Weta43

:) People have already told you why, & the explanation fits with observed reality. Apparently you just don't accept their explanation. If the explanation given fits with observed reality, and your expectations don't, perhaps you should re-visit your own understanding of the situation & see what factors you're leaving out. Edit - Remember that it's already been said that the highest point of the cone isn't actually at 90 degrees to the forward motion - there is some precession happening, there's just other forces at work too.

l9HoeHACrck?t=73 the set time option doesn't seem to want to work. If you go to 1:11 & watch through to 1:18 you can actually see the effect happening. (one of those things landed at the heli-pad outside my work once - they are loud !)

& this disadvantage can be largely overcome if you account for it in your manoeuvring (drop the collective to turn)

I know. You posted a video of a laser equipped helicopter as a joke, & I was just continuing the joke. edit - Fri13 was getting all hot under the collar, I was suggesting that he should - like we were - get less serious about it & watch the video. As long as we're all on the same page - it's an imaginary addition, but ED are going to be fairly sensible in their approach (which means limiting the extras to things that might reasonably have appeared on the Ka-50, not every other - or any other - attack helicopter that was ever made), and do it as it might have been had it existed a the time, and no-one starts asking for out there extras (& yes, in that bag I'd put GOES-451 FLIR , R-73 & RWR) we can all relax and watch the Ka-50TE soar into the skies.

Or maybe there is no God, no Angels, no Celestial beings, and the only 'purpose' anything has is derived from the meaning you yourself impose on the world to make your life more meaningful to you.

Disabling all Mods should always be the first step - the one before deciding there's a bug.

But you're still missing the point even when you post it yourself. "Doesn't exist anymore" means it did exist, and there's an attempt to simulate it here. What you want NEVER existed See the difference ? Did exist (real) Never existed (imaginary) As I've said, I'm disappointed that an imaginary version of the Ka-50 will appear in DCS, but that is what it is. I'll stop arguing against it. What I won't stop is pointing out to those that claim otherwise that it is imaginary in a way that the currently modelled version is not, and that has been explicitly rejected by E.D. in the past (which is why the Su-33 lost it's Moskit anti-ship capabilities - because there were only mock up photos of it, and no recorded evidence that the plane could ever launch it). What we're getting with the Ka-50ED is something even less attached to reality, but they have decided to break their own rules. Their game - their call... But let's not bring (to use a phrase of the moment) "Fake News" to the site and pretend there's some historical justification or that Ka-50ED is as 'real' as the version that was originally modelled. Then we can all go back to enjoying 3WA's videos of Laser weapon equipped helicopters....

It is just a function of the dissimilar lift from the counter-rotating blades in the airflow, and that's why it becomes more problematic the faster you go. If you search the forum (or even look in the manual I think) you'll find lots of illustrations showing how the effect occurs. If you don't want blade-clash: 1/ don't manoeuvre while at high speed 2/ if you have to manoeuvre at high speed, unload the collective before you do it.

LoL - yes, that's the one ;-) I think what you meant was: "Some good comments there, and looks like people realize that this thing was never produced IN QUANTITY and realize what Some people want is a MIGHT HAVE BEEN version, that was never produced." Obviously the one we have modelled was actually produced, because there are photos of it on the internet:

Because people don't add bad weather to their mission. All the arguments are on the weather page of the ME, including randomisation if that's what you want.

Written beside the video: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3951507&postcount=162

But imagine how reassuring it would be with a heavy wind from the right side.

Yep - god forbid they should want the simulated aircraft to resemble the aircraft that it's supposed to be simulating. I guess though that at the point where we ask for imaginary pylons and weapons, rivet counting does become a bit of a :lol: joke.. Hooray ! It's Grab-bag time again, and here we are asking for laser cannons again... Everyone go over to the Russian forum and wind them up. It's a Hilarious sport. Really gives them a feel for the level of discussion on the English boards.

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.