Weta43

Or make it that the transfer doesn't happen until the 'new' pilot has synchronised their cyclic with the original pilot's +/- some user defined % Example - you agree to transfer control, the second pilot looks at where the in-game collective is, and gives his controller a little circle around that area. As the collective passes through the correct point control switches and you get a message that the transfer has happened I have a MSFFBII, but with a standard stick don't you have to return the stick to centre after trimming before it becomes live again ? - similar idea... Same for the collective - don't have it snap to the new position, have it only become an active control at the point where the new controller passes through the current setting. In essence though, all the suggestions show that it's not actually a simple thing to do well for an aircraft where you can plainly see the other pilot, and in multi-player, neither player (no player for 3 seats) should be able to reach all the controls at the same time. Maybe they should just implement a half-solution, but maybe they figure it makes more sense to take the time to implement a full solution (which is what Pilot-Mi8 said they are doing), than to do a half ars*ed job, then still have not only implementing the full solution ahead, but also squashing all the complaints that come from it being half ars*d, and any bugs, and then backing that code out before implementing the full solution.

As someone said above - It is a shame that while statistically, we're probably not the only form of intelligent life by an astronomically large number, and given the age of the universe some of that horde will be technologically very advanced & there's the small chance that we've been noticed &/or visited, and that there are occurrences that really warrant serious investigation (This was part of a swarm of sightings at the time, and I remember watching the Skyhawks that were scrambled by Wellington air traffic control to investigate objects we were let out of school to watch, fly overhead only to have the objects just fly away at a rate they had no chance to follow https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12168568), people head off on quasi-religious flights of fancy whenever the subject comes up that make serious discussion very difficult.

To me this says that the issues I'm talking about haven't actually been solved, just ignored. The RIO should only have access to the RIO's controls not the pilot's, and vice versa. The problem is greater than simply having synched switch movement (& lucky-Hendrix - from youtube clips from the RIO seat, I'm not convinced they've actually solved that completely anyway). & that is exactly the point I'm making. If you're going to properly implement MP co-piloting for helicopters, then switches can't be being activated by ghosts, and ghosts shouldn't be able to reach everything in the cockpit at the same time.

I think you missed the point. I don't own that module, but from youtube RIO videos the F-14 pilot can't see the RIO, & the RIO can't see the pilot, and the stick and pedals don't seem to be tightly synched in MP.

:)

Yes, that would make sense ... It's one thing to have the other hidden crew member doing something behind you or in front of you that you can't see, and occasionally having a switch move because of that. It's another to have things happening when you can see the other crew member(s), and you haven't seen the other crew member move, and the switches / collective / cyclic he moved to makes something happening still haven't moved in your cockpit because of lag on the network but the aircraft has banked / fired / popped flares regardless... I expect those problems are only L-39 sized when doing the Mi-24P, so maybe a more likely early candidate.

What I have pointed out is that some of the things that have been claimed in this thread to have existed, did not. specifically, any version of the Ka-50 with IGLA. We (mostly) seem to have moved past trying to argue that they did exist, and be confining the discussion to 'if they had existed, they'd probably have been like this'. That's an honest 'fair enough' conversation, and I have no issues with that (beyond my disappointment at the appearance of the Ka-50TE (TE =Thin Edge). My intention is to point out the reality of the situation, and - as you are unhappy about - differentiate between that reality and fantasy. Sometimes my frustration at people's inability to separate wishful thinking from fact has come out as sarcasm, but pointing out the difference is intended as a constructive addition to the conversation. Arriving at the truth must be a good thing on balance for the community (even if some are not happy with that result)

I'm not being hostile - maybe facetious... Do I find tis funny ? - I have found some of the arguments made in defence of the 6 pylon Ka-50ED with needles funny, and I hope to point out why I find them funny by applying similar arguments to other aspects of the Ka-50 that people might also like to have.

LoL Me too :)

Next request for the Ka-50 ? (the Ka-52 has one, it must have been next on the plans for the Ka-50. No photo's is obviously proof it was secretly done !

As noted, it's the weapons ( "It reaches these levels as low as M0.65 with certain loadouts" ), but maybe (just maybe) the problem principal problem is not that it's rendered badly, it's that you're continuing to fly the aircraft outside of its designed flight envelope with the loadout you have.

Yes, and Deano87 said, it's available in the weather settings, it's just set to zero by default, and that isn't changed for most missions.

Ever seen those very frequent, but often long & tedious threads where someone will post that DCS's calculation of distance must be wrong, because the sensation of speed at low level is too low (& / or doesn't feel any different at 500m than at 5,000m) ? & in the end there's a discussion around the angle of the field of view, and everyone agrees that it's all good ? Or the endless posts about how this aircraft or that aircraft should be easier to fly because I fly in real life & the plane I fly isn't that hard to fly, and then there's the discussion about the length of game controllers vs actual controls, and the missing 'seat of the pants' element, and everyone eventually agrees that 'yeah, it's an issue with controllers' and moves on ? From memory Lex said in his initial video that he found flying the F-18 off when using a game HOTAS, but I don't think he says there are major deficiencies in the FM - it just feels different on a computer. Habu23 is pretty sure it's underpowered, but explicitly states that "I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it." - & though he does give a specific example of where he feels it should be able to achieve a particular performance but doesn't, even with a real pilot there's still a lot of room between 'flying a SIM with toy controls and no seat of the pants feeling', and 'flying the real thing' for misinterpretation to creep in. It seems to me that because the sensations are so different, the only real way to test it is to check whether the model is or is not capable of meeting (or exceeding) the performance figures in comparison of in game performance against the -1. Those discussions have been had over and over and the result is that the FM was changed early on in response to feedback, but now has been as it is for some time. Regarding the comment that "So rumor has it some downgrading of performance was part of the commercial release. I am just parroting previous comments, I have no direct knowledge", as far as I know, that rumour that the FM was part of that limited modelling started with that comment in this thread... Yes, some things weren't modelled, but the engine performance & FM have never been included in that list. If we were talking about how easy it is to stall, or how a stall develops, or some edge of the envelope FM issue in that flight simulators often fall down on, I'd say go to the actual pilot & ask, but when it comes to climb rate, engine temp at some rpm, or fuel use per minute at some speed/temp/altitude - the only serious way to answer it is with a comparison to the -1 (or to the engine manufacturers specs, which E.D. have repeatedly said they have and use for comparison. E.D. have from time to time been quite adamant that they were right about some aspect of an aircrafts' FM, only to admit they were wrong when presented with actual evidence of where the FM departs from available data. But - & quite rightly too or the FMs would change every week forever - their error had to be demonstrated using numbers, not gut feelings. If people want the engine performance revisited, they'll have to show where it's wrong using numbers from the SIM and real life, not just go 'it feels off here". That's a pain in the *ss for most people, and an actual pilot might feel it's not worth their while when they have (or had) the real thing, but gladly there are people like bbrz that are prepared to take that task on board. Thanks.

On the basis of which you state "ED is doing not fantasy" Let me give you another quote from Chizh replying to a comment that the aircraft to be modelled never existed: So Chizh says there were never any plans to operationally equip Ka-50 with IGLA, there is no basis in fact for our modelling it, we do it because we want to. E.D. are explicitly "doing fantasy". Not 'high fantasy', but fantasy nevertheless. & Fri13 - if you're not asking for any of the fantasy features that are being added, you don't need to respond to my posts any more than S.E.Bulba does.

That "Day at 23 Tactical Air base vid - the landing starting at 06:01 - the pilot bounces 3 times into the air before sticking it.

As has been said a few times, E.D. have said on the Russian boards that a Ka-50 with 3 sets of pylons and Igla mounted Never Existed. Chizh has said it's a product of E.D.'s imagination - perhaps taking the line that Kamov probably meant to do this at some stage, or it would have been the next logical step in the evolution - but in the end, not because it actually existed, simply (In Chizh's own words) "because we wanted to". That's an honest answer. Nothing more need be said about the reasons. Any attempt to suggest it's rooted in secret knowledge is .... Well we've covered that ground. I guess there's only 2 questions left: 1/ Is it the "thin end of the wedge"? are we on our way to DCS.Future_Battlefields ? Only time will tell. I hope not - a lot of time and effort has gone into developing a reputation for realistic aircraft, FM, system modelling and building a business and following on that reputation. As has been mentioned by M1Combat - it's a game, and pretending it's real, and that all the way things are done in the game are real is self delusional... (Generally I'm in favour of things that make DCS more accessible to beginners and casual gamers - AI navigators that mark the map - even an easy refuelling option) Some of the fun though is in thinking to yourself "this must be quite like how you'd really do it" (& when I finally got to take the stick and fly inverted, or loops & Cuban 8's etc - DCS was quite like the real thing. You can't say that to yourself when you're playing at flying a fantasy aircraft though can you ? (& yes I know the Ka-50ED is only a little bit fantasy, but then we're back at the start of that wedge again.. 2/ When do we get the P-270 Moskit back on the Su-33 ?

LOL There comes a point in some discussions where the only way to save any face is to remain quiet from that point on. You have officially passed that point.

That does look like the video provided... OT: Maybe - maybe not. I've made SP missions before where I set up some structures as a forward base and the pilot had to land on the road at that point to complete the mission. At the time I 'cheated' the start of the next mission with the plane starting the mission 10m off the ground above the road at just over take-off speed - as it wasn't possible to set an aircraft to take off from the road. If you could set aircraft to take off from the road in the same way you can helicopters, SP missions (& goal specific MP missions that didn't involve multiple refuel/re-armings) could be set up to operating from a forward base

Oh I realise that E.D. modelled a version - of a specific, actual aircraft of which only a few similarly configured aircraft were built. The difference between the limited number of aircraft configured in the way DCS.Ka-50 is currently configured, and the version that you're so keen to see, is that the version that you're keen to see was never built at all. It is a fantasy aircraft. The only evidence you can put forward that it might have been built is that there's a position on a switch that you think implies an intent to build such a version at some time, and that some completely different other aircraft have similar weapons systems. Your suggestion that E.D. prove that there were none of the fantasy version you're awaiting (which they're hardly likely to spend time sourcing given they've already explicitly said it's a fantasy aircraft they're making "because we want to"...) is a logical error - you can't prove a negative by giving an example, the onus is always on the person making the positive claim - in this case that a 6 pylon, Igla carrying Ka-50 (not Ka-50-2, Not Ka-52) actually existed, and so far, you've presented nothing but various very long ways of saying "I think it might have happened, and I'm going to present my wishful thinking as evidence"... I don't mind that you're keen for a more capable aircraft, I'm slightly disappointed that E.D. have decided to follow that path, and I'm surprised that some of the people posting in favour of adding fantasy weapons systems to the Ka-50 have been very self righteous in other threads about denouncing aids for the casual player (such as labelling the ability to mark your position on the moving map without resorting to dead-reckoning navigation a 'cheat'). What annoys me is all the contorted words from people trying to pretend to themselves that what never happened happened, that wishful thinking is proof, and that people aren't just happy to get a laser cannon added to their aircraft.

Could you please put the same pressure on Microsoft to support Win-7 Pro ? I liked that much more than Win-10, but they've stopped patching it.

Even E.D. - who are about to build a model with 3 pylons and Igla - say there was never a Ka-50 with a third set of pylons, or with Igla. They've publically stated this, that a Ka-50 with those things is a 'fantasy aircraft', and that they're doing a fantasy version 'because they want to" ... All the endless "it might have had this", "logically they must have done that" and "I can't believe they didn't do it" chatter is just people trying to persuade themselves that they're not asking for the very thing they've condemned so many other people for requesting - make believe features...

There aren't "Lots"... (unless you mean that the woman speaks more than once) Listening to the Case 3 video, it seems 1 out of 3 new voices are female. "When most of the important work is done, maybe why not" 1/The voices are done by voice actors, so having another set of files wouldn't take away from working on the FM, models, AI, Carrier ATC or any of the other things you prioritise more highly. It's pretty much just a case of E.D. paying someone to record the files, then changing the code that currently swaps between English and Russian voices so it changes between English_M, English_F, Russian_M, Russian_F. 2/I'd say that for female players, the ability to have a female voice for the pilot would probably be more of a game changing experience than a new model for the sub-munitions popping out of a cluster bomb.

Are you 10 ?

Because of differences in their physiology, on average women have better G tolerance than men... (& research during the minuteman program found react better under stress).

or the N011M Bars on the Su-27 - after all, one was fitted to one airframe или штанги N011M на Су-27 - в конце концов, один был установлен на один планер <edit>Я бы предпочел «настоящие» самолеты</edit>