lmp

The problem isn't really limited to the .50 Cals. It is most visible with those guns of course, but I had a bit of a reverse situation the other day. I was fighting an AI Sabre in the MiG and I shot off both of the bot's elevators. He was still turning with me just fine. Of course most of the time the MiG's cannons will do the job just fine, but an improvement in damage modelling will benefit everybody.

Re: 2 What do you mean by after landing? During the landing roll/taxiing to parking, after stopping the aircraft or after shutdown? Cause I locked the lever just fine yesterday when I was cleaning up the airplane after landing.

The whiskey compass on the canopy frame is magnetic of course. As for the GMK-1, it starts in MK (magnetic compass) mode, but as far as I understand you can switch it to GPK (gyrocompass mode) and manually set the magnetic variation using the ZK switch.

While not so crucial for gameplay purposes alone (edge of the map, close to Tbilisi with its three existing airfields) it's absolutely key for historically accurate scenarios. Georgia is the focus of the map and its main military airbase is missing...

I would buy it if: (a) it was the Mi-6 OR (b) it could do something very exciting that my Mi-8 can't do... and I don't consider hauling 10+ tons rather than 3+ tons terribly exciting. Since neither seems to be the case, I'll vote no.

There really isn't much to learn when it comes to systems, especially if you're familiar with the A-10C. Handling is pretty good, the only exception being how sensitive to skidding the aircraft is on the ground. Browse through the manual and you'll be good to go.

It's certainly a more substantial upgrade than, say, from Mi-24V to Mi-24P.

Firstly, even if some Syrian MiGs can carry R-77s, we don't know what kind of an upgrade they received and when. It could have been quite substantial. Secondly, how far do you go with "all weapons it potentially can carry". Cause "potentially" you can put anything the airframe will lift, it's all a matter of money, time, engineering capabilities and perhaps some cooperation from the country that manufactured the weapon. MiG-21MFs in Egyptian and Iraqi service were modified to carry respectively Sidewinder and Magic missiles. Not to mention serious upgrades like the Lancer. Should the MiG-29, Su-27 etc. be able to carry those? There's no reason it couldn't be done...

Try this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173003

+1

That Su-24 looks sweet!

Well, we did get a newsletter with two new pics of the Normandy map and Spitfire.

I'm glad I could help :). It's good that you're also learning pronunciation. In a lot of cases it actually makes it easier since a lot of Russian aviation terms are nearly identical once you say them out loud (e.x. compass, generator, marker, trimmer). It's worth it to actually learn to read the letters and make a sound ;). Ok, now for something a little bit harder. The thing that is perhaps the hardest for an English speaker to "get" on an intuitive level when learning languages such as Russian or (my native) Polish is how much more inflectional they are. What it boils down to is - words change a lot more when used in different contexts. For example the English word "tank" (as in fuel tank) is inflected for number... and I think that's it. You have a singular "tank" and plural "tanks". The same is true for most English nouns. On the other hand, in Russian nouns are also inflected for grammatical case, so depending on their grammatical function in the sentence (object, subject etc.). The Russian word for "tank" is "бак". And you would use that form (nominative case) of the word if you wanted to say, for example, main tank - основной бак. However, in the phrase "pressure in the tank", you would use the prepositional case - давление в баке. For the record, all six (!) cases of the word бак are: nominative - бак, genitive - бакa, dative - баку, accusative - бак, instrumental - баком, prepositional - баке. And that's only for a singular tank. Other parts of speech also get more inflections. I suppose learning and understanding all that is beyond what you're trying to achieve (if not, you should probably find some proper language classes in your area), so just remember this: Expect the "same" words to look and sound slightly different (especially the last few letters) depending on the context they're used in. For someone whose mother tongue doesn't do that, it's really hard to wrap your head around exactly when and how. Next time I'll try to do something more useful, like maybe annunciator panel terms? Unless you have some other ideas?

Do you have the correction mapped to an axis? Make sure it's turned all the way to the left. Also your sequence is missing unbreaking the main rotor.

First off, I wanted to make it clear that my advice to do your planning before each mission etc. wasn't aimed to offend or devalue your skills and experience. I was genuinely hoping it might be helpful as I didn't know what your flight sim "career" was. I checked and there is not a single mission in the entire campaign where it's your job to conduct SEAD. Most of the missions are of battlefield air interdiction type (deep air support, tactical air interdiction, call it what you will), that is destroying enemy ground assets near the front line, but not in direct contact with friendly forces. You get two CAS missions, one strike against a field command post and one strike on a bridge. All of the missions are tactical in nature and I fail to see how are they unsuited for the Su-25. Should there be more CAS? I'm not so sure. The amount of NATO air defense and the fact that the airspace is contested means that for every CAS flight you need plenty of escorts. To perform them effectively and safely, you need trained forward air controllers on the ground, reliable, unjammed C3 - in other words, stuff a retreating Soviet Army of the late 80s might not have had. Real life plausibility aside, we also have the gameplay aspect... there is no Russian version of the JTAC that came with the A-10C (which is a damn shame and ED should totally add that). Every close air support mission would have to be carefully scripted and that means - probably more bugs. Afghanistan and Chechnya were asymmetric wars where the Soviet/Russian VVS enjoyed total air superiority and where the AA of the guerrillas was extremely limited. Those could be considered the "ideal war" for a plane like the Su-25, where its strengths could be used fully. But you do not always fight an ideal war. In South Ossetia the Russians had to deal with more deadly air defenses - and suffered losses accordingly. AFAIK the Su-25s did most of the fighting, including bombing the Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing plant. The Russian Army relatively early on gained the initiative on the ground. It also had overwhelming superiority in the air. And still the Frogfoots weren't used solely for "ideal" CAS work, as the attack on the aircraft plant shows. In our campaign scenario (realism of the scenario itself aside), where the Soviet Army is fighting a delaying action and desperately trying to reorganize and gain initiative, do you think Su-25s would have been kept on the ground, waiting for the perfect opportunity? I don't think the Soviet commanders would have the resources to let the Frogfoots sit this one out. Can't really argue with the altitude argument. The fighters are too low. I can sort of see the "Hollywood appeal" - thanks to that in one of the missions I accidentally flew straight into a dogfight and shot down a Phantom - but from a realism perspective, the fighters should be flying higher. IIRC the planes that escort you are usually either MiG-23MLDs or MiG-29s, which suggests they are VVS not PVO planes, if that matters. I never heard the PVO never flew 4 ships, could you elaborate why, share your sources? The USAF certainly did in the Gulf War. Heh, I usually "cheated" a bit by waiting at the rendezvous waypoint a minute or two longer than the briefing told me so that the Escorts and SEADs would go first and clear the way. You have a point, but at the same time - in a "what if" scenario there's by definition always some suspension of disbelief. It's a question of what to you personally is plausible and what is too much fantasy. Here I can see why the author decided to keep nukes out of the equation. And I'm willing to play along.

What about missions, campaigns? Let's say I bought the Mi-8, but not the NTTR map. I download the update that changes my free map to NTTR and I can't finish the Mi-8 campaign without paying for the Caucasus map - I'm an angry customer. It's even worse if I paid specifically for a DLC campaign that I can no longer use. Also, consider that the Caucasus map is more diverse. I can't fly my Su-33 off an aircraft carrier on the NTTR map. Or use the RSBN set in my L-39.

I'll try to recreate your problem after work to see if it's your joystick or some issue with the game/module.

Hi Flit, welcome to the forums! What do you mean by the stick "falling out of favor"? Does it work at all? It would indeed be weird if it didn't. Or maybe you're finding the helicopter hard to control after a manual start up? If that's the case, it's possible that you didn't activate the autopilot (or one of the systems required by it, therefore preventing the autopilot from engaging). Make sure the pitch/roll channel of the autopilot is on before you take off.

The manual is out of date in this regard. BST found out that the ARK-5 works differently, as described here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149762

One cool thing you can do with this feature is to use SAB-100 bombs as live fire practice targets for IR missiles and maybe MANPADS (I haven't tested MANPADS though). This was (and probably still is) done in the Polish AF.

Inverters? Not Rectifiers?

FM as in Flight Manual ;).

Diving attacks will of course be more accurate but I personally find level (or almost level) attacks easier to execute. It's also what the Mi-8 manual recommends. The Ka-50 does have a much better sight however and that will make diving attacks easier to perform, so... try both I guess.

Try launching at a distance of 2km and a speed of 200m in level flight. Do not overfly the target. Immediately after firing turn away from the enemy. Use short bursts. If your target can reliably hit you at that distance, you probably shouldn't be engaging it with rockets.

The lights work (in 1.5, haven't checked 2.0) but: 1) they don't turn on instantly, they need to warm up for a few seconds 2) if you keep them on 100% too long, they will burn out - you need to turn the rheostats a bit down after the lights come on