Weta43

It's possible (& this is just speculation on my part) that there are restrictions on the launch parameters* to ensure that smoke isn't ingested & the same parameters might limit the usefulness of A2A missiles. ( * Like a minimum launch speed ? - Even in situations where there seems to be confidence that there aren't manpads or heavy weapons the helicopter rocket runs I've seen are always carried out with a reasonably high forward airspeed. Remember that the S-24 was taken out of service with the Su-25 because it was causing flame-outs on the engines - but E.D. didn't model that particular 'feature'.)

Funny - in all the time I've been on the forum I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned as a reason why it couldn't be carried, only that the aircraft was never made capable of carrying it. Do you know who said it ? E.D. or a forum poster ? (know of a link ?)

"so many says that KA-50 can't launch the R-73 as its smoke would cause the engine to stop" Where did you read that ?

Yes, but I'm in NZ, so it would work for me :-) Bit OT, but did you see how the A-4K ended up equipped ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Kahu

Add A-4 with that ability to the carrier ?

If you use the search, & look a couple of years ago, there were images posted of ground radar images generated from DCS.

WRT the auto-hover. From memory (years since I read it), the manual says don't engage the auto-hover at more than 20km/h. I'm pretty sure the recommended procedure is to get as close to (in) a stable hover as possible, then engage the auto hover. Once you get below 20km/h or so the a line will appear on the HUD showing your speed and direction. Use that to get corrections before hitting auto-hover. If you always have to put left rudder in, check your controls to make sure everything's centred. Simple test - If it's wind, and heading North you need left rudder to correct, you should need right rudder if you turn to head South. If you still need left rudder - it's your controls. Also remember - if you're flying N at 40 km/h with a 30 km/h crosswind from the E, the aircraft will naturally want to point at 37 degrees East of North, & to align North you'll have to counter an apparent wind of 50 km/h from 37 degrees If you go into a hover, the aircraft will just want to point East.

What they listed are fixes to "how clouds work in the game". I assume you mean the ME GUI ? (as all the defects with the current clouds are specifically addressed except clouds 'rotating'), surely even a little thought before jumping to (forecasting) complaining would make it obvious that in order to have multiple cloud layers, types and localised precipitation, they're going to have to work on the weather interface. Some specific suggestions regarding what you'd like to see would be a better idea than a general gripe of "I'm sure they'll get it wrong:..

That's why I said earlier - be careful what you wish for :)

Look at the textures - Pretty sure it's just a screenshot with the camera placed inside the model Go to the chase view in your current install and mode the camera to inside the cockpit - that's about the level of detail you'll see. (You could post similar images from inside the Mi-26, get shots from the cockpit or rear section of the Mi-24, & the An-26 has a very nice cockpit )

Where do they talk about not being profitable ? They've said they didn't think a Russian module would make as much money as a Western one, but I don't remember them ever saying they weren't breaking even.

Because you want to fly an interceptor ?

Drinking half a bottle of wine before hitting 'fly' ?

Before going to that, I'd like to see better damage modelling, better route following AI, better ground / SAM AI, better airborne AI teamwork, proper GCI for RedFor aircraft, proper datalinking for RedFor aircraft, the dynamic weather system updated to a decent GUI, the dynamic campaign system rolled out, the ability to have damage to infrastructure persist between campaign missions, the thing where labels show through the floor fixed. & once they've got those sorted (lots of which they're working on - credit where credit's due), maybe a discussion could happen around whether RL weather is a good idea (me - I vote no. No interest in starting a mission only to discover that today's weather means the mission is unflyable.)

That was me. My memory is that there were howls of outrage at the time - about the FCS, about the trimming laws, about how easy it was so put into an inverted flat spin, and how hard it was to get out of an inverted flat spin, turning performance, blah, blah). Most of those have died down, but there are still some die hard "E.D. have deliberately under-modelled the Su-27 and over modelled the F-15 to please Western buyers" conspiracy theorists even now... Now imagine that applied to every aspect of the aircraft's system and avionics modelling.... Or do a teen fighter and everyone that buys it knows what to expect, and (eventually) claps their hands I have no idea how qualified he is to "evaluate rl fighter performance", but I know he has "ED Producer" in his sig, so I guess if he doesn't like the idea of a modern Soviet fighter (for whatever reason), a modern Soviet fighter's unlikely to happen... (& for the record, I'd love to see a full DCS.Su-27S (or any "M", or "K" or any suffix salad variant they chose to model)

Ever considered the possibility that they don't do a full version of one of the Su-27 or MiG-29 variants because they don't want the grief ? Chizh has expressed his low opinion of Soviet gear on the forum before, and maybe they just feel that if they were to model an Su-27 S with it's actual radar & WCS & weapons limitations, the sh*tstorm that happened when the Su-27 (then MiG-29) PFM was unveiled would seem like a little squall - from both hemispheres of their market. Better to leave that particular bitter pill for someone else to swallow.

Well worry if you really want to, but they just said this week that : Which is 'non-screenshot' news, and tells us that : - The model's not finished, and - The animations aren't finished either. If they're not finished, they're certainly not optimised. If they're not finished, and they're not optimised - why would the give performance figures on the carrier as it stands ?

Interesting way to ask the question. (The first half of which is already answered over and over and over in so many threads, and the second half of which is really only a rhetorical question so you can complain about E.D., which again has been done over and over and over in so many threads that surely it's getting tiresome to type ?) I guess the answer will be what it is every time the question is asked: That you're still getting what they've said you'll get all along, which is a free update that brings the model & textures up to current standards, and the option to buy an 'upgraded*' version of the aircraft if you think the extra features warrant the spend. I'd say though, that you sound so wound up and ready to complain even before the module is released, maybe you'd do your health a favour if you stop checking this thread till the module is released and you can read what people write about it ? & Want to see me beat a dead horse ? Watch: * & by 'upgraded', I mean imaginary ;-)

They said they'd get the Huey going first, then the Mi-8. I guess that means they intend to get the Huey going first, then the Mi-8, and I guess after that the Mi-24P

Like these ? …

There has to be something the matter with your controls set up.

Interesting, but not really very insightful into the actual WVR combat qualities of the two aircraft, given that the , and the Malaysians say that:

You need a flat bit to land on, but even if they just made it that the functional part of the FARP was just the metal covered bit shown in the image - because it's so much smaller it wouldn't end up as a massive hill, just a bit of level ground. You could then make the base any shape you wanted by adding multiple pads. (eg laid out as a strip of terraces on the side of a hill, or in a grid on the flat) You could avoid the multiple ATC that would happen currently by making it that the FARPS are a simple spawn/de-spawn point, and putting the ATC logic in the mobile ATC unit that's available, then linking the mobile ATC to a pad/pads in the ME

This is not true. It's quite possible to fly the helicopters (& fight, or land on chimneys and trains) just using the twist grip. The thing that will catch you out is the number of available buttons and rotaries, not the twist grip.

It can be tracking something moving & still work