Weta43

Seems maybe you haven't read all the thread...

Yes, I agree. I've suggested a few times over the years that they make the vehicles capable of their FARP/airfield actions independent, and make the mobile ATC vehicle an actual mobile ATC - even if it only gives range and bearing to a user defined approach point, range and bearing to vehicle and a cleared for visual when within some range. (though if you defined a touchdown point, and an approach vector, the ATC could calculate an inbound point for both players and AI...) Then you could set up FOBs for both fixed and rotary wings on roads, and/or grass fields etc

LoL - Yes, So true - $74,162,069,457,304 certainly outclasses anything the USSR did by an order of magnitude :) https://usdebtclock.org/

I know - it's crazy how they seem to prioritise keeping their business solvent over providing free content. I just don't understand their logic at all. !

"... and the SA-2 site being placed either north or south of the target, how would I do that? " The simplest way (no scripting necessary) is to set 3 triggers. Mission start, random trigger '1' with 50% likelihood. Trigger '2' - if trigger '1' true activate group x Trigger '3' - if trigger '1' false activate group y Or you could set the individual units to have some % likelihood of spawning, but you might get one or the other, or none, or both...

I guess you're being sarcastic, but what do you actually mean ? (& it seems to me, that as with most things, whichever model was released last is the 'flagship'...)

First part is (was ?) there & was implemented not long after the trigger system (because it's essentially just implementing the existing trigger function from that part of the ME). Second part would take a bit of work, as at the moment the ME relies on the Mission Creator to make sure units don't spawn on top of buildings or in rivers/lakes/the ocean, so you might end up with units on top of buildings or in rivers/lakes/the ocean

That's a very interesting viewpoint / expectation. Can I imagine that the US might be more robust in their military response were Russia to perform a similar move - certainly... Can I imagine that it would stay out of the press - not at all. Certain elements of the US administration might be happy if that were to happen, but I can't see it not leaking to the press, and there's a lot of banner headline & indignation to be generated from "Russian Fighters recklessly approach Western Aircraft". You've only got to look at the hyperbole that's written every time a Chinese aircraft approaches one of those poor defenceless P-8 Poseidons while they're minding their own business over the China seas...

0.2 * r * RPM ( = 0.1 * D * RPM) That's nice - I like it. Let me guess - starting from angular velocity - you're an engineer :) ? I wondered how approximate the approximation was, so did it the math-phobe, social science major's way :-/ Pi * D * RPM * 60 * .001 to get the speed at that diameter in km/h, which simplifies to D * RPM * 0.1885 = speed in km/h or D * RPM * 0.1018 for knots which makes your angular approximation pretty close ! (.1 is pretty close to .1018 )

It was at one stage the USSR's most intensely militarised region.

"a keen" -> "akin" from "Kin" - relatives/family akin -> something resembling something else in the way family members or relatives resemble each other.

That is the new cockpit. Again, if you look through the threads you'll find discussion around how it differs from the current cockpit, and what that might mean regarding features. What are you expecting - a glass cockpit :) ? the cockpit: the outside (complete with MLWS sensors & needles):

The same people that are calling for a glass cockpit, FLIR & RWR initially asked for (demanded ?) 6 pylons on the grounds that the Ka-52 has six, so surely that was the intent for the Ka-50. but, despite this comment: E.D. have actually posted pictures of the cockpit and said what the features planned at the time of announcement were... (on the Russian forum, but you can find the details earlier in the thread) The minimum set of demands listed above goes past what they announced, but the lobby group have their fingers in their ears...

I'd imagine making the blades stealthy is slightly more complicated than making them out of composites, but I find the idea of the hub being tracked in TWS/STT surprising, There must be a doppler gate on the TWS/STT track otherwise it's going to track every bush and goat on the ground while looking down - any idea what it is ? While the rotors are spinning pretty fast, and the hub looks like it's spinning fast, if you take a UH-60, the hub's actually only spinning at 258 rpm. Eyeballing it, it looks to be about 1m in diameter - maybe up to 1.5m. That means that while all the components are angular and 'shiny', and so might provide quite a good reflection, the maximum groundspeed of any component at the very periphery of the hub is only between 30 mph and 50 mph & everything inboard of that is moving slower - to zero at the actual hub (while in a hover obviously). Surely the gate's higher than 30 mph in lookdown, or you'd have every jackass in his SUV showing up in TWS ??? So blades and tail-rotor - sure, I can see that. Hub - I'm less convinced at the moment..

The Ka-50 is getting a new cockpit - this bug would require a rework of the cockpit model to correct (it’s not a texture bug, it’s the outside model intruding into the cockpit) - might happen...

And a peresvet ?

They’ve said no FLIR, and I guess it’s true that even if you were to buy it, you’d still have control of the load out and circuit breakers....

If that were how it worked, MAC with a keyboard would actually work ..

Yes, and the zoom function changes that between 140 degrees and 20 degrees, there is a separate function for moving the camera forward and backwards.

An FM for a plane that is entirely based around lookup tables, is still a simulation & can give acceptable results for a wide range of scenarios, even though there are more subtle ways to perform the simulation available. A radar simulation that uses LOS, RCS, Aspect & some probability of intercept is still a simulation, regardless of whether it attempts to perform some ray tracing algorithm to determine the LOS or not. The fact that the AI appear to know you're there is irrelevant (of course the computer program knows you're there, and they're in the program), if 1/ they don't take action while they couldn't detect you in real life 2/ their reaction once they should be able to detect you takes into account probably detection time and any warm up time etc. Both those things are supposed to be implemented, and if the AI actually launch with a lock as soon as you come out from behind a hill - that's a bug, & should be reported (& hopefully - though not always - E.D. will fix it reasonably promptly). If they're already 'looking' at you - or have swung their weapons around but still take the amount of time it should take before getting a lock and opening fire - it's only a problem for movie makers. At that point a turning head or weapon is only as relevant to the outcome as is how far the stabiliser appears to move on a simulated aircraft - which is not at all if it's disconnected from the underlying mechanics.

1/ I don't want to be rude, but (which negates what I said before it), saying radar isn't simulated in the sim is silly. It obviously is - you have used the radar in the aircraft in the simulation. What you obviously mean is that you think that if you were running things it would be simulated to a higher standard - which is a whole other thing. 2/ If you hadn't just walked in the door before offering your advice, you'd know that the radar modelling may not be great, but it's a lot better than it was, and improving over time. Originally there was no modelling of radar modes, or PRF effects, or scan zones, or ground clutter, etc. etc... Occasionally it gets buggy and AI can track through hills or buildings, but that's not how it's supposed to work. Same with LOS for pilots - again, occasionally it gets broken & omniscience returns, but initially the AI pilots had instantaneous 360 * 360 FOV, but at some point they had that cropped to account for obstruction by their own aircraft, then had actual scan patterns and reaction times added, then adjustments for time of day etc. And a bit like the FM's, which were initially all on a par with the current AI FMs, then went through various levels of improvement till they got to where they are with the F/A-18C - & I think nineline posted that the plan is for the AI are about to have their FM's upgraded to about the level of the Su-25 players' FM. Essentially - what you want wasn't physically possible given the state of computing when LO/DCS started (Short of using a bubble system for events outside of the players view & rolling dice - which E.D. decided was a path they didn't want to follow) & as machines have improved, they've added detail to each of the areas you raised. So -better PCs means more can be modelled - initially the FMs, but also the atmosphere (have you tried adjusting the turbulence ? it's much better than what was in DCS originally), the graphics, the size of the maps and the object density, the missile FMs (which some appreciate, but others saw as a step backwards as they didn't play nicely with the old guidance systems), missile guidance systems, projectile ballistics, damage modelling, system modelling, ground handling, and on and on... :) Radar's still got a way to go, but it has been, and continues to be, improved. Some people complain loudly that they want it improved faster. There will always be some group of people who complain that they want what they want faster.

No, I haven't taken another full time job :) - but sometimes it's easier to see things more clearly when you're standing further away, and NZ is a long way from the patriotism and partisanship of the struggle between the US & Russia. I don't personally don't see either side as having any particular moral superiority, I was - and am - just discussing how the expectations of the circumstances of battle lead to differences in the way countries prepare for those battles. Witness the Maginot Line ... Were the USSR's weapons developed with a view to defence rather than offence ? As you pointed out, the USSR had (Russia has) enough nuclear weapons to assure M.A.D., but M.A.D is the very thing that removes the possibility of their being used offensively. * In the absence of an effective ABM system, a massive nuclear arsenal is not an offensive weapons system. The "M" in M.A.D. is the significant bit... It's "We both die" It's not a strategy for offence as you have no planet to live on afterwards. It's effectively booby-trapping your own home - and booby-trapping your own home doesn't make a good offensive strategy. Paraphrasing JFK: "if you launch an all out nuclear war, the fruits of victory will be ashes in your mouth" Literally. Radioactive ashes. M.A.D. is the end. *& to ensure its effectiveness as a deterrent, the "M" has to be maintained, which is why there was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty banning anti-ICBM weapons systems. ... and why Reagan was so keen on - and the USSR so hostile to - the idea of the "Star-Wars" SDI program. Reagan thought that given the USSR's parlous economic state, the US had enough of a technological advantage to be able to build a shield that would neutralise the threat of retaliation from the USSR & remove the "M" from M.A.D. Which is consistent with my original premise...

I didn't criticise, I asked what the reaction would be if ... "Russian fighter aircraft approach within metres of the US Secretary of Defence's aircraft over the Atlantic !" … it wouldn't be three sentences at the bottom of a page (or nothing at all on most English speaking media)

Except it's not someone joy-riding in their Dad's Fiat that they've snuck out without their parents' knowing - it's an official multi million dollar aircraft from a State's military, armed with A2A missiles, that can only be there because it was instructed to be there (by NATO ?). Can you imagine the reaction in the West if an armed Su-35 flew out to intercept an aircraft carrying the US secretary for defence, and in international airspace approached within a few metres ? You wouldn't need to look on the E.D. forums for the news :-)

Edit: The post above appeared while I was writing this, and I wrote it as a discussion of the rational for different approaches to equipment and doctine in the USSR and the West, but it's interesting that the above appeared while I was writing. My position is that while finances were undoubtedly a factor, a significant part of the reason for the different approaches (& I know this will be difficult for some of you to grasp) is also that after the dust settled from the 2nd world war, the Russian's never had an expansionist military intention with respect to Europe - Part of why Stalin was hated so much by the Bolshevics was his belief you could build communism in one country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country The Communism of the USSR might have (& Russia might still) pose a political threat to the West, but there's never been a realistic possibility that Russia would initiate a 'first strike' attempt at a ground invasion of Western Europe. Their strategy was (continues to be) to maintain and defend what they saw as their (then) existing sphere of influence, and maintain a buffer between NATO and the Russian homeland. Their 'occupation' of the Crimean peninsular - which prevented the Russian naval base becoming a NATO base - being a good example of this. What we see as Russian Expansionism, from their point of view was preventing yet another part of the ex-soviet union falling into NATO, and a NATO naval base from appearing on their border. From the time of the USSR's formation to the fall of the Eastern Pact, The Soviet military has existed to counter the perceived threat of Western aggression, and so their military makeup and strategies have reflected that. The West (USA) expected to be flying into enemy airspace, and so they built aircraft & employment doctrine that reflected that - aircraft building their own SA, pilots acting autonomously - because there would be no ground command with the coverage giving them the ability to provide these. The Russians expected to be fighting over their own country - & so set up GCI coverage in the expectation that the fighting would take place inside its coverage, built planes to integrate with the GCI & radar sets that could be slaved by ground commanders - All for the defence of the homeland That's also why they concentrated so heavily on SAM systems (remember the first successes for high altitude SAMs were Russian SAMs shooting down American aircraft flying over enemy territory thousands of miles away from the USA - not Russian aircraft flying over Western Allies. Gary Powers' downing in a U2 over Russia being a case in point) I'd suggest that part of why the Su-57 concentrates so heavily on frontal stealth is that they have no expectation that they'll be hiding from Western radars as they overfly Western Europe - the expectation is that they'll be searching for and flying towards Western aircraft that are performing incursions into Russian airspace - so they're stealthy enough to avoid being launched on until they get within a range they believe they can also lock and launch. This was drawn up before the Ukraine aligned itself with the West & asked to be brought under the NATO umbrella, so understates the situation, but watch this animation showing NATO's creep towards Russia's borders and consider what I've said.