Fri13

Lucky to us that is soft rubber fan. Otherwise you would clip your virtual nails... Didn't mother teach you NOT TO TOUCH??!

Would be interesting to know how did the Mi-24V perform the vertical landing and take-off with 4x rocket pods and 8 infantry soldiers. Video doesn't show is there AT missiles as well, but 4x of them don't weight as much as 8 fully loaded soldiers.... Sure it can't have a full load of fuel at that moment, as you likely wouldn't even take full fuel, and you consume some of it after take-off. But estimating that 30-40% of fuel would be left for the operation, then what would it take? 8x soldiers is heck of a transport capability for Mi-24P. And if assuming that you have young soldiers that mass with full combat load (20kg) about 95 kg each, that makes only < 800 kg extra, after fuel and weapons. 20x S-8 heaviest rockets is 15.2 kg x 20, about 305 kg + pod (B-8M1) itself 160 kg empty mass, so in total 465 kg per pod. That takes 1860 kg alone for it. 32x S-5 (as in the photo below) is ~270 kg as loaded (187 kg as 32 heaviest 5.85 kg rockets + UB-32 pod that is 103 kg empty, so 290 kg in heaviest form), making it 1160 kg in total with 4x UB-32. That is massive difference considering that you have 128 rockets (4x32) vs 80 rockets, and mass difference 700 kg. And that leads a great possibility to carry those 8 infantry soldiers with the rocket pods making it in total of 1860 kg (+ possible AT missiles). Each Ataka missile mass is 50 kg. So carrying four of them is 200 kg + attachment (let's say 150 kg) But if one takes the pre-made loadout (4хБ820_OFP2+4xATGM_9M114) then one can have only 7% of fuel to have 100% weight. That is the heaviest load you can have. That might be the reason why there is this "Mi-24P can't hover" as when you load it full, it can't hover as you are so heavy with S-8 rockets. You can have 4x UB-32 pods with S-5 rockets and you can have 4x Shturm and 60% fuel and you are at 100% weight limit. You really need that speed to carry that weight and S-8 will limit seriously your capability compared to S-5.

"Leap Motion" is a device that is hand tracker. And you can play games with it. It is old tech, it was first around 50-70€ but then was for couple years for less than 20€. Couple years ago company as purchased and it price jumped to 100€. It can be here and there purchased for a 20-30 € as used, but not as new that goes to ridiculous prices. You can attach that device to HMD front, and you get a hand tracking with it. When it works, it works very well. It is fun. And this is like 5 years before Oculus Quest 2 hand tracking and all... It is little sad, as 5 years ago DCS would have blown peoples minds and whole market. But better late than never. That device would have made so much sense with its 20€ price tag. But 90-150€ for it now? Not really if it doesn't work well in DCS. I want to test it. Just need to pull it out from a shelf. Okay.... It is good start then. Hopefully they get it soon fixed for support head movement same time. I just want to be able use index finger to poke things and use pinch to grab knobs or levers and then operate them. So no virtual stick, throttle etc. Just give me finger tip to press buttons and switches!

Yes. I have the same thing experienced. I had automatic switch enabled in special settings so when I jump to front it gets activated. I was on first flight flying over shore to sea to make a wide 1-2 km turn. I jumped to front and Petrovich started immediately pitching up and down like not knowing how to handle a cyclic. I watched it by 10 seconds how it got smaller in osculation but still... I jumped back to fly manually. Irony is that flight ended that Petrovich killed us in VRS. I slowed down, jumped to front seat. Commanded a hover (60 > 0 kph) and Petrovich pulled major pitch up movement at 40 kph and raised to 100 meters and VRS down... For next hour I didn't let him fly at all... I didn't get to do what I wanted, test the ATGM.. The Petrovich should really try to smooth more of its actions, unless under fire when possibly to maneuver tighter.

How did you find out? Does the "cockpit operation" work? Can you attach it to VR HMD and have hands properly visible, or is it just for table use?

WHAT???!?!? Are you serious? After all the years!!! Finally!

Future modules requires the DCS 2.7. The DCS 2.7 supports Windows 10 only. Windows 7 is unsupported. It doesn't mean you can't keep playing on it, but you are alone with all support.

While it would be a good way to indicate player that given heading is out of the gimbal range. I still think it is already enough that player is required to know that 60 degree is the limit. As it this virtual HSI is many ways a "digital targeting pod management" by its wording and like. It should be more of a "Tell the pilot to turn right" than "Set your aircraft fly in 172 direction".

You are not pressing F5 fast enough I see....

@Savvy @Eldur @Bunny Clark @MAXsenna Added a pure B/W version, with each mode: Petrovich Hat Commands BW edition.zip Ps. The sixth file is not really required as it is just Target Management and it is included as well on the Pilot page.

Thanks! It says in the Quick Manual well: "When the helicopter is moving, only FLT (Flight) and CBTM (Combat Maneuvering) modes are available. When hovering, HVR (Hover) and HVRT (Hover Translate) modes are available. FLT mode changes to HVR automatically when entering a hover, and vice versa when exiting a hover."

You just place a picture files to specific directory and they are available there. There is nothing special there as you can freely do wanted images with specific resolutions (ratios).

Thanks. I have seen so many different ones that I don't know what is suppose to be the "correct". Where did you find the "HVRT" modes for the Hovering? And how do you get to that mode when you have just FLT <-> CMBT (Flight <-> Combat) on Right Short?

Something like this? We don't have any combat (CMBT) functions for Short Right/Up/Down yet. And Long Right/Left are as well missing. Likely we have there something like "Maneuver to right" or "Hover stop" or something that is not in the FLY mode. Edit: ED, please fix the comment box so it doesn't randomly delete all the text and leave some attachments randomly while deleting rest....

Damn.... There went my couple days.... I have been focusing to one of the projects and totally lost idea of the what day it is. I was like it was 9th and then I read yesterday that ED had is going to "have meeting today that are they good for release on 16th". And I was like "Wow, release at the end of the week, cool". And then couple hours later I had notification on phone that said "You have scheduled meeting tomorrow 16th...." And I was like WTF?! Mi-24P might get released today! And now it is official?

I had first the MCG Pro as background and f text had shadows, but decided remove it from public as people has different joysticks and it doesn't do good anyways. I make small edit for it.

This is great how much they have developed map further. I hope to see some future additions when tech gets better (like more clutter etc).

I made that from it. There is many ways how those can be visually presented, but question is that when it becomes too confusing when you have in reality one hat and you present it as two (operator + pilot) or three (operator + pilot + observation) hats? Easier is most often such case just have one hat as physical and then separate only the long and short, and separate the modes by colors. But if someone has better idea... Example the wording could be changed that what the Petrovich is to do. "Player in operator cockpit" -> "Petrovich is pilot" "Player in pilot cockpit" -> "Petrovich is operator" That can make things easier for someone, and more difficult for someone else. Like I changed the Left Short as "Visual Heading Turn" because you as player are commanding the new heading visually looking at that direction. Something that Wags called "Chevron Icon". Wags uses "Command Heading" where I called it "Command Compass Heading Left/Right" as you are telling a specific compass heading to fly, and you select which direction you want to move the virtual HSI to select your wanted compass heading.

Before possibly wasting ink, wait that if someone finds some errors or better wording. Example I don't know is it better say "IAS Up" or "Speed Up" or something... Or should the pilot and operator seats be separated by the different sets, instead all joined to one set?

I would like to see that as long the Petrovich is "in observe mode" (Up Short) then as long it keeps scanning the targets in the area. After destroying one, it should automatically show again the list for player to choose from. If not so, then maybe Up Short again commands such list to appear? As I don't see reason why Petrovich should be called OUT and then back IN to search the area.... Considering that you want to engage one target, maybe second and then go around for a new attack run. You don't want to have to find the combat area again and AI should know where it was (he is responsible for navigation as well!). And when you get heading again inside +/-60 degree for re-attack, you should get list again. What I saw odd in the Wags video was that when he commanded Petrovich to go in Observe Mode and Wags explained how it takes some time for it to find the targets. I assumed that you would see the CCIP pipper move across the area. So first a delay that Petrovich changes the position and gets eye on the sight. Then see the CCIP pipper moved to the area. And see the CCIP pipper move a few seconds across vertically and horizontally scanning the area for targets and then list them. But maybe that is what was shown. Petrovich spotted immediately few targets once the CCIP pipper moved on the area and decided not to scan more? https://youtu.be/jtzLUCO-KfU?t=736 Later on one can see that Petrovich starts moving CCIP pipper up on the horizon https://youtu.be/jtzLUCO-KfU?t=825

I think it could happen if you maneuver too hard and you collide the stabilized sight on its gimbal edges. Similar thing is with the AV-8B Harrier (not modeled by Razbam) that if you do not apply power to the DMT (as some people recommends that so you don't mess with it when using TPOD) then the DMT gimbal is not locked in place and it moves freely. And if you maneuver you can damage the DMT gimbal itself even when it has some rubber/flexible dampeners around it. So in normal flight it should survive without power, but better be safe and power it so DMT gimbal is locked in place. I think that similar is with that. As after all that sight in Mi-24 is from a tank (can be from IFV or MBT, don't remember that), and it is locked in place aligned with the gun, and is required to be stabilized only by the turret two-plane (vertical and horizontal) movements. So there is no where such gimbal limits there as it is now in helicopter. And that has likely been one of the pain in the butt for Mil designers that they were not allowed to develop a custom own sighting system for Mi-24 but were ordered to use existing periscope from the army. So how do you make a +/- 60 degree stabilization with +/- 60 degree roll stabilization work when no ground vehicle would ever be subject for such? So they managed to make a complex gimbal for bottom of the fuselage and stabilize it with such huge range and that can be such that you have some limits there if you hit too hard there. But, remember that the system is designed so that once you reach the gimbal limit, the sight will reset to boresight. But that likely in normal flight conditions and not when pilot like now the Petrovich did that it makes hard turns, bleeding speed while doing so. Like look at the Wags commanded "hook turn". From about 300 km/h speed Petrovich consumed 150 km/h for turn. So there is tweaking to be done that Petrovich would not be so hard handed to perform the turns, but try to make them smoothly. I think that needs to be done relative to the distance or amount of corrections. Like if you want to do a 5 degree correction, don't wave the cyclic around to do it, but do it smoothly. If it is 90 degree "visual turn" (left short) and player looks closer, then perform tight turn as it is almost as "Enemy there! Under kilometer" instead "Enemy 3 km at 3'clock" where smooth turn would make sense.

Latest version, added all missing parts, thanks to Bailey to link the ED released quick guide. This should be a kneeboard size. Interesting thing is that there is no "Translate backward" when in Hover Transition (purple). Instead you are only offered to perform a 180 degree evasive turn. So you can translate to left/right/forward and give a visual heading turn, but not move backward. Petrovich Hat Commands BW edition.zip Petrovich commands.svg

I am so going to steal that from you.... That is true that DCS would never be able simulate a submarine to real level. Just impossible for any game ever because you have hundreds of men doing their own stuff and couple dozens are critical for combat procedures phases. So two player aircraft is so much easier to simulate. But let's face it. If Cold Waters or Dangerous Waters would be implemented to DCS World, there would be lot of players for those ocean tasks. We would suddenly need a lot bigger sea maps. Those games does very good job for adding enough simulation of the submarines, surface ships and their operations that it doesn't need to go deeper than that really. Similar is with the RTS community for ground warfare, where we might have Combined Arms for the individual vehicle operation as commander/driver or gunner, but it really should be limited to that and more about commanding a platoon at smallest size, and really be a large scale RTS game. There are always more RTS players than there are flight simulation players or sea warfare players. But if you get to combined air, ground and water together for big RTS game, you would have people flying sorties with Spitfire or Hornet where someone is micromanaging a MBT platoon or submarine etc. As important the ground terrain shapes are, as important are then that we have other than just flat ocean floor. Sure we never need to know what is below 500 meters depth, but 500-10 meters and it becomes important one. Like how to perform a attack on shore and push forward from there. We have already aircraft like AV-8B N/A that is capable to drop sonar buoys. Having submarines in the Mariana map going deep etc would generate many different missions for detection. But we don't need for that the ocean floor height map details. But eventually it is easy to add when we have no in last few years started to have proper air-to-ground radar modes like soon coming M2000C terrain radar. There must be someone would be very ready to do a "Hunt for the red October" version of the Soviet Burevestnik-class anti-submarine frigate event, but in all maps.

I would gladly take a ocean floor mesh resolution of 2 km for generic flat areas, and then 200-500 meters for the ridges and deep slopes. This is of course case for ONLY if we would get at some point a sonar displays, as then we would have nice hunting to do. We anyways would hit to the thermal layers very often and see nothing more than flat This, because I still sometimes launch the submarine simulator Dangerous Waters. And if we talk about anyways this SONAR topic, it is required for the DCS because that exact system is then transferrable to the every SAM systems, AND not just SAM systems but for whole electronic warfare in the DCS including all Chaff, Flare, ECM, ECCM etc. So we can go and take even the old 60's (and 70's and 80's) EW material and build like thousand times more complex and demanding EW for the DCS, including air-to-air, air-to-ground/surface and SONAR. DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator. Its primary subject is the Aviation. But it shouldn't be limited to that, as combat part is about everything. You have unit on ground, unit on surface, unit in under water and unit in air. And considering that we would have few people sitting front of their computer in DCS, watching their display as SONAR or RADAR scope is a lot more interesting concept than having a few players as a soldiers on ground somewhere, shooting at something... Like, no! DCS doesn't work as infantry simulator. But it works great as vehicle to vehicle simulator. This is what makes F-14 so amazing to fly when you have a friend who likes to be a RIO. Now take the view outside away and make that RIO sit in a radar wagon or radar compartment in a SAM, a boat or a submarine. If there is nothing happening in some area, those players can jump to elsewhere to do other tasks where are aircraft flying, submarine or ships moving. If someone is so crazy about launching a AIM-54 Phoenix from 50 nm to the target, there are even more stuff about launching torpedo with various guidance methods, timers etc. A real cat and mouse game. Where some players could be flying in their Hornets and Tomcats fighting a fleet defender or strike missions etc, some people are in ships operating surface-to-air radars, surface-to-surface radars and SONAR. And that is where the ocean floor height map would really come to play when you have places closer to shore where you don't to get dive deeper than 200 meters, https://earth.google.com/web/@43.31585097,39.65992957,-58.24506499a,1129019.80318129d,35y,23.4365339h,58.23762529t,360r/data=Ci4SLBIgYjczNzM1Y2E0Y2FiMTFlODhlMTU3MTM3ODRlMDYzMjMiCGxheWVyc18w It isn't. That is public domain data.

Those are military secrets of highest classification level, so public doesn't know. The only known information is "at least 400 meters" but how much deeper, that is classified. 11 000 meters would be silly to even think about. More like 500 meters is already serious crush depth. Every 10 meters adds 1 bar more pressure, so 500 meters would be 50 bars pressure. Considering that WW2 Uboats had crush depth below 250-300 meters that puts very severe limitation for over 500 meters even for modern.