lmp

Don't quote me on this, but I think the AH-64A has been as good as confirmed for some time now. Also "brain melter" and "milestone" are not exactly the adjectives I would use (we'll already have the Hind). I'm also unaware that it is particularly challenging to fly, unless you consider all helicopters challenging. I'm sure it will be a rightfully popular helicopter module, but I don't think it fits the criteria.

They did? Wow, I didn't even know that...

What is "hotly anticipated" these days though? Mind you, I'm not arguing in favour of the Blackbird or B-1, I really have no clue. It used to be "modern multirole fighter" until we got the Hornet. Then everyone wanted the F-16 and we got that too. Now if I were to pick one thing most people wanted more than anything else, I honestly don't know. Plenty people want the Phantom, a modern Russian jet, one of the many European jets... I don't think they're going on about any of those? Of course, everybody has their favourites, but is anything really more "hotly anticipated" or "eagerly awaited" than the others?

Polygon trigger zones would be very useful to mission designers indeed. As for changing coalitions, that creates a number of problems. First of all, we don't have a neutral coalition, we can just leave some countries not assigned to a coalition and therefore unavailable in the mission. There's no concept of neutrality in the game. Secondly, the already very simplistic IFF simulation would become even more unrealistic if it would change in flight from foe to friend and the other way around on the fly. I think what you're asking for can be accomplished better by using the in game RoE system (which perhaps could be expanded).

Predictably, a lot of similarities to the Mi-8. The panels are laid out differently, but the systems underneath are very similar. Love the circuit breaker levers.

I picked up the Mi-8 on release and it's still one of my favorite modules. I'd happily pay for an update similar to what the A-10 got and Ka-50 is getting.

I have never heard anybody question the use of R-60s on the MiG-29 :shocking:. Where is this discussion common?

Yup, as nice as the shot is, it's just an R-60 being launched from the middle pylon. I don't believe that's controversial to anybody?

The smoke in this video looks pretty white to me. The color could depend on a number of factors such as atmospheric conditions or specific rocket or rocket fuel type, but at least some of the time the smoke is white. Also... Holy cow, that cannon is a beast. As for the dispersion, it can be pretty significant if you're shooting from a level flight or very shallow dive (or even in a climb, like the Russians seem to be doing in Syria) or a lot less significant if you're shooting in a steep dive. When I'm shooting from the Mi-8 I typically get a much larger spread then when I shoot the same rockets from a Su-25, mostly because of the dive angle. Not saying the current spread is necessary right, but keep that in mind.

@bies I was responding to Harker and was referring to Rafale, EF-2000 and the JF-17. Sorry if I didn't make it obvious. @Tippis I believe they were talking about F-86F vs MiG-15bis and Huey vs Hip. In both cases those are aircraft of similar capabilities, role and notoriety. In both cases the American counterpart sold significantly better. Is this definitive proof that Russian planes will always sell worse? Probably not, but it's a lot better than "I have a hard time believing X sold worse than Y" coming from somebody who has no access to any sales figures.

I don't think any of the planes you mentioned can sell as well as the Hornet and the Viper. Or even close. On one hand, they don't offer much in terms of new capabilities to DCS players (and where they do, it's a quantitative improvement, not a qualitative one, as was the case with the Hornet), on the other they simply don't have the notoriety of the F-16 or F/A-18. Developers will see diminishing returns with each new 4th gen multirole jet. I'm sure they'll have their fans, but much fewer of them. I for one have enough JDAM trucks in my hangar I do agree though that whenever ED will make some sort of major technological breakthrough, like all the new radar tech now, they will probably try to reuse it in a few modules. We're seeing this with the upcoming Hind and strongly suggested F-4E and AH-64 - each has a crew of two with a weapons operator needing new AI work. Personally I'd love to see some of the lesser known Cold War machines but I don't think I ED is interested in those at all.

ED has been pretty upfront about profitability being one of the main, if not the main consideration when picking what to do next. They also said the Viper and Hornet sold very well, Russian aircraft don't sell nearly as well and that most of the playerbase focuses on SP (so having counterparts is less important). That's why we're seeing so many 2000+ multirole fighters. That said, I think we're running out of sexy 4th gen JDAM trucks. After the F-15E there's no mainstream modern fighter left (other than the F-22 or F-35, which I'm pretty sure we're not getting anytime soon) that I can think of. ED will either have to start doing more obscure stuff or focus on iconic aircraft that aren't 4th gen JDAM trucks. Considering we're now getting the Hind and later possibly the AH-64 and F-4E, it looks like ED is taking the second route (IMHO for the better).

I believe the в (or v) comes from the fact that this variant got the ТВ3-117В engine, where В stands for Высотный, or roughly "high altitude". The Polish designation Mi-24W comes from the fact that Polish doesn't use the letter v, instead w is pronounced like the English v (or Russian в). And so the Russian letter в is transliterated to the Polish w. There's a number of those differences between Polish and English transliterations, a Yak-9 is a Jak-9 in Polish sources, a Kh-25ML is a Ch-25MŁ and so on. That said, we have no idea what the letters stand for in the DISS-15D/G designation, and I'm not convinced we should consider them sequencial any more than Mi-24 designations.

Also notice how the Mi-24D was the earlier, less advanced variant than the Mi-24V, despite V being before D in the Ciryllic alphabet. You don't have to look far to find that the letter order isn't a very reliable indicator of what came before what :). In 1975 I don't think the Mi-24V was even officially in service yet (please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's a very early manual. It makes sense to assume that if there was a change, the DISS-15D came before the DISS-15G.

What's to discuss?

My thinking was, if the map cursor always moved up and down along the set course and left and right along the course deviation, you could match the course setting with the magnetic North of your map cutout and solve the magvar problem this way. You could even do some clever stuff like cut out the map diagonally to fit a longer route on it physically... But that's pure speculation on my part. If you look at the back right cockpit of a Mi-26, you'll see that it has two coordinate indicators and one of them has the course controls covered, as if to prevent from accidentally changing the setting. This gave me the idea - perhaps the one with the cover drives the map indicator in the front? You can make that slight error whether you're cutting it along the magnetic or true coordinates to be honest. I wish I had the mechanical skills to recreate this instrument and use it in my "home cockpit". It would be beyond awesome if I could use my own paper maps :).

Interesting. In a lot of Polish sources the model used in the D and V Hinds is called the DISS-15D. Is this a mistake in translation or are there two versions? Re: True Vs Magnetic north. I can see three possibilities. Either the magvar is entered using "угол карты" input on the coordinate panel, or through a separate input, or they just orient their paper maps towards magnetic north.

How familiar are you with the Mi-8 and its DISS-15 doppler navigation system? In case you're not, it allows you to enter a desired course and once you start it, it will display the distance travelled along that course and your deviation from the course on numerical displays, using data obtained from its microwave radar under the tail boom, the gyro-compass and gyro-horizon. The Mi-24 uses the DISS-15D system which also includes the big glazed box, where you can put a paper map and it'll move a tape with a cross indicator over it: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Belarus-Air-Force/Mil-Mi-24P/3872391/L It makes things a little less mentally intensive. And that's it. The Mi-24 doesn't have anything more advanced than that and the usual ADF. So to answer your question - not really. You can read the coordinates off your paper map and tell where you are roughly. If you have a good estimation of where your target is in relation to you (distance, heading) you can do the mental math and give your buddies an idea where to look for it. But you can't provide good enough coordinates to, say, drop a JDAM on the tank you're aiming at.

The WarBRD is meant to replace my 10 year old T.16000M (which is slightly cheaper than the grip alone) and in the buttons department it just doesn't feel like much of an upgrade. Sure, there's a few more usable buttons (I never considered the 12 buttons on the Thrustmaster base very useful, if I have to take my hand off the stick, I might as well use the keyboard), but the trigger feels worse, the red buttons are mushy, the top hat is imprecise and the bottom one isn't very ergonomic. Of course the base is great, WAY better than the Thrustmaster gimbal, but we're no longer talking about £100 if we consider it.

Wow, thanks! That improved it significantly. I'm still not going to call that trigger worth the asking price, but at least it works now.

I received my WarBRD base and grip today and unfortunately, it came with some issues. The trigger is very rough and sticks when not released quickly enough. The hat is very imprecise, I get one of the diagonal inputs 50% of the time I pull the hat down. I'm frankly disappointed by the lack of quality of this stick.

These two posts by Toyo, a former MiG-29 pilot, made specifically in response to the idea of loading 2*R-27R, 2*R-73, 2*R60: http://il2forum.pl/index.php?topic=5534.msg296081#msg296081 http://il2forum.pl/index.php?topic=5534.msg296102#msg296102 First one explains how ballistic data is entered to the weapons computer and how weapons are selected. Second one lists possible store configurations. MiG-29 Flight Manual by Alan R. Wise, ISBN 0764313894, pages 40 through 42, and 128 through 132. It lists possible store configurations as well as various other limitations not enforced by DCS (such as not mixing different types of bombs or different types of rockets). It also confirms what's written in the posts above regarding weapon selection with the "inner"-"outer" switch (no means to select middle stations without first firing missiles from either the inner or outer ones). GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1, figure 5-19 shows possible store configurations.

I know. I think I can also get around the lack of NDBs if I wanted by placing a unit on the map and having it transmit a prerecorded morse code on an appropriate frequency. But I can't get RSBN/PRMG on the map without editing files.

Yup, as much as I appreciate community made content, I believe the Albatros deserves official Syrian skins. The L-39s were (are) very active in the Syrian Civil War. More NDBs and some RSBNs would also make this aircraft more fun to fly on the new map.

The biggest issue for me is the lack of radio aids. I think there's only one TACAN station, no RSBN stations at all and only a handful of NDBs. No big deal for the cool kids in the Hornets and Vipers, but the rest of us have to rely mainly on our dead reckoning skills when navigating the new map.