Fri13

Those "snapshots" are more than enough to show how real thing works, and when they are paired with the NATOPS that both confirms with latest versions, you get the correct results. No, not the main systems. You can have some minor changes like a instead 4 Mark Points you have 10 Mark Points, but not the major changes where Mark Points are eliminated so their functionality doesn't anymore exist. You don't add fantasy technologies where suddenly the aircraft knows magically every target altitude, as even the newly added technologies (like radar replacing DMT) is required to have the features to feed such information, and TAMMAC's DTED doesn't provide anything to the bombing triangle (that Radar is there for with own modes to generate that information. If Razbam wants to back their claims, they should reveal their open declassified documentation that is newer than current ones for H4.0 update that we have. As just going against the technology and the manuals is not wise move from Razbam. This is about upcoming Flakland map, but just required to question that if a someone say that Harrier flight modeling is "spot on" and it had 1.5-2x more thrust than any official engine performance chart says, it is just a point as usual that even real pilots can't say much about flight modeling as it depends a lot about gaming setup too (a proper chair with center mounted extended stick, throttle, pedals and VR vs Joystick and Throttle on table and playing using monitor). And every pilot needs to understand what is the target of the DCS, as it is not just "looks good, sounds good" but it as well needs to "feel correct with proper numbers", so what is the context of the simulator. These DCS maps are such that they should have proper height maps and weathers and other looks. Main roads should be properly done so they join correctly towns and cities etc. Main rivers exist in correct places as much as possible and major forests and agriculture areas are properly done. Then rest of the small details can be randomly done to just fill the caps and voids as it would be unrealistic that there is nothing between two big cities/towns (well, Falklands is mostly empty unbuilt areas anyways... but you get the point that there is here and there some minor detailed areas). More flat areas and emptiness there are, more the map requires a proper sub-meter elevations for terrain, so there are the proper height differences and dips and hills, and more it requires a random painted low level terrain features like bushes, different grass etc.

Problem is that is such a big thing that doing it would make easy to implement almost all rest of the my listed features. If we would add just the LOS system, it would mean that once someone in group detects an enemy, every single unit in the group knows that position. So everyone would turn their gun on the spotted threat and end result is not better than before. It would require a new communication system where units in the group would communicate properly and requires everyone to search the target by themselves even when one spots the target, this would mean that individual unit spotting a threat would only assist others to look for a generic direction to find it. So from example mechanized infantry platoon a one vehicle could likely be able see the unit. This would make every ground unit even worse as they would likely never spot anyone ever. What requires that communication system is developed so that groups can share information between each other, so Early Warning radar issues the warning to units in area when it spots threat 200 km from their position and heading to that direction. The another unit between threat and the target area would hear the threat and issue warning to group so they know where to look and where to take a cover. So now we are back to situation that units requires new AI that understands the terrain (trees, buildings etc) around it and knows how to take cover, issue a air alarm and prepare for self-defense by deploying infantry that has MANPAD etc. To get this the new AI is required that knows how it can perform such a action dynamically, and can it like middle of combat or on route to the combat zone etc. Taking just a another route can fool the threat so much that it can't find the ground units in time and is required to leave the area back to base as 10 min fuel for loitering is not much. And now suddenly proper damage modeling is required as well to go with everything. It is more like a package deal where everything needs to be done ready in basic level first, and then improve everything over time. Like first make the AI self-protection mode such that it knows where are trees and move under them to conceal themselves, and have a understanding how to unmount infantry and get the generic MANPAD units scattered to edges of forest. Later add buildings and more complex tactics. To do that, basic information network is required like now that everyone would know everything but just extend the delay, but it leads to current situation that all units shoots threat as all knows where it is, so adding some random delays here and there, adjusting little more the aiming accuracy and it would be similar what we have today (where units even shoot behind the air unit where it was like 2 seconds ago... Completely idiotic behavior because current CEP aiming principle). So basically anything that would be done, would require first the foundation to be done properly. And then start to add small things here and there using those new AI functions etc.

The experiment didn't fail, in contrary It was success. The problem was that foreign sales didn't succeed because different nations stuck to the idea that every combat helicopter requires two pilots. So KAMOV couldn't participate to competitions, why the KA-50-2 was born. From the start the KA-50 was designed to be the main combat helicopter, and one KA-52 was to be the group commander's aircraft, where he was to sit right of it pilot and command the attack group. The international sales just required two seaters and when you have one seater you can't enter the trials. The KA-52 was only that has been successful in the export sales (Egypt). The Russia Minister of Defense signed the order to produce and buy the KA-50's but the funding was delayed couple times and eventually cancelled as the Mi-28 was chosen for some reason. That was the end of the KA-50 project, but the KA-52 kept going. In the combat and trials the pilots praised the KA-50 simple operation and capability to perform the duties of the two pilots because all the automation. And anyone can test it in the DCS to find out it is true (again, it requires one has the gaming setup made to replicate the real thing as close as possible, so throttle and joystick on table and using keyboard/mouse doesn't really show it).

Accidentally stumbled on this kind a Bluetooth or proprietary wireless model finger mouse. It can be found on Ebay with keywords: Mini 2.4G Wireless Mouse Innovative Finger Ring Mice For Computer PC Laptop And doesn't cost much, just about 7-10€ with free postage depending the model. Bought one for testing that how well it works for the DCS as you should be able nicely grab the joystick and when needed to use mouse, use just the flat surface next to you for it operation. Sadly the shipping usually takes 1-3 months so don't know so soon how well it works. As that could be solution for many problems that people have when they don't have a hand controllers in VR and can't find easily the mouse.

Mi-24P has as well the Auto Hover capability. The pilot uses rockets and gun but can't use the guided missiles, so yes for the "limited weapons". Even when the KA-50 has a more modern (digital) navigation system, I would say that it is not so much better than what a Mi-24P has. The lack of GPS doesn't make Mi-24 worse as you still have excellent doppler navigation system and problem really comes in very low visibility where you can't see past 100 meters or so. As where you need to play with the navigation system in KA-50 to create new waypoints or get targets location stored, in Mi-24 you can just scribble it on the paper map in a box and you know where you are and where you need to fly. We do not have gusts simulated in mountains, ridges and so a like. What makes every other conventional helicopter as safe and easy to fly in such scenarios compared to KA-50. Such wind simulation would make KA-50 superior for flight operations as you are far more stable and have better controllability. The KA-50 movable gun is much better in close ranges as you can use it with HMS to aim moving targets by just keeping your crosshair on the target and shoot same time. And at long range the KA-50 wins as you can observe and search targets easily with 7/23x Shkval, compared to 3/10x optical gunner sight. The KA-50 has since the launch been missing features, some important ones. Like Shkval filters and tracking modes. Non-existing contrast locking capability and Vikhr has been very nerfed against the air targets. So hopefully we get those fixed by implementing those. I have got so use to KA-50 single seat cockpit that it is very easy to perform all the tasks alone. Main gripe being that when need to put head down for inputting something to PVI-800 etc you don't have time to look outside so much. So going for a dual-cockpit will be little annoying, but as well refreshing. In a Mi-8 experience the pilot-commander does so much at the left seat that right seat is just assisting at that moment with a radio or with navigation (that we don't have, the AI co-pilot is not telling navigation corrections or selecting weapons for you, why you need to fly with the humans if you want all fun out. In Mi-24 you have all that split to two separate cockpits, so instead just working more as a team, you are now working even more alone as two separate people (connected with ICS). And that makes KA-50 maybe superior to Mi-24 as you don't need to play around. The huge benefit with KA-50 is when you fly in multiplayer as a group of hunters. In KA-50 you can split and separate as you see everyone's location on ABRIS and you can share the targeting data between players. In Mi-24 you can't do that than over radio. So you need to stick together more and just fly in formation, as the cooperation between Mi-24's isn't so great. I think for the single player the Mi-24 vs KA-50 there is not so much difference, but for multiplayer where you have multiple helicopters then the KA-50 wins by big.

So is your friend against the major Harrier engine performance reduction, that was done after your comment? That dramatically changed the Harrier flight characteristics as it had 1.5-2x too much thrust in it engine.... The interesting part is that Harrier systems are mostly incorrectly simulated, something that one can find from the real HUD videos and NATOPS where these errors are very carefully shown. So I wouldn't put much to "spot on" arguments if so. I have lately watched couple times the upcoming map interview video and it looks like that map is almost just 50 meters above the sea. It is very difficult to not see the lack of details and the flatness, texture trickery that works great at 30'000 ft but not at 30-1000 meters.

The main change that would be required on day 1 is the units to have a simulated view zones and LOS. We already have the basic delays based skill level, as well we have proper turret turn rates etc. But we have every unit with a perfect view around them all the time and perfect information about every unit inside their detection range, and they react immediately when they get LOS on them. Someone said that you could surprise a unit (green state) from the rear as they can't see there, but I have no other information about that. But those are very minor things that would make something but nothing serious after sometime with any helicopter etc.

I wish I could find the report from one repair depot commanding officer how Bradley front armor was thin that even a 12.7 mm rounds went through the front armor to engine or worst case in to driver. This was the first gulf war era report (I can only assume) as it was after second one in 2003-2004 when read it first time. It was one of the arguments calling for better armors that increased weight considerably and why the Stryker was a good choice to replace Bradley.

It is really required. Not now on the Mi-24 release, but very soon. You can't have proper combat with the current ground units. First you would need to make that behavior and damage modeling. That is like 5% of the problems that there are. Do you know what would happen when the enemy aircraft is detected by air defense and its heading etc is found out? The generic air warning is issued for the troops on the expected area. That means, every single unit on that area will change their situation and prepare for a possible air alarm. Vehicles are hidden, troops possible locations are changed, anti-air units are manned and put in full alert status, communications are prepared and warnings are followed. Just to get the blind spots requires to have visual cones and simulated LOS searching and tracking: Simulation between the crew members is required (delayed communication) Simulation between platoon etc is required (delayed communication, misunderstandings etc) The inaccuracy for the units to engage requires as well moral, stress, fear, obedience etc to be simulated, and that requires that every ground unit has basic training and tactics simulated so they know how to fight in simple form like when to open fire based to such simple things as commands, pre-planned sectors and ranges, enemy type and actions etc. As often you do not want to open fire even when you have a change to shoot once of the targets as your commands are to staying undetected for a scouting enemy units etc. We need proper behavior for the ground units, like they would stay inside forest waiting that enemy comes close, and then drive forward to acquire visual line of sight to enemy and engage them from concealment. Detach from the short engagement and possibly move to alternative position. Support infantry platoon they are attached to and perform more complex tactics than just shoot back and sit around. If someone wants just some suppression effects, they can just use simple scripts already available: What we have now doesn't cut anymore (has not for a decade). Every unit is required to have already a proper stats and factors that are utilized for their behavior, that is based to real military tactics and command structure. That is too much to ask for now, and what Mi-24P will be fighting against for few years is what we have now. The dynamic campaign is expected to be released 2021, so it is possible we get some changes.

As a 12.7 mm AP does go through the BTR-60, BTR-70 and possibly BTR-80 armor (7-10 mm armor on that one) at couple kilometers, but you need to be able hit it and at proper angle. So the 12.7 mm caliber is limited by the maximum effective range, but spalling is the real problem as you just need to penetrate about 2-3 mm to be able damage vehicle and kill person inside. What comes to cannon calibers, 20-30 mm autocannon etc with AP would just snap through at any distance and at much better angles (still IIRC < 60 degree hit angle required), but most importantly those already has a much better accuracy because more advanced aiming systems and more stable firing platforms. And why the HE shell should be devastating on direct impact, where even spall liners could let some spalling through and so on injure or damage vehicle some manner. These simulations would require that DCS model vehicles main parts at least properly, but not just that, DCS is required to simulate the most critical part of each vehicle - the crew. Even when you are inside a APC and 12.7 mm is started to shot at, you will steer away to cover because any of them can get through as easily as just ricochet, and closer you get to shooter then easier target you are and likelihood for destruction/death is multiplied. If someone would be in APC under fire of KA-50's 30 mm cannon, some people are likely dead or heavily injured in first burst.

Off-topic, but hat is Takt mode?

https://www.reddit.com/r/floggit/comments/nqs42j/when_wags_does_the_thing/ That tells everything one needs to know how important feature it is (yes, it is a fake video from some sport event).

The KA-50 went through at least two serial production standards, one was just before combat trials and there were few updated to same standard. And then after that, those units went to testing where based to feedback the new serial production standard was made. It was the Ministry of Defense that ordered new standard for production but funding was never really given even when issued. F-16 is very heavily modified as well, as one ground crew chief here said that you can have airbase without another identical F-16 there as each has something unique in them (software or hardware wise) even when being in same update program. How much differences there are between Apache fleet? Based to manufacturer and government upgrade programs and funding there are variants with major differences. So even there there are situation that multiple differences exist at the same time.

Nothin is assured, but they have said earlier that they are going to implement all the systems that were missing in the earlier version (not functional) like Shkval filters etc. ED is as well working with the new FLIR simulation for targeting pods and like, so one can assume that all optical targeting systems are overhauled and not just a FLIR imagery. As what we need is to get out of the "Object ID inside tracking gate = follow the object".

This incorrect DESG functionality is reported, but you don't find it as Razbam keeps moving valid open bug reports to "Resolved bugs" category incorrectly.... Your report tells the sub-mode logic in system. You should never be required to press OSB for boxing the DESG so you get designation, steering guidance and AUTO delivery (and allow releasing weapons in CCIP mode too). The designation (and targeting) systems logic is incorrect and should be rewritten.

Maybe the problem is that you do not "get it"? It is not about someone being "entitled" or like, but a word of advice how not to cause negativity toward your brand. Anyone can skip all the advices they ever receive, but is it then their fault when bad things happen that they could have avoided by doing thins differently like others did advice? Yes. This is not about someone demanding their specific schedule to be what every company should do. This is discussion that they should do something else than just sit silently for a year only because they do not understand value of active PR. They can pick anything else than either total silent, between once a year and every day. It is up to them, as long they keep their customers informed. Be present in the official DCS forum where your customers are. Keep them informed and interact with them by correcting false information ASAP etc. Many of these 3rd parties are very small, and all they just don't have people who know how to do PR or what value it is for company business when it is done well. It is a very common thing that there is no such effort it requires, even when it is so tiny that it takes weekly or monthly. If someone gives you advice how you can do better, it is not a complain. Maybe it is just You who feels entitled because You are tired for lack of information? Seriously, there is no one feeling entitled....

Shturm and Ataka guidance system... The main thing that separates Mi-24P from Mi-8MTV2. Cannon is already seen in Su-25 and KA-50 (when fixed), as well gunpods in Mi-8MTV2. The YakB would have been very interesting but now it is those missiles.

I Didn't know anything about that Iranian F-14 idea, it sound very interesting. Seems that we need those old cold war fighters to make dogfight interesting.

IMHO all the older tech is more interesting than latest and greatest. R-60 with limited angle to get a lock is interesting. Same thing like getting some old AIM-9 that would have similar limitations + others it should, but doesn't. Getting to position to launch these missiles is one of real challenges but it doesn't exist in DCS.

What are you? You are ED customer using DCS World. You are here to buy the products that either ED produce or some third party does. If you want to maximize your marketing, then you stay in contact with the customers (remember, customer means that you are a person belonging to target audience that are considering to buy something in the future. Customer doesn't mean that you need to pay for someone, a transaction is not required to be a customer). You have just based your argument that no one should never reveal any module for the DCS World until it is ready to be released. That is your case. In the PR you want to have good relationship with your customers, not bad one. You want to minimize the rumors, negativity, incorrect information etc. That means you need to be constantly in touch with the customers so that only correct information is out, that there is no guessing or speculation but you stay in control that everyone would know what is the situation. You don't need to reveal any exact schedules, not any personal details or anything about partners etc. You are making lots of excuses that why something is so impossible to be done, while talented people do such things daily and quickly. If someone can write a couple tweets for twitter, they can do so quickly amazing positive effect to their product. It is about understanding the context and status and knowing how to explain situations without going to minor details like who is writing the code and how many lines were done or anything like that. It is not like someone would need to be reporting a short sport event (couple hours) or longer one that takes days, just by inventing ways to be publishing something few times an hour or more even! That is totally wrong attitude. You should keep updating the status. If it is just in line of "We are making good progress, we had a few unexpected challenges by feedback by testers but all went fine and we are in happy". IF you go silent, then you are root to rumor mill. When you are not in control of the information and status, you are causing more trouble than anything else. Spending a 10 minutes a few times in a month does a lot for boosting the positive attitude and communications. It doesn't take more than that if you know how to. Did you read what I wrote? "We did mention about it 2 years ago.... Now go away and it is done when it is done". And here are people again waiting status report, as nothing is told or informed here, developers spending "hours in a day" just for Discord.... Do you know how much time it really takes to even read the backlog from previous day? Far longer than it takes to write a short update for weekly or monthly announcement.... Marketing is about communication, it is one-way direct information delivery to the customers. Even when you do not have anything to sell at the moment, you are directly selling your future product. If you do not market your product, no one will know about it. If you have existing customer base, you need to maintain relationship with it to keep them trusting to you and see that their loyalty and investment is valued by the company that their products they either are going to or have already purchased. "If you don't like the way government does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way wife does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way children's does their thing, just suck it up." "If you don't like the way customers talk about your products, just suck it up."

I used to stay in KA-50 for years, then I bought to A-10C when it was mature enough. Then when MiG-21Bis got out it was the go-to fighter. Then Mi-8 was go-to helicopter. For sometime I did a lot of jumping around for module to module only to find out that it is not wise, why I made "1-module-1-month" philosophy. Spending one month in one module gives enough time to just enjoy for it and refresh with its features etc (these days it doesn't take than few minutes regardless the module to remember how things works). More modules meant that less time for a A-10C, I think I spent just one month with the A-10C II as it was the old same old with just little different HOTAS functions. When I want to do CAS, my go-to module is the AV-8B N/A Harrier. It is everything that A-10C should be (as real plane wise) but just better (but not by DCS module wise). There is something in the Harrier that puts Warthog to shame, maybe the possibilities and the capabilities to complete so different tasks. In time I have started to enjoy more of the old school flying, why I would like to see A-10A instead A-10C. It would be far nicer to get it operating in full fidelity. So maybe then I would be spending far more time with the A-10 than Harrier.

IMHO these autopilot systems should be with virtual deadzone. So all possible joystick jittery etc is countered with 20% deadzone and slight moves. As joystick is not same thing as physical stick in cockpit.

IIRC the R-60 was earlier available for those, but since then has been removed.

Contrary, it is super easy and simple. You come to this forum, you post weekly or at least monthly a report that how you have progressed. 1) what is done/completed. 2) what is underwork. 3) what needs to be done. You clearly and openly tell the major challenges etc. Information is the key. People who think that it is on good shape needs to know that there is work to be done. Those who want to know what has been done, will get to know what has been done and what needs to be done. Everyone is happy. But if you will hide to discord or any other playroom than official forum, you are generating serious problems for yourself. Your customers can not find information, and information has no history but telephone effect. And hiding the progress is nothing good. Give a good, honest reasoning and almost all will understand it.