the strong recoil going to come from?" Seen videos of Cesna's being blown over by the jet wash of airliners turning a hundred metres in front of them ? when a salvo is launched, there's a (continuous set of) rocket sitting a metre in front of the rocket pod (only some of the tubes of which are empty - the rest are just a wall) with its rocket exhaust blowing on the aircraft. The turbulence / backwash from the rockets is severe enough to risk flameout on the engines, and is in part why the real Ka-50 (& Mi-25) is prohibited from firing rocket salvos at less than 100 km/h

98kN0KcYJZc All the small calibre MLRS systems that are not stabilised against the ground with hydraulic jacks (& several of the smaller ones that are), & are firing their missiles from "a cylinder with an opening in the front & back", are visibly rocked back by the launch of the missiles.

Except that they're firing single missiles, not salvos, and from a hover in a still day which (apart from being forbidden in the Ka-50) means that they probably have the full extent of the SA system authority to stop any pitching tendency, and - it's a completely different aircraft, so if there is a recoil from the launch, it will act in with a different torque against the aircraft's CoG. Ever see one of these ? A Ts3-1 Rekord match pistol designed for the Olympics, but banned. the barrel is at the bottom. There's exactly the same amount of recoil as with any other gun firing the same ammunition, but it acts straight into the shooter's grip, not above it, so there's no pitch up. A gun is not a gun is not a gun and a helicopter is not a helicopter is not a helicopter. If that's the case, it would imply that it's the AP running out of authority (as all 20 % authority is now available purely for stability augmentation). At work, but if you actually disable all the AP channels does it happen ?

Pretty sure it's built into DCS not built into specific modules. Certainly it works for all E.D. & Belsimtek modules

Them and the 'mothership'. Nice

Or it may simply be that the kick is always there, but as the AP only has + / - 20% authority, sometimes (if you're not fighting the AP) the AP can filter the pitch up out, and sometimes (if it's already using 18% to correct for the input you've started adding since trimming) it can't, and the aircraft pitches. No need for ghosts at all. They still have less dispersion (are more accurate) than you'll see in video of the same weapon used in real life. :)

It's immersion breaking that they're either 'dead/dying' or 'alive'. A simple halfway house using the existing trigger / scripting systems (if they had access to the systems) might be implemented natively in the ME something like : At mission start each vessel was assigned a random value between some type specific bounds for each of: Offensive action against vessels and ground targets Radar use and defence using radar Optical detection & use of IR / unguided defence being on fire Being irreparably damaged. Sometimes one would happen before the other, other times the other way around. If it is also that vessels' 'damage' reduces at (not suggesting these are real numbers, just an approach) 0.5% / minute when less than irreparably damaged, and increases at 1% / minute if irreparably damaged, and being on fire increases damage at 0.025% / minute. A ship that was > 75% damaged would inevitably die, but it might take a long time (& so they're still alive to targeting pods and appear on the ME till then) Any ship less than 75% damaged would eventually self repair - how long that took depending on the level of damage and whether or not it was on fire. systems would come on line in the reverse order they went off, but that order would be random (within type bounds) for each vessel and mission. So - If the mission threshold for a vessel's radar use were 25%, movement 20%, and all self defence 25% - and the vessel were 26% damaged, the ship would be dead in the water & defenceless, but if the ship were not hit again, after (26 - 25)/0.5 = 2 minutes IR/optical self defence would start again, @ 12 minutes the radar & defences would come up, and at 22 minutes the vessel would start making headway again. After 52 minutes the vessel would be fully repaired. Another time the vessel might never stop, but catch fire and have the radar out till after the fire goes out - all random per mission. Using the example number above, a 0.5% recovery rate means a vessel with the maximum survivable damage wold take at least 75 / 0.5 = 150 minutes to repair fully (more if it were on fire)

& remember Pilots get excited in the heat of battle. Was it 15 minutes, or was it 10, or 5 ? Holding your breath for 5 minutes makes it seem like a long time. An example from Russia, but it could be any country, and any war...

Perhaps just incorrectly sitting in the tank it was drawn from - in which case the end result has no effect on range, weight or performance, only on the proportion of time you have to select the left tank to keep fuel evenly distributed. A bug, or an oversight, but a very insignificant one.

It's really irrelevant to range etc if they model the actual fuel burn and then ignore both sides of the evaporate > scavenge equation. (as if recovery is effective, they net off to zero) If you feel they're taking 10 gallons an hour of vaporisation and removing that, then not returning it, there's an effect on range / consumption, but if all they're doing is effectively adding it back to whatever tank the fuel is coming from, not always to the left tank - is that really the most urgent thing you can think of to request developer time is spent on ?

As S.E.Bulba posted, E.D. developed the module with active participation from Kamov, and for a long time the Kamov logo was on the splash screen.

I don't understand why the option of a female voice hasn't happened already. I can understand that they might not want to add code / make models to allow changing the actual pilot, but there would be almost no effort required from E.D. to enable the voices. They already have a system to choose between voices (Russian / Western) that I'd bet ( but only a little bit of :-) money could have 4 options instead of 2 with an absolute minimum of coding, and I'm pretty sure that they could get a number of volunteers to do the voice acting / QA on the voice acting all for free if they asked the community (as a number of the voice components of previous campaigns have already been). So why not ?

If you look on Wikipedia, entries mostly have a price tag in real and nominal dollars. F-14: US$38 million (1998) ($19.2 million in 1977) F-22: Unit cost US$150 million (flyaway cost for FY2009)

Every fighters' Mother would say they are priceless.

Skyraider skins ? Skyraider P-47

Another chapter in the ever repeating story of: "Please give us "X", Please give us "X", we need "X" "X" arrives..., and the response is "Great !, followed only a moment later by: no - wait ! we need "Y"! "X" is no use ! Why have they given us "X" when we need "Y" ? You say "Y" is coming ? But why target "Y" when "Z" is what would make us all happy ?

60 * .1 = 6 m/s = 21 km/h Still not massive

I haven't seen any convincing sourced post that says that is the case, but I have seen posts that say there would be more than one standardised harmonisation for an aircraft type depending on the role anticipated, but that personalisation beyond that for individuals was rare, as multiple pilots had to be able to get into most planes and find a convergence they expected. This would argue for the convergence being a function of the role selected when choosing the load out (ground attack = pattern 1, intercept = pattern 2), not for a slider that people can set as they see fit.

Yes, I think the turbulence is calculated independent from - but cumulatively with - the wind - which I'd set to zero at all altitudes because I wanted to isolate it from the effect of wind / wind shear. If I have time tonight I'll add 5.6m/s wind at altitudes and see if turbulence appears at higher altitudes.