Weta43

The only combat it ever saw was as a ground attack aircraft for the Saudi's - so 2 tricks at least :)

Just as a test, try doing a touch & go on the deck, then try the comms.

My memory from reading Overscan's guide to Russian Radars is that this doesn't sound too dissimilar to the limitations described there, and that there were quite a few limitations on the Su-27 (& MiG-29) radar operation that would disgruntle a few players if E.D. were ever to do a full fidelity module of the Su-27S. Still - Having your capabilities downgraded in the name of realism is easier to swallow when the realism is applied even-handedly... I'd be applauding E.D.'s implementing the limitation - if they weren't adding imaginary weapons and pylons to the Ka-50 at the same time...

White balance ? Green: Even more green: Brown:

Fixed that for you :)

Illumination bombs light up the part of the external model that intrudes into the Su-25A cockpit. (there doesn't seem to be a bug section in the FC3 forum)

Just went & tried, and I think you're getting yourself a little worked up... 1/ It's not a night attack helicopter. That's why they made a specific night attack variant. 2/ The rocket part of the illumination rockets do work, the flares do light, the flares do descend on parachutes after lighting all the way to the ground (both while lit and after going out - left part of image & centre), The rockets do illuminate the ground (compare middle image, where you can see the ground, forest, trees and road, with the right image where you can't), they're just not as good as they were / perhaps should be. 3/ The rockets aren't part of the Ka-50 module anyway. There's a lighting bug - that's why there's a thread asking for all the lighting bugs to be listed. The bug is - S-8OM-LE flares don't illuminate the terrain correctly...

Plug fouling does exist in the SIM, as does coolant boiloff - just neither are well represented with visible symptoms in anything beyond their impact on power & engine life:

& in the cluster of Kaikoura incidents that I linked before, on one occasion the commercial pilots and a news crew flying to interview previous observers filmed it flying alongside at the same time as Wellington air traffic control tracked it, and on a later occasion WLG ATC again tracked them and called Skyhawk's out specifically to intercept them while half a city watched

My understanding: The beam is modulated so that the signal progressively changes from the centre to the outside, and the beam width is adjusted as the missile flies away to keep the circle the missile is flying in the same size (so the cone / beam tightens as time passes, but at the point the missile is, it stays a circle of the same size) The control surfaces are set up so the missile rolls as it flies, which means constantly turning 'right' from it's point of view actually causes a spiral relative to the ground (my guess is that the missile actually naturally turns "out", and the control surface overcomes that so that the missile doesn't end up settling into the dead centre of the beam and obscuring any previous launched missiles view of the beam. It would also mean that if there were 2 sensors to allow differential positioning, and the missile was following a beam that's being slewed hard & so rotating entirely on one side of the beam, no control input would effectively equal negative control input to track the disk). So now all you need is one or more sensors that look backwards and find from the modulation where on the circle the missile is. If that's at the outside of the circle it turns in hard, if it's at the middle it doesn't. Because it's rolling the missiles control surface alternately controls the vertical position in the circle (beam), and horizontal, so a single surface and detector is all that's needed. It also means that if you have 2 missiles riding the same beam, the second won't end up constantly blocking the first one's sensor, because they never fly a constant course.

It's the sensors for the MLWS that was really fitted to 2 real aircraft.

The laser guidance cone exists, but that's not why the missile flies a spiral path.

This one ?

See that's the point of lot's of the posts here. The Official word from ED is that a 6 pylon version of the Ka-50 never existed, and that no Ka-50 was ever capable of launching Igla missiles. Chizh says the aircraft is imaginary, but that they wanted to do it so they are. That's their right. What some of us object to is the tortured logic used to try to claim that modelling an imaginary aircraft is somehow no less realistic than the modelling of an actual aircraft (as in another thread where it was suggested that it would be more realistic to add a FLIR turret to the Ka-50 than to turn the contrast up on the display & use the NV system).

I use an MSFFBII and the only modules that have serious issues are 3rd party - (or unofficial mods). Perhaps post the complaint to them ? (Having to swap axis isn't a bug it's a configuration setting. Not having the swap axis option would be a bug.)

This is ridiculous There are more women in the world than men, & women pilots throughout the world's air forces, but not a single woman pilot's voice in DCS. When it comes to creating assets, you're (almost) all capable of understanding that the person who codes the FM for the B-52 is not the same person that creates the model for the SA-6, or a skin for an aircraft, or the ground mesh for a map. Suggest that someone adds a female pilot, and suddenly the distinction becomes too hard for peole to grasp. Any resources devoted to this MUST be delaying more important work! The reality is that if E.D. decided to add female pilots - as has already been said - it would probably not be a case of making new pilot models for fast jets, it would be a case of paying a voice actor to create the sound files. The only work E.D. would have to do in house is add a couple of folders to the tree and change the code behind the ME options to pick from 4 options instead of 2 - English_M / English_F / Russian_M /Russian_F from English / Russian. Outside of the voice acting - it's probably 30 minutes work. E.D. don't do it because they're a business and think they don't need to - those women who want to fly the SIM will do so even if they have to use an male voice. The people on the forums who object in principle - well for the most part they just seem scared of change.

You want a system the aircraft never had - added - to bring the helicopter closer to reality ?

"till they began to understand that it just wouldn't work with one pilot. So they popped an extra seat onto it it, and the Ka-52 was born" You've said this many, many times, but it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's not true. The Ka-50 was built in low numbers, and there were a few variants, but it wasn't a prototype. That's just a line put forward to justify having a version that never existed. The Ka-50 won the competition to become the next attack helicopter & there was a small serial production run (some of which are still in service) , but there was no money to buy it. Simple as that. Look at the projected production run for the Su-57 - anywhere between 'several hundred', and 'only the examples that currently exist', depending on the world price of natural gas. There are just a couple of what's considered a production run in flight at the moment, but even if they don't build any more, they're not prototypes, and it's not just a stopgap until a new aircraft arrives. They just have budgetary issues that the West doesn't (it's a country with roughly the population of Great Britain + Germany, trying to keep up with the US on it own. ) The intention was to build a Ka-60 as a group command, and that role was filled by the Ka-29VPNTsU in Chechnya

I think you might be seeing what you want to see... Personally - Don't see it. He's focused, but that's all. & notice the video's cut for maximum tension... At some point she's low, but you can't really tell where she's at in the approach, because the video keeps chopping between the turn, the groove & video from both of the 2 different approaches. They state at the beginning that the plan is a Touch & Go then land, & they do a T&G (first approach hook up, see 2:12), then she puts it down first attempt at an actual landing. & from a quick read of the C-2's handling, it sounds like a harder thing to land than the F/A-18C (plus, there's no refuelling, so less room for error - if they can't put it down, they ditch)

You need to be signed in to be able to see them, and E.D. isn't :)

& presumably this is all happening over a flat earth ? Edit - nm

& it's legs are so short it's got the perfect range for a DCS map ;-) Seriously though, it would be a great addition

MANY other similar threads

Principal annoyances (most already mentioned): Template issue - country defaults to US, but template remains at last used - US S-300 sites are no use. The default distance between units on the ground as new units are added to a group is too big. It often results in the last unit trying to spawn on water -& an error message, and if you're zoomed in on the map trying to add ground units they appear WAY off the visible portion of the map. The mentioned issue with no warning regarding the necessary distance between a WP and it's assigned action. The "cockpit argument X in range y1 - y2" trigger dropdown showing the available argument names and what they do is missing (camouflaging a request as a bug :-) If you're trying to add weapons to an aircraft & want to know what a weapon is, you use the encyclopaedia link in the ME - but half the available weapons are missing from the ME so you have to exit DCS & google the weapon. Surely it's a bug that when you click on a group you don't automatically get the first unit selected so you can move the group not accidentally grab and drag just the last unit.

To save some people some typing, more discussion on what is the same question: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=243852