ACS_Dev

As part of several years of research towards my projects I have developed a sort of "wish list" of more modern Russian systems to oppose our ~2005-era modules. The S-300PS ("SA-10B") was a venerable system even at that time and more modern variations were in service with the Russian Military. It should not be the only representation of the diverse S-300 family within this game and I would like to propose the S-300PMU-2 as its modern alternative to be modeled in DCS. System Comparison The S-300PS is the first major variant of the S-300. Introduced in 1985, it was widely exported and is still in use today in some countries. In DCS it fires the 5V55R command-guided missile with a range of 45-75km.1 Most DCS players will be familiar with it thus I won't get into much more detail. The S-300PMU-2 is conversely the most modern variant of the S-300 (After which the S-400 came to be). It was introduced in 1997 and would be one of Russia's key AD assets in a peer conflict circa 2005. More than 10 years of development and improvements resulted in a complex that, though using the same basic structure format, is an entirely different beast than the S-300PS. As part of the S-300 family, both systems share the same types of components but the vehicles themselves are different. The S-300PS uses: 54K6E command post. 30N6 "Flap Lid" FCR (45km engagement range, can engage 6 targets by tracking 12 missiles) 64N6 "Big Bird" SR (260km detection range) 5P85D/S TELs (using a wired connection and thus needing to be located close to the radars in clusters of 3 due to smart/dumb TEL relationship) 5V55R missile (uses command guidance with a 45-75km range) The S-300PMU-2 uses: 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post (w 30N6E2 "Tomb Stone" FCR (150km engagement range, can engage 36 targets and track 72 missiles) 96L6E SR (300km range) 5P58SE TELs (using datalink or wired, much looser co-location constraints and all "smart") 48N6E2 missile (uses Track Via Missile guidance with an alleged 200km range) 54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post 83M6E2 system command post (can also integrate command of other systems like SA-5 and SA-10B) 64N6E2 battalion SR (600km range) Can ED model this? The missile in question, the 48N6E2, has been in the game for a long time as part of the armament for one of the russian warships. So, to an extent, they already have. If modeling the 48N6E2 was out of the question I would have advocated for the SA-20A, which has more component commonality with the S-300PS, but this is not the case. The 48N6E2's younger brother, the 48N6E3, has already at least partially replaced it. Why would this system be useful? The S-300PMU-2 would be the cornerstone of a major IADS in a way that the S-300PS simply cannot. The S-300PS' much shorter range and positioning limitations make it less potent and also constrain the depth of any defense under its umbrella. A proper IADS would comprise of a long-range system covering medium and short range systems. With the SA-20B's greater range, this protected area and thus the physical depth of these layers would be greatly increased. Additionally, with the exponentially larger number of simultaneous possible engagements, the resilience of the system against massed attacks would force more creative thinking from mission planners. Finally, the new guidance method would be a thrilling twist for SEAD nerds like myself. Between the S-300PS and S-300PMU-2 we will have almost 30 years of Russian, Chinese and Iranian long-range air defense systems covered, spanning the timelines of most of ED's most popular modules. This, in addition to complementary systems like the SA-17 and SA-22, will fill out any needed AD network. Sources: https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300PMU-1_(SA-20_Gargoyle)_Russian_Long-Range_Air_Defense_Missile_System https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300P_(SA-10_Grumble)_Russian_8x8_Long-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System Thanks for reading.

Alright firstly, thank you to all who replied, this is very helpful. I understand the simply positional aspect of the coordinates system and am trying to move on to the orientation side of it. Unfortunately I do not yet know what I am doing but will need to learn in order to build the things I plan on building. As detective Calvin @cfrag says it can be used to determine things like heading and velocity vectors. That's exactly the kind of stuff I need to learn, and to learn it I need to understand this system and what it outputs. Fortunately the wiki has the functions I need for now but I may need more in the future.

Please develop a script function that will allow the user to create an emitter at a given set of coordinates. This emitter doesn't need to show up on RWR but it would preferably be viewable and target-able via HTS and HARM. I am unsure of the best way to implement this, however I would propose using an unused range of HARM codes (say 420-430) that could be set as the appropriate code for the emission source via function. The function would thus probably have 3 parameters: the coordinates of the emitter, the frequency on which it is emitting and, if needed, the HARM code used to target it. Adding this would allow mission creators to build new targets like EW systems, radio towers, command centers and the like for players to shoot at with their HARMs.

We absolutely need this. There is a near-infinite mountain of evidence that the current turn radius for tankers is very oversized. It is almost never this large, especially for fighters. To observe this for yourself go to adsb exchange at basically any time of any day and view the flight path of one of several KC-135s active at nearly any given time. You will find no shortage of examples. As OP stated, due to the forced unrealism within the simulator the vast majority of real-life patterns are unusable.

Bump.

Hi, I have read the documentation regarding vec3 coordinates many times, made a spreadsheet of vec3 readouts resulting from various aircraft orientations and searched both the forums and discords for a better understanding of the system but it still is not clicking for me. I understand that vec3 has 4 components, each with a table of 3 values. The P value makes perfect sense to me, it is the others that are confusing. I don't understand why each of the other 3 values is a table, also of 3 values. Why not only 1? I can't really comprehend how they interact either. Can anyone explain this better? I have been trying to wrap my head around this for days but so far have failed and it is extremely frustrating.

I maintain a library of dumps from select DCS files for every patch that I compare as new ones come out. Comparison of this patch and February's suggests that ED increased the proximity detonation distance of the AIM-120 from 7 to 9 meters, an increase of more than 25%. This was not in the official patch notes so I would take this with a grain of salt, however I am getting these dumps directly from system memory. I have attached the files from the last two updates, refer to line 367. AIM_120C_April.lua AIM120C_Feb.lua

Yes I understand that it may be difficult, very much so even. I won't pretend I know how to do it nor will I say they should just do anything. My goal from posting this is to either get the feature added or to be told by someone in the know why they can't add it. At least then I will finally get closure on the issue. As it stands I have many ideas and projects I want to work on in DCS that would be really cool but there is some technical shortcoming preventing me from completing them. It is very demoralizing because why would I want to work on something that I know I cannot finish?

With that many bugs fixed I hope the teams are running out and can switch to adding more new stuff soon. I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit disappointed in the lack of new stuff but as someone who develops stuff I understand and appreciate it nonetheless. Big thanks for fixing the F10 FoW bug for combined arms!

Please add mission scripting functions to get the state of a client cockpit argument. Functionality would be similar to that of getDrawArgumentValue except it would be able to access the arguments of clients in multiplayer servers. I understand that this would not work for AI and that each aircraft would have different arguments. I do not care, and can work around it myself. Why do we need this? Currently it is impossible to build multiplayer missions with the fidelity of singleplayer ones because we cannot see the arguments of client cockpits like we can those of players (there can only be one "player" aircraft per mission). As someone who has been working on and off on MP content for years now and who has been requesting this feature via DMs with ED CMs for over a year to no avail, this lack of capability is incredibly restrictive on what I can do for clients. I will use the F-16 as an example as that is what I am most familiar with: -I have built a custom crew chief module, however I cannot finish it. The F-16 doesn't seem to have an external argument for the brakes, which are checked as part of every startup at the unit I am representing. Because of this I need to read the state of the toe brake pedals in order to see that the player is attempting to check them. I cannot do this for clients so I cannot finish the script module. -I have worked on an ATC script module, however I cannot finish it. At the airfield I am working on the fighters will send a "flash" from their IFF to ident to departure/approach. This hinges on in-cockpit controls. I cannot see these for clients, so the script module is stuck. Any further functionality I attempt to create will likewise be impossible because I cannot see what clients are pressing in their cockpits. I have many ideas I would like to explore but can't because this functionality does not exist. We need this functionality if we are to make anything multiplayer on-level with what the established SP creators are doing. Can ED develop this?

No, thanks.

It is extremely well evidenced that F-16s start while in chocks. We have requested multiple times over many years. I am curious, why hasn't ED made them the default?

I am curious, there have been some good points here, has ED seen this thread and if so can they say anything regarding their plans for fixing this problem beyond 'we are working on it'? We did get some decent models for the SA-10 recently, and there have been other systems added in the 4 years that I have been playing. I have seen that many systems now have defined frequency operating ranges. Beyond that and tweaking values within the existing system, it seems little to no progress has been made. We already have a SEAD-focused platform (the F-16 Bl.50-ish) and will soon get another (the F-4). It will get fancy new seeker heads that only work on certain kinds of SAMS. SAMS that themselves seem to mostly, if not universally, use the same guidance method and absurdly simple logic. At the same time, the vast majority of the systems we do have are not befitting opponents to ED's flagship modules. It is impossible to currently build a realistic environment that even approaches peer warfare when the most potent system we have is the S-300PS (or SA-2, depending on who you ask), an extremely outdated system that is around 40 years old at this point. We do not have the capability to simulate EW in any meaningful manner and ED has yet to give us the tools to build simulations ourselves. This creates a particularly sad state of things, at least in my opinion. The brand-new Kola map will release at some point with a set of campaigns depicting (from what I have read) some sort of war between the west and east involving both of ED's flagship jets. A 2024 (hopefully) campaign by some of the best developers on a 2024 map featuring 2018 and 2019 modules, stuck with 1980s systems and 2000s code. It hasn't even released yet and we already know that the matchup will be completely nonsensical. Around 7 months ago I did pretty extensive research on the topic and came up with a few recommendations: -Give scripters the ability to read the cockpit arguments of client aircraft so that they can build systems dependent on things like ECM switches/buttons. -96K6 Pantsir-S1 SA-22 for short range air defence. Late 2000s system. Alternatively we could get the Tor M2, but I think it's a long shot. -9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 SA-11 for medium-to-long-range. Late 90s/Early 2000s system, not the same as the Buk-M2 (SA-17) or M3 (SA-27) that you see more often these days. -S300 PMU-2 SA-20B for long range. Predecessor to the SA-21. Nothing came of it (yet).

He is a very loyal CPG for sure but perhaps he should take a break with the rest of the crew? The back seat is empty, yet he stays, eternally waiting for his pilot to come back. My configuration: -IC Pass -No Mods -MT latest OB IC and game state verification screenshot. Early morning at the FOB in Afghanistan. This is an AI Mi-24 set to "take off from ground" but has the "uncontrolled" box checked because I am using it as a static. The pilot is probably asleep yet Petrovich insists on never leaving the helicopter. Steps to replicate: -Place AI Mi-24 unit -Set to "take off from ground" or "take off from ramp" -Check the "uncontrolled" box OR: -Place a static Mi-24 When viewed in the mission the pilot is gone but the Petrovich stays. An example of a configuration that produces this issue. This is an issue for people trying to use uncontrolled AI as statics. Using a static does not allow for tail number customization or loadout editing. Even if I were to use a static it would have the same problem. As a result it is currently not possible to have an empty Mi-24P in this game. Somewhat immersion breaking when you want to have other Mi-24s on the ramp when you start up.

I had the Rift S before the Quest 2, I'd imagine it'd be night and day for you.

Thanks again to those who answered my questions earlier about this headset. They helped me make the choice on whether to get the Q3 or stick with my Q2. I now have my Q3 and have been messing with it for a couple of hours, so it is perhaps time for me to contribute as well. My Setup: CPU: Ryzen 5 5600x ~4.3GHz. GPU: MSI AMD 6900XT, left as is with no intentional overclock Ram: 32gb Trident Z ~3000mhz. Motherboard: X470 Gaming plus by MSI Cable: Syntech 16ft USB 3.0 Primary Monitor: 3480x2160 (My DCS profile swaps it to 1920x1080) Secondary Monitor: 1920x1080 (Unused for DCS but still being rendered) For what it's worth, I got the 6900XT during the great GPU shortage (particularly for the copious VRAM) and I have yet to have issues with it in VR, same for the 5600X. I will be staying with AMD for the foreseeable future. Quest 3: -90hz @ 4128x2208 (Native) -Honzvr perscription lenses -APEXINNO silicone interface cover Quest 2: -90hz @ 3712x1872 (1.0 according to Oculus) DCS Settings: Performance Results vs Quest 2: No major difference. My desired FPS is 45 FPS locked without ASW, and so far this setup delivers, both on Caucasus and Syria. Neither the Mi-24, F-16 nor Mi-8 brought it consistently below this. It typically hovered around ~55 FPS when unlocked as I flew around Syria in a Hind on a local-hosted sandbox multiplayer mission. I was CPU bound the entire time according to the in-game FPS monitoring utility. Thoughts on the Quest 3: Worth it. Visuals: I am in perhaps the best circumstances for running it at the native resolution as I got my eyes checked the same day I ordered it and the lenses. I can read the F-16 MFDs reliably (except for small text like the bullesye numbers, which is a bit of a challenge.) The switches on the sides are a bit more difficult but are usually still legible. If not, a quick lean to one side solves the issue. My regular office, the front seat of the Hind, was similarly workable. I can clearly read the little charts on the right side with relative ease and the dials are a no-brainer. The CPG's weapon dial is a bit difficult (I can decipher the '30' but not the other letters for the store, for example). Something that I really want to emphasize is the edge-to-edge clarity the Q3 offers. I can read the contents of the right F-16 MFD while the headset is directly pointed at the left one. Hell, I can read the Oil Pressure gauge while looking at the left MFD! Interestingly, the edges almost seem clearer, though maybe that's my lenses. Absolutely not happening with the Quest 2. The days of looking directly at a particular switch and zooming in on it are thankfully over. So are the days of tilting the headset vertically in an awkward and never-ending quest to get the perfect angle on the CRT-looking lenses. The Honzvr lenses were themselves a big upgrade from glasses. I have a mismatched prescription but both eyes are in the negatives above -2.5 and I have astigmatism in one eye. Fitting my glasses in the Q2 headset was a big pain and I am very happy I don't have to worry about it anymore. Shipping to me in the central US took 5 days. I also ordered the optics cover for when I am not using the headset, eliminating the problem of dust settling on them. The Quest 3's dial for precise IPD adjustment is very handy. Comfort: I don't use aftermarket straps, the vanilla straps on both were sufficient for me. The Quest 3's do feel a bit more robust. The silicone face cover is a must for me, a greasy sponge being held against my face isn't very fun. My only real complaint with the Q3 is that its sidepieces go perhaps a further quarter-inch back than the Q2's, complicating the wearing of my Hyperx Cloud III. I had to angle the pieces a bit up to fit the ear cups over my ears, and it still could be better. This wasn't an issue with the Q2. If you are like me and use a wired connection I would strongly recommend that you loop a cable management strap around the strap of the headset and route your cable through that. It reduces the vertical stress on the port substantially and also keeps the cable off the side of your face. Note on Privacy: Remember that you can used windows defender firewall to block inbound and outbound connections to basically anything, including Quest software, and still use the headset once you have it initially configured. I set my headsets up using my phone's temporary hotspot so Meta never has access to my home's Wifi, disable the firewall rules so it can run updates, and then lock everything down again once I have everything good to go. I can then use it at my leisure for months on end without worrying about the mic and cameras next to me. I would encourage anyone that strictly uses their headset for DCS to do this. Conclusion: It was worth the cost for me. No matter what comes out next, I probably won't upgrade until I rebuild my PC. Even then I may just upscale it instead of buying a new model. It's simply good enough for me, and it would take a lot to make that next step up worth it.

We share a lot of features on your reasonable wishlist. Regarding 1, for anyone reading this, check out this thread: It was very common, if not more common than not in Afghan to only bring single ATGMs on the racks. Regarding 5, this would be really cool. I advocated for this in another thread for the Mi-8's nose gun. Basically, a PKT is worse than the Kord in some areas but it is not anachronistic for Afghanistan and is still pretty capable as an AI weapon. The anachronistic kit is also a pretty big deal. If ED were to do anything in this area I would be satisfied if they added the PKT, the ability for it to be used on both sides, and made an Afghan-era gunner kit. Regarding 6, perhaps they could release a version of the Kord that has no limitations and is labeled as Multi-Crew only. You could choose between Kord for AI and Kord for Multicrew. Less Reasonable: 1: This would be nice, just in case you weren't already aware the pilots can use zoom view/vr zoom to spot, and the front seater can use his ATGM sight. In the likely event we don't get binocs you can do functionally the same thing with these view options. 3: Definitely want this.

For posterity's sake I am going to leave this thread up. I was not, in fact, up do date. Somehow I missed the update and was playing this whole time on another version from everyone else. I incorrectly assumed that I was up to date and failed to actually check... I apologize for wasting anyone's time, lesson learned. In the future I will include a screenshot of DCS updater to verify.

OB, latest version.

I have concluded that this likely isn't a bug given my friend's inability to reproduce it, however I am out of ideas on ways to fix it so am posting here. I once again cannot seem to launch ATGMs as the front seat operator of the Mi-24 in multiplayer. I HAVE NO MODS, THE LATEST OPEN-BETA PATCH AND I PLAY ON MT. In Single-player I can launch them just fine. In Multiplayer, I press the launch button and the tone goes silent, nothing comes off the rail. My pilot loses tone as well until I select the next missile. It seems as if the game thinks I fired the missile, yet I actually didn't. I did a number of things in an attempt to fix it, none of which produced results: -Rebound "Fire ATG missile" keybind to keyboard in addition to mouse and joystick -Slow-Repaired DCS, searching for extra files -Cleared keybinds for MI-24CPG. -Deleted the entire Mi-24 module folder and reinstalled it -Deleted the entire contents of my saved games/dcs openbeta folder -Tested on a friends server on a different mission instead of my mission on my server -Requesting, obtaining and ceding control of the aircraft -Using Single-Thread instead of Multi-Thread To launch, I do the following: -Hop into the helicopter as CPG -My pilot selects missiles and does his end of the setup -I select B2 and wait for the green light indicator to illuminate -I go into the scope and manipulate the sight until it is on the target -My pilot aligns the aircraft and I get tone -I press the "fire ATG missile" button And the tone goes out for both my pilot and I. At this point, when my pilot is in the front seat, the missile launches. Both of us are experienced in our respective roles and the exact same process works without error for me in single-player. I did not have this issue prior to the most recent update. My peripherals are: -VKB Gladiator -TWCS throttle -G502 mouse -K63 keyboard Several tracks included. In the TEST MI24 track the playback begins at about 1:30. I attempt to fire several missiles. Each time when I press the fire button the tone goes out and nothing further happens. In 20240128130620 I attempt several more times. In 20240128131659 I attempt again and then swap out for my friend, who then takes the front seat. He then proceeds to launch several missiles without issue. I have no further ideas, please help. TEST MI24-20240127-183951.trk server-20240128-131659.trk server-20240128-130620.trk

The topic of the bow-mounted PKT has been brought up extensively before, and I know it will take some work to implement. I do still think it's something we should get, at least as part of an upgrade for the Mi-8. I will detail why below, hopefully in a manner interesting enough to warrant a renewed look at the idea. First, the question of "why don't we have it already?" I researched this on the Russian half of the forums with the handy assistance of auto-translate. I am trusting it pretty heavily here, so if the translate is misinterpreting things please correct me. Initially, it seemed certain that we would get it, at least once Multi-Crew was added. "It seems to me that the PKT is not a completely useless thing, at least if the shooters are implemented in the same way as in the UH-1. Sometimes it is not always clear where the enemy is hidden, and by the direction of the PKT’s fire it will be possible to determine in which direction to work, at least against the infantry. " "As soon as we make a crew over the network, we will definitely implement it!.. Only when will we do it.. " However, even before that, there did seem to be some doubts. "with PCT: maybe we won’t even do it at all. Game value tends to 0 (7.62 has a relatively low rate of fire, therefore - only for infantry. It is still in development now). Another disadvantage when installing the PKT is the obstruction of the view of the ground for the player-pilot. In general, the installation of a bow PKT will be relevant if the LAN crew of one helicopter is capable of achieving it. Then let's return to this issue." These comments were made nearly a decade ago, and since then there looks to have been a change regarding the implementation. "Are any of these things planned for the MI-8 in the future? Pomegranate blocks UB-16 and UB-32? Bow and side gunner with PCT? Is it possible to hang additional PKT on pylons as in the photo below? M134 machine gun on board _" "possibly UB-32 blocks. The rest is NO" The reasons were elaborated further in this 2018 post: "Well, I agree that historicity and correspondence are all great!... but I’ll write again the arguments that guide us without implementing a PKT machine gun in the nose. Let's evaluate the necessary measures: - 3D modeler to make a new version (version) of the cockpit: a MOBILE machine gun, add new cockpit objects, make an animation of a folding seat, make an animation of an on-board technician who is preparing to fire and controls the machine gun (this is already a “character” modeler); - for the programmer: attach an AI that would find targets and open fire, attach sounds and effects, make it possible to switch versions of cockpits from ME (with and without a machine gun); - testers: test all this and correct it many times (both 3D models, animation, and the logic of controlling the AI shooter, its work in searching and firing at targets). - make changes to the Pilot's Manual. At the same time, BST does not have “its own” 3D modelers, either one or the other. “Character” modeling has not yet been put on stream, so it will (if done) still be done using “hand made” technology. But the labor of modelers is quite expensive, and now tasks for the “character” department are “standing” in a queue (as well as for 3D cabin modelers). In a long line! Now we evaluate gaming interest. Yes, Huey has a tail gunner with an M-60. This was the FIRST such experience. Who uses it how often? Yes, almost no one when the M-134 appeared. Those. Even then it became clear that the single-barrel 7.62mm in DCS reality is (yet) not so effective. Why? because, unlike in real life, infantry in DCS does not behave this way at all and does not pose such a threat to a helicopter, and for moving mechanical targets the effectiveness of a single-barreled machine gun is very low (for lightly armored ones it generally approaches zero). In addition, the cabin option with a bow gunner will not be in demand by those players who use the MI-8 for landing on difficult sites and transporting cargo on a cable suspension (and I think more than half of them are). As a result, we predict that a rather expensive development will not lead to cost recovery (such as an increase in the popularity of the game with the Mi-8 module and an increase in sales). Moreover, by a large margin, the costs will outstrip the benefits of introducing a machine gun (this is our expert assessment, with which many employees are unanimous). Therefore, we do not install a machine gun out of harm, but out of an assessment of the realities of life. Don't misunderstand." Why bring this up again? What do I have to add to the discussion and what has changed since then? Firstly, to address historical accuracy, the PKT was certainly present in Afghanistan aboard Mi-8s and later in its history. This documentary and this video both provide ample examples of Mi-8s, even M-8MTs, with nose mounted PKTs retained. It was certainly used. I was unable to confirm that the Mi-8MTV-2 had a presence in Afghanistan, however I believe that the Mi-8MTV itself, an earlier variant with only minor differences, was flown in the war. Regarding 3D modeling, it has been more than a decade since the Mi-8 was initially released, and it both deserves and (in my opinion) demands an overhaul. The external model no longer holds a candle to contemporary ED models and the internal pilot models leave much to be desired. Any such upgrade will require the remodeling of not only the entire helicopter and armament but the pilots themselves. It is no longer a question of if substantial 3D modeling is due on the Mi-8, but when. Module development itself has not been static since the initial release. ED now has multiple new attack helicopters and the institutional knowledge on how to fully implement and model not only door gunners but removable ones, ones that can be used on either side and that can be used seamlessly in Multi-Crew. This was done for the Huey, the Hip and it will likely be done again with the Chinook. With the advent of Mi-8 Multi-Crew this was only cemented further. There is no question of whether or not ED is capable of modeling the PKT. I cannot comment on how easy or difficult it would be to model, but I am quite positive that, barring departure from the company, there are developers within ED who could make it happen. This applies to all elements of the development process; AI, 3D modeling, animations and sounds. Furthermore, we now have confirmation of an Afghanistan map coming to the consumer side of DCS. When this map releases it will see plenty of action from Mi-24 and Mi-8 users. Not only will this renew interest in an overhaul of the Mi-8 but it will also elevate demand for a more uniquely Afghan-oriented Hip (I don't see this as a concern). With the map, pilots will face the harsh reality of hot-and-high conditions and their affects on helicopter performance. I recently developed and released an 'Afghan' multiplayer sandbox that makes heavy use of the Hip and even then, in the comparatively low altitudes of Syria, heavy cargo loads discourage the use of the heavy weapon rack and the even heavier rocket pods. The Hip instead needs to lean more on its internal guns and of course the Hind, whose speed also discourages the carriage of draggy stores. The anachronistic Kord fires to one side and occupies the valuable door space, which is needed for cargo transfer and mission triggers. The forward-facing PKT is forward facing and would indeed see use as it did in Afghanistan. Finally, given that a paid module update is the most likely future for the Mi-8, the addition of the gun would add another incentive to upgrade, thus increasing sales. But the PKT isn't even that good! I initially thought this too, however the existing Mi-8 rear PKT gunner already exists to test this claim and, in my opinion, refutes it handily. I took the time to test the PKT's effectiveness against several targets it might see in Afghanistan; A Ural-375, a rocket technical and an insurgent. As you can see in the tracks below, the PKT makes quick work of these. PKTEffectiveness.trk PKTEffectivenessInf.trk If given a straight view to the target (as a PKT would be), it takes less than 2 seconds for the PKT to kill the insurgent. It takes 4 seconds to kill the truck and 6 seconds to kill the technical. Especially for insurgents, this gun isn't that much of a downgrade from a Kord. An AI PKT operator could easily kill several light vehicles in a pass with this gun alone. In an environment where rocket pods can't be brought along, this weapon would quite handy and would indeed see use. It would also be enjoyable for human operators and possibly even more easy and useful than side-facing guns given the more conventional aiming requirements. The last sentence of the preceding paragraph brings up another point unto itself. A forward facing crew-operated gun is likely the easiest type to operate, and I would be willing to bet the Mi-8's nose gun would easiest door gun position in DCS. If you have attempted to bring along a door gunner you know that the helicopter's perpendicular motion to the target confounds aiming and it is hard to hit many targets, particularly infantry. There is no such problem for the Hip's nose PKT. The helicopter could easily run down the length of a convoy of trucks, blasting the entire length with high lethality. Finally, the nose-mounted PKT position would be an exceptionally easy way for prospective Mi-8 owners and DCS players to access the hobby in the most simple way possible. Requiring nothing more than the standard gaming PC and basic non-sim peripherals, a friend could simply download the sim, trial the module, bind a couple of things and hop into the gunner's seat with no further study or technical requirements. Sharing a cockpit with 2 other people and flying around using the PKT to blast various targets would be a mildly claustrophobic but unique and extremely enjoyable experience for even the most casual players. Conclusion: Though it might not be very easy, the addition of the PKT nose gun would not likely provide any novel challenges to ED, it absolutely would be useful, it would be used, and it would be worth it. I could see myself carrying it every time when in Afghanistan. In the meantime, here is a (Russian) article that covers, among other things, the nose PKT extensively. Thanks for reading, ACS_Dev.

Upon loading into the crew of an Mi-24, the copilot-gunner immediately requests control of the aircraft and must either manually rescind it or be denied, depending on crew control priority. This occurs even though the front seat operator does not actually press the bind. This occurred regardless of who was in the front seat, at least in my testing. Steps to reproduce: -Create or join a multiplayer server in which a multi-crew enabled Mi-24 exists -Load into the helicopter as pilot -Have a partner join you in the front seat -If it is like my experience, the partner will instantly request control of the aircraft, without actually pressing any buttons themselves Trackfile enclosed. In this trackfile I, "No-Go", am the copilot gunner. "Ryker 1-1 Tyrant" is the pilot. I instantly request control of the aircraft despite pressing no buttons. Playback begins at around 60 seconds. Aircraft control priority is Pilot. TEST MI24-20240127-183951.trk

Problem: On spawn, the cargo doors of the MI-24 appear open for members of the crew who are not the pilot, namely the front seat operator and the door gunner. The pilot must open and close the doors manually every time for them to synchronize across all crew members. Cross tested with 3 people. Tested twice (not necessarily in this track file) with different crew arrangements, replicated each time. Track file enclosed. server-20240126-200842.trk

Do you have a source for this?

Thanks for the info!