dimitriov

And sincerely, I'd exchange 1 RWR against 1000 FLIR ^^

This video was one of my tactical tutorials for canon/rckts attack : From here you get a first attack. There was an audio issue on this video (some kind of back noise...) In french unfortunately. The aim is to show an example of very dynamic flight without hovering at any moment and keeping the ENI under a relatively dense and constant fire. The procedure is made to create a shock in the ENI side. It is not based on real procedures, only on my own experience in the DCS environment, so perfectly opened to (smart) critics. - Optimize angle toward target depending on the Sitac, if you can't fly a bit high (2-300 m), no need to carry rockets cause they will be inefficient except if targeting a very badly defended sector which allows you to fly over it. Select between 3 types of pass : PRB, PRS, PRH (Rocket Pass Low, Rocket Pass with Overflight, Rocket Pass from above-ie 1200 m AGL-). Each of them have their variations but the common part is the following : - Pop flares in 0-1-3 or 0-1-2 from 6 km to the threat. - Keep a lot of speed, Ideal is 200. - Maintain a stable altitude. - Ignite from 4 to 2.5 km with canon if needed. - End with rockets. All rockets are usually shot in one pass, or at least 2 pylons. - Evade. The helicopter SAS must be set in flight director mode in order to grand the best stability for rocket shooting. A nice example of the S-8OFP2 efficiency when used in important quantity : Whole convoy got recked. Final assault on the ENI camp was very complicated because well, I tend to fly alone on tutorials and AI was reacting : Nicolas PS : yes the HUD is a personal modification, not integrity check and I won't publish it because of the "realism team" ^^

Nope OFP2 are not very efficient, still you can do a lot of damage if you're able to group the shots in a +-50m circle.

No not LOL ;) I did this for the AMX-10RCR, nothing else than dividing the mesh into 3-4 meshes for major components and give them proper names. 5 minutes. No less, no more. Anyway, back to the subject :) For the Vikhr I agree with you, already shot down helis, planes with it quite easily, requires training and ofc that the opponent is not maneuvering a lot (or underestimating you). Still, perhaps do I manage to survive 1 engagement for 4 against fighters (which is IMO quite normal). Against helicopters, except Mistral, well, surprise is everything, and by acting fast enough, you can alone neutralize a whole squad.

Not with KOM, only OFP2. With HEAT shells, you miss, you miss ;)

Well careful with wikipedia would it be russian or not, this is the kind of data which is not so public so well, you don't know.

Why do you think I made the frenchpack :D

So much wouldn't even be needed :) To explain it : Currently you have for example with the M1 tank ingame a damage model with engine, tracks, left side turret, canon, canon mask etc etc etc, with an armor thickness value assigned to it. You simply extend this way of working on most vehicles (It's nothing else than opening 3dsMax, and dividing your 3D collision model in few parts, 5 minutes work). Then you say : This block (engine) is penetrated : vehicle stop + fire above engine. This block (turret) is penetrated : freeze argument 0 which is the azimut turret rotation. This block (canon) is hit : set ammunition to 0. Modders would have the tools to do it, you would see it on many vehicle mods, Frenchpack in first :) You see, it's not a lot, no need for extended shrapnel path etc etc, it's not warthunder we don't really care.

Which S-8 do you use guys ? Cause careful, the KOM don't have any zone effect they have HEAT anti-tank warheads. Dealing with them, there is an issue in the sense that you will need at least 3 of them to hit the flank of a tank to destroy it, even if the code considers that you went through armor. 1 RPG is enough to neutralize an Abrams on the flank simply because it will ignite a fire forcing the crew to evacuate. So here you have an issue. I made a mod some years ago which increased the damage in case of penetration. You have to use the S-8 OFP2 which are frag rockets, and tbh, I find them quite effective for Btr/Brdm/Bmp-1. Don't know if they should be more. What we would need would be a complex life bars system for vehicles. Currently for heavy tanks for example you can create (and they did for some) a very complex collision model with each piece having its thickness value, with an additionnal code to take into account the shell angle of impact. Sadly, they didn't go far enough to allow, for example, destruction of wheels for Btr, engine fire, turret disabling etc while it wouldn't be, codewise, a very complicated thing to do. Igniting fire is quite commun for old school light APC. For example, the Bmp-1 has its fuel tanks in the rear doors. In the BMP-2, fuel tanks are located in the infantry compartment, right in the central axis of the vehicle. In case of perforation, you'll get fuel everywhere, and while it's diesel and doesn't ignite so easily, a rocket blast could do a lot of damage. Same for tracks. For MBT, there is nothing more fragile on these vehicles than the main gun. If you shoot with 30mm HE on a tank turret, you have good chances to damage the gun, and make the tank useless. Tanks are fragile. Fact is that they did such complex damage system for ships. Today CPUs are able to handle relatively complex damage for vehicles. IMO it's not a nice thing to ask for "soft fixes" like increasing blast radius. We should push for a more complex damage system for vehicles. It would make the game 100 times better and the basis is already ingame so it's not 500 h of work for them, it's only writing a "parent code" and then dividing the collision models in few parts (Wheel, engine, turret).

Why so many bad ?:noexpression:

Yup, 3000 h on it here... So well, 40 bucks for 3000 h... 0.013 bucks an hour... Cheaper than real helo lol So no problem for me. Actually, some may be shocked etc, but practicing 3D modeling and texturing, I know that the new 3D model and cockpit would take a good 3D maker around 6 months of work. So even if they asked me to pay for this, I wouldn't consider it as shocking. I understand people who would, but with nowadays graphics, people tend to consider that 3D stuff is not a real job that you should be paid for, while it's a domain as hard and tedious as coding. I paid for a 2012 helicopter simulation. Not for a 2019 one. Still, they could take this opportunity to add more stuff than what they seem to add. After all, when you start back from scrap all the 3D, well, making a FLIR or something like this won't be a big addition in terms of work amount, at least for 3D. And if you guys need beta testers, count me in ;) Nicolas

Meh, these "production" aircrafts didn't even have an ABRIS at the beginning, they set in place a specific maintenance group which "added them" right before being deployed. (These were no22 and 25 if I do well remember) Chechnya was nothing else than an occasion to test the general concept, nothing more. They were pre-production prototypes. Having them being deployed in operation doesn't change anything to this. The main purpose was to test the aircraft in real conditions. It's like the Super Pershing tank in WW2. One got deployed at war, still the production version was different on many sides thanks to the experience they got from it. Kamov-50 never was more than a prototype, whenever and wherever would you be looking. The Air-to-air was planned on the Kamov-50 just like most modern combat helicopters. The only thing is that on the version ED decided to release, which is obvisouly not the exact same than the one they want for this new release, cables weren't installed in order to have the ability to shoot the Iglas, which is very common because expensive. But plug in the cables and wow, guess what, it will work ;) That's all. Edit : here is all the story : https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=75432&d=1357148409 And if you read all to page 3, you will read this : Better than wikipedia right ? :p They are called "prototypes" many many times in this pdf ^^

Perhaps simply in order to enable the boresight mode ?

Heuuum... Kamov-50 ? Yep sure they deployed 2 helicopters in "operation" in Chechnya... They deployed 2 testbeds/prototypes... :D

Not only unfortunately. It would then need to implement a new cockpit version with new specific avionics. It would have been nice but they obviously didn't choose this way. Still Shkval is currently usable at night, at least for me, I see with it like in bright day which is kinda sick btw.

You saw the 3D model : Shkval, no FLIR ;) They can model the Shkval filters, there is a low luminosity one. Although it obviously won't be as good as a FLIR...

They shouldn't move, Vikhrs move in order to align themselves to the laser target. While with IR missiles like Iglas the missile does all the work. So if they cannot be mounted in internal it would be for another reason.

lol go buy an A-10 :p

It would be possible, but it would need an entire new cockpit too for such version, not sure that ED has such infos and it would be a big amount of work.

You're right. Makes me doubt now. It would be a very good new if we finally get the ability to carry 8 or 4 Vikhrs :) And so perhaps can we hope that iglas come in a 3rd pylon. Very good eye :)

Nope, those missiles are Iglas. ;)

If you fly in squad it's worth it. Alone... Yup it's another question.

@Camino : The 3D model speaks by itself : Shkval and only shkval.

Here are the screens in full HD guys ;)

When you love what you're doing you like to share it ;)