Fri13

Simply put: Scenario 1 with a Target Designation. 1. You have a DMT contrast locked on MBT 3 nmi ahead of you. That is Target Point 0 by default (T0). 2. You press TOO button in UFC. 3. The ARBS calculated target position is stored as Mark Point 1 (or next available in 1-10) to the system. You do not need to open EHSD to press MK# at the bottom of the screen (OSB 19) to store the designation. The new Mark Point doesn't become a Target Designation but it is maintained at the MBT ahead of you. Scenario 2 without a target designation. 1. You overfly a target/area. 2. You press TOO button in UFC. 3. Your latitude and longitude is read from the INS/GPS, the terrain/target height is measured using radar altimeter (closest return will be used, so tree top or closest hill, a roof of building etc) and deducted from your aircraft altitude (GPS, INS, Barometric etc), and Target Designation (T0) is created (the system does not use DTED for elevation). 4. Your plane Master Mode is automatically switched to A-G mode (if not already), your last used weapon is selected (if selected after Weight-On-Wheels sensor) and the weapon delivery mode (CCIP or AUTO) is selected that was selected with that weapon (if no weapon is selected already). 5. The system starts re-attack guidance for the pilot to the created Target Designation. This means that if you are in the NAV mode, your aircraft enters to INS targeting mode. Your right MFCD opens a DMT video (TV) with a EHSD compass rose with the navigation rose if you didn't have a FLIR active in it. On the left MFCD as I understand you should get a STORES page (as your right MFCD is navigating you). Simply, the system automatically prepares everything for a proper attack mode so pilot doesn't need to do anything than concentrate for flying and looking out for the target, turn Master Arm On and perform the attack (release weapons).

Left is when you have TPOD in specific mode, and each time you press NWS you jump one row to the right to see what it does. At the moment it likely is wrong as we shouldn't have "MAP DESG" feature that should be only for the A-G Radar MAP function. The EHSD is not a "MAP DESG" but INS designation for waypoint. When you don't have any designation, then EHSD OSB1 "DESG" is unboxed. And if you want to designate a waypoint, then you select the wanted waypoint and press "DESG" to box it. Now you have designated selected waypoint as INS designation. You can't move it any means outside HUD as it is as well HUD designation. On the moment you slave the TPOD to INS designation and then use TDC to move TPOD, it becomes TPOD designation. In a AV-8B II+ the radar MAP mode is its primary mode. And that is when you want to do a MAP designation is that you push SSS Aft to select A-G radar (as you don't have DMT) and you get to designate ground positions, and TPOD would then be slaved to those coordinates as accurately it could (float in the air without contrast lock). So example the HUD DESG -> HUD DESG -> NO DESG -> SNOWBLOW starts that you have a TPOD tracking something, then you stop tracking but TPOD is still slaved to last INS designation, third press will undesignate it and move TPOD to snowblow mode.

Is the clutch easy to open, do you know? As adding nyogel there would make it smooth and nicely dampened, but eliminate the friction so that it doesn't hold so well (basically remove the tightness effect)...

I don't think it would be a challenge for any person responsible for the effects to make a somewhat proper look. But we are waiting so many other proper effects like a proper CBU bomblets explosions and strikes etc that I think this would be so far in the list of "small things". AFAIK our ASW is limited at the moment that couple submarines we have can finally at least submerge.... It is something to the decade old situation that they couldn't. I have no idea what status even the torpedos have, but that sounds so wrong by so many ways that so basic things as even three different torpedo types doesn't exist (a gyro one, a target search capable and command guided). There is so huge untapped market in just naval actions that ED could make a lot of money by making "above par" quality naval combat simulation. No need to mention even simple old games that offer so much for that in simple manner that ED could easily do better, but the current master of the industry I think would be difficult if not impossible to challenge for a moment. But it is doable. Considering that naval operations are just in three layers. Air, Surface and Submerged. Things get even more challenging when adding a ground to it, shore operations and support etc. But that is already offered. Maybe the main challenge really is that we don't have a earth curvature that severely limits everything. Sea mines should be fairly simple subject in all considered that how radically different it is in the land warfare. So just dropping some mines to harbor port etc is easy. Dropping a torpedo from a bomber or helicopter would be cool. But that again screams for a KA-27.... Helicopter pilots would have plenty of things to do with the mining. Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24P and if KA-27 would come a thing, we would have possibility perform all kind fancy mining and ASW operations.

23. Realistic communications and everything based to that. 24. Requirement that information sharing is delayed, information is mispresented and incorrect. It can not be assumed to be accurate. Radio is the backbone of the modern military operations. Datalinks are just sub-mode for the radio. If a MBT platoon spots something, it should take a long time before any report of it will appear to F10 map. The information should be limited, update periods become longer, positions etc are inaccurate (especially enemy) and troops movement and locations just a estimations and generic most of the time. 25. Proper LOS and FOV simulation for every ground vehicle. A artillery battery shouldn't see anything that they can't visually see. So they should only react to coordinates and type of target etc. Delays and errors to occur. A HQ doesn't get to see and know every unit position (friendlies or enemy) but just the generic information of troops in contact, movement plans etc. All be delayed to the F10 map and only generic information there. So no individual MBT platoon units positions or status, just that a MBT platoon is in the generic area "advancing to west" and that enemy "is withdrawing to west and maintains contact to slow advancement". 26. Separate available information for the Combined Arms player and all players. On F10 map player gets only relevant information for their tasking. A pilot doesn't get to see all own troops positions pin point accuracy and status. Just generic ones as briefed. Fog of War to be real. Those who drive a tank in CA doesn't get to know everything that is happening around them but only direct information they can gather and where is their commander or what are the orders. If there is no datalink or radio updates between proper units, the Fog of War will deny accessibility to any information that can't be gathered as a vehicle crew, so F10 doesn't show where a aircraft flies or where enemy positions are. When player is a vehicle commander there is limited situational information but more direct information. When player is a F10 commander there is less direct information (to none) and large scale strategic information becomes only available (MBT company A somewhere in area south of X). A strategic map shouldn't tell any exact information from troops (position, status etc) as it can't be a direct information.

I think the underwater explosion modeling is enough as .50 cal bullet will make the proper splash effect, and then just have a area of effect damage for the ship in water as the water is anyways a flat surface where boats just moves over (with top of a wave animation as visual). Seamines, sonar buoys, torpedos etc... We need so many basic things to make the ASW and any shore operations for amphibious landing operations etc for marines. We have massive maps with all kind shores and landlines, but we don't have means to perform a required landing operations. And before that is possible, we need proper sea warfare etc.

In the history of the landmines there has been only two countries that has never in a wartime (or any military conflict) had lost any unused mines because they kept extremely accurate minefield maps after every deployment. Of course they didn't use any submunition rockets or bombs with mines either, but every mine was placed by hand and marked on the maps properly, even middle of the forests etc. The problem is really that they stay where they have been placed, and even with a chemical batteries for self-destruction after specific deployment time, they don't always work. So it is critical that after minefield layout you would go and retrieve them or at least disable them by blowing them up, because you should care about your own people after the war. So in DCS we would as well need to see a requirement for the player to design the minefield maps manually, as well by command structure when commanding to layout them. Example when a authority commands specific area to be mined, it would get automatically the minefield map generated for it (example when the infantry would be placing the mines to the wanted positions). If the player decides to place mines by own authority (example flying with Mi-8MTV2 with mine deployment sled) then it would be their responsibility to mark the generic areas to map by themselves) The mines would be required. We should again forget all the real world politics and such, and just make there a player responsibility to understand the downsides and upsides of mines. Especially that minefield map accuracy and following the rules there. There is no better defense between you and the enemy than a minefield, no one with any senses and wish to live does not attack on the fortified position that has mines laid around it. It is suicide. The mines primary effectiveness is the cosmetic effect. Anyone who has seen someone stepping or driving on the mine will forever remember the visual horror from it. Then they will remember the sounds of it and the fear that it laid out around everyone. This is something where we need again a moral system for the AI. As you would never get anyone to step to the minefield unless you are ready to kill them yourself in that position if they do not take their change to get through alive. There are many who oppose anti-infantry mines for moral reasons that they cause death to civilians, but that is the political part where you have troops that doesn't know how to use them, or use weapons that randomly scatter them to unknown locations where civilians move. Where a highly trained and caring militaries does not such mistakes but can deploy effectively the mines because the have moral in their operations in the begin. But in DCS we should have both, all of them. But before that we need as well the AI to have the moral system in them as well. Those that command minefields to be made, and those who are building them, and those who are stepping in them. As once AI enemy realizes that there is a minefield in area X * Y, it doesn't go there no matter how player would command them to move there, unless you have combat pioneers to clear you a path through it first. It is a complex military task to do, but it should be available as much as the mines are. Many modules in DCS would become completely different with proper mines implementation. Mi-8MTV2 and Mi-24P are both capable layout mines quickly. We have sub-munition bombs, rockets and other methods too. If we are talking about military simulation, there is not so much place for a "Killing is bad" moral questions when the whole game is about destroying a vehicle on the ground that has multiple person inside, or shooting down a another aircraft that has a another human inside. Sorry, but war is ugly, but we are all here for a reason and that is that we are not wanted to play some civilian airliner captain to do a 12 hour flight with autopilot... Let's just admit that. We seriously need so many things to be done properly in DCS that will deny, slow down, advance and speed mobilization. That is the modern war. We don't anymore have a thousands of men walking side by side to open field and stand in formation while other side is firing at you because your commanding officer gives them the first change to do so.... If we have a river and bridge over it, that bridge is critical component in the strategy to get over that river by majority of vehicles, unless your vehicle is designed to cross such rivers. So where example a BTR-60, BMP-1, PT-76 etc are fully amphibious many other ain't, be it trucks, some SAM systems, artillery units etc. Many needs time to prepare for crossing the water and that is something you don't do in a open combat area. How to deny the crossing elsewhere than from that bridge? You use mines, you fortify the river banks and mine them. You place them to positions where enemy could cross river without you having capability to destroy them before or after doing so. The combat is about denying units movement. Making bottlenecks where they can move and utilize various simple strategies and tactics. At some point enemy needs to come through some specific points because their objectives are in generic area and routes there are defended. And if we don't have a mines, we have limited changes to build defenses and use tactics. But that is challenging task to program for a AI to operate with mines. If we would get idiotic AI that would just rush their units through a minefield destroying 80% of them just to get to waypoint, it is no good. This is as well why we need the forests to become places where you do not go with vehicles, they should slow down seriously. They should have almost zero visibility to outside as infantry will destroy them in those places very easily as there is dozens of kill zones in there. We need infantry, we nee proper terrain functions and capabilities. We need so many basic things for ground units warfare that one can not just have vehicles rolling around on open fields and such because they have better armor or larger gun. Those things needs to be such that every meter is required to be fought for. Every forest is a threat, a obstacle, a challenge for attacker. And so on every forest is a cover, defense and benefit for every defender. We need possibilities and requirements to utilize roads realistic manner. Build a ambush positions by mining the sides of the roads for the ambush point so when the remaining vehicles will drive off the road, they drive to minefields. We need logic where a column doesn't move with 10 meter spread but actually 500 meter spread so you can only ambush one vehicle instead all. We need means to actually make a defense position on the road like lay a thick sand layer on it and mine it. Cut the trees on road to slow down the vehicle movement without clearing the obstacles. We need ways to blow up bridges at command (possible already with triggers etc but should be more as a action for the bridge by pioneers). We need trees denying vehicles movement to drive off roads so easily because every larger tree is a risk that they will even disable your MBT, even a smaller diameter ones can be too tough opponent. Why you don't go to forests to slow you down, risk get pinned down and flanked and destroyed. But if players don't have any reasons to try to care about their units because "we can always get more", it doesn't work. But dynamic campaign can not work properly without proper elements and requirements for defenses, offences etc. And mines are critical part of any defense.

I have setup you ask. I removed from one the springs so it is "non-centering, no-FF" joystick with dry clutch enabled. The dry clutch problem is that they are separate for both axis. So if you set them very tight then you will feel the double friction from both axis when moving diagonal. And that leads easily situation that you use joystick with just one axis at the time. But to get to that, you must have clutches almost full, and it is annoyingly strong. Tweaking and adjusting them properly you get them to keep joystick in place at any position. I think the best option is to have weakest springs to counter the stick gravity falling to sides, with some dry clutch to go against springs and hold joystick in place. I am considering to add Nygel 747 to the dry clutch surfaces, basically removing their capability to lock in place, in response to make them more smoother and dampened to be moved. And then maybe add spring force to counter gravity. But I am not sure, as then later removing that stuff from clutch will be requiring dissembling gimbal to clean dry clutches.... I have own mod to be added to another that adds real trim function, just still needs little tinkering. As I don't care about FF anymore when you can have proper trimmer other ways. I have as well 20 cm and 10 cm extensions, and I wouldn't take any joystick without any extension. You can get far with a lowest default springs #10 and then keep dry clutch off. With 20 cm extension you will have very free movement so maybe #20 or #30 springs could add enough centering that you don't need to hold joystick from falling to edges, but simply hold joystick from centering. Haven't tested that yet....

(It was said to me that is a real simulator using a modified DCS World.... http://avia-ts.ua/ there is btw Mi-17V-5 action too) So in that real simulator the pilots are utilizing simple single tap to get 1-2 rounds on target. Just place the CCIP on the target and one shot, correct if required and repeat. So likely for a difficult to spot targets and as well grouped targets with plenty of soft targets near by it is short burst to just saturate the vertical distance area with shells. The benefit of the KA-50 gun placement is that it is closer to CoG and so on far more accurate than those other helicopters cannons. You don't need a high speed fire rate if you are accurate in the first place. And instead making KA-50 gun as area of effect weapon, they use rockets for that purpose.

For me the release day is like a small Christmas eve.... And it is just as nice when it comes as surprise, than it is by knowing the exact day. When I do not want to know exact day is when it will be delayed, and even worse if it gets delayed twice. That is the time when I opt not to know it at all and let it be surprise when it comes out... Like when the Wags dropped the Mi-24P Introduction video while back, I got goosebumps because I misread it in first second "Mi-24P release trailer" as I was same time happy and sad that I was away from possibility to download it, and I was happy that it was out, only to realize a second later that it was just the first of the videos to start hyping the actual release to come in weeks from now... And one reason for the happy feelings is that I have pre-purchased it and I know that when it gets released, I will be even more happy. So it is like a waiting a Christmas present that you wished for.... With 100% certainty that it is a Mi-24P that is coming and not a some ugly Mi-2.... that I didn't want to... (actually I would love to see Mi-2 in DCS...). It is better for everyone to have just proper expectations and not to believe that everything is working in a beta and all is in place at early access. But even those will get disappointed if a module gets out of early access and it is not feature complete at all, after years of development...

This is not medical Hippocratic Oath "Do no harm" where if you don't know how to help someone, then don't try anything because doing harm would be wrong.... This is about making educated guesses, a base of science by making observations, making hypothesis that eventually lead to answers. Even if you don't have all the possible information at hand, you can make very good educated guesses that how things work or how they should work by using logic. If you can't get everything 100% correct, then it is better do things with 80% correct than do nothing because you are fearing that you would make something incorrect. I do agree there that when not knowing anything and regardless having access to information, it is incorrect to ignore that information and just do something based pure assumptions. That example has been major problem with the Razbam. Wild assumptions in the M2000C and Harrier for so basic features like a CCIP, CCRP, Radar etc systems. Even the real manuals say things are wrong and yet it takes time when developers start to insist things are correct because "as intended". If it takes higher authority to join to discussion (like with M2000C it took Ada pilots to enter the chat) before even developers start to understand that simple common knowledge from other systems allows to make educated guesses that are correct, but when those are purposely ignored it is causing trouble. If we would follow your argument, we wouldn't have anything in DCS because we can't do missiles, we can't do electronic warfare, we can't do a proper full avionic systems, we can't do even proper flight performances because military has said that those can not be used, so developers has opted to make something not so correct because classification... ED could very well go and implement a almost completely functional IFF systems to the DCS World without braking any laws, because the principles and logic in the IFF systems are very well known unclassified public information that everyone can find from any better equipped public library. There are nation public funded research papers about how IFF systems work and what is their purposes and everything. You just do not get the classified frequencies, code, encryptions etc. All that is anyways irrelevant for the game standpoint. ED could make a 70% proper IFF system just with unclassified information, use some educated guess methods to implement own simple code sharing system for multiplayer and mission editor (require players to input a invented code to the panel and that is it). In basic form it would be a same as shared password where guy in the guard yells "Halt! Password" to approaching personnel, that will reply with a proper password like "In the beginning....", if that is correct then the guard replies with the second part of the password like "god created the heavens and earth" to confirm the approaching party that it is a proper guard they are approaching. But in this case it would be numeric value to enter to the system... Like how much information would the ED need for the IR jammer pods in the KA-50? After all we have so simple IR counter measurement as generating a random check once a second that does a missile IR seeker lock on the flare or not. More flares you pump out, more checks are rolled every second and higher change you have that missile will lock on one and be gone. This even regardless if the flare is so far from the target that it should never be seen by the missile seeker. Same thing is with the radar missiles, where chaff is considered same way as a flare. Would it be so wrong to make the whole aircraft with those IR pods be rolling a virtual dice on missile seeker that does it lose a lock or not, once every second? Instead a 0.15 probability give it a 0.7 probability... There is no information required to know about the whole pods. They just turn toward primary threat and "beam it". All based to basic educated guess that how a IR seeker works, how a IR sources look like and what is the idea of IR jamming, again unclassified information. And no need to go any deep to model any lamps, any electronics, any pulse frequencies or powers etc. Just like chaff, flare etc are not properly modeled either. Just like radars are not properly modeled but based just to educated guesses and public unclassified information. So if we would not implement anything that we can't get completely correct, we would never have anything at all. Legally there are various methods across different countries, some applies and some not. But methods like "clean room design" exist. As well there are laws about patent searching, where you can be fined harder if in IP cases you are found searching patent databases for the infringed patent, than if you made something that just happened to do so without pre-knowledge that such patent existed. Just by watching the manufacturer demo video of the President-S system, one can get everything required to implement the IR pods for the KA-50. Everything for the 3D model, for the textures, for the pods rotation speed, for its reaction time, its wiring etc. Only reason really not to do it is that if the manufacturer is ready to sue you for any resemble of the system for design, copyright etc... Just like the Bell is suing companies from modeling a AH-1 and UH-1 in the games because design patents they have for them. But that is a legal case for any other than "Can I do it close-enough with educated guess?". The lack of even a basic IFF system in DCS is doing more harm than good. If we would have even little more advanced IFF system, the online multiplayer would change radically over night as risks to shoot down friendlies because they are "unknown" would increase dramatically because human and technical errors. But sure, if they shouldn't do it at all if they can't do it 100% correct in the first place....

There was no F-16 disaster... That is mostly just hardcore F-16 fans getting unpleased that it didn't come out with all features implemented. The Mi-24P has been in great shape already for long time. They have wanted from the start to make it pretty much done product even before F-16 was teased... Want to feel bad? Mi-24P has been teased since 2012.... That is 9 years already waited to get it. Don't you think that they know how anticipated Mi-24P has been for all these years? Same way as Apache....

A high speed attack plane with quick engagement and then back to base doesn't sound so interesting as Su-25A with more of a battlefield circling. It although does have interesting capability.... https://i.imgur.com/RIDaJ36.mp4 You could have gunpods firing backwards...

Interesting part is that Tacview can be wrong in first place too even when it records realtime gameplay. Has happened to me. In actual gameplay (realtime) I made a gun strafe at BTR. I shot a 25 round burst on target and all hit it (as gun is like sniper from 7000 ft). In a Tacview replay I shot target 2 meters above it, missing it by 5-7 meters. In a DCS track replay I shot 50 meters further from the target. Tacview version from the replay was about 100 meters off from the target. That is why I don't really care to provide track files for bug reports because they are usually invalid method to show the problem. Mostly proper method is to record the screen and show it from there that what happens. This, unless it is something very specific that replay could do. But even then back it up with screen video....

There should be some kind difference between frames and input, as otherwise you could never have any replay track work ever as different frame rate would give different result. Example 90 FPS machine repeats track from 82 fps machine would lead problem. It is more likely that input system has own capture times per second and if FPS sinks, then that can't either keep up properly.

ED should give you access to open/close a specific thread where you could post all the screenshots etc transferred from their Discord etc. You are doing big favor for the community by doing what developers should be doing as first thing...

So you have fire inside the cockpit, you can't see much because smoke, fragmented windshields, wounded and dead crew members screaming and transported people, your other engine is out, your aircraft keeps terrible noises and warning lights panel is like a Christmas tree, and you think that you would have better to fly 10-20 km to friendly areas? Have you thought that not every single enemy out there isn't a extremists believers who want to make YouTube videos by executing people? WORDING The concept of word usage and intended meaning adhered to in preparing this manual is as follows: 1. “Shall” has been used only when application of a procedure is mandatory. 2. “Should” has been used only when application of a procedure is recommended. 3. “May” and “need not” have been used only when application of a procedure is optional. 4. “Will” has been used only to indicate futurity, never to indicate any degree of requirement for application of a procedure. 5. Land immediately is self-explanatory. 6. Land as soon as possible means land at the first site at which a safe landing can be made. 7. Land as soon as practical means extended flight is not recommended. The landing and duration of flight is at the discretion of the pilot in command.

There should be multiple different engagement tactics for the anti-air gunners, but in DCS they are using just one and it is the lead. This gives full control of the target to avoid getting shot down by just predicting to be shot at from its current vector and speed, and change it constantly slightly and the AAA will miss you because on the moment the bullet left the barrel, target is already heading to different position. So player can just be jinxing as wanted to avoid being shot and as player has full control of timing then it is easy to perform the last maneuver so weapon can be released on the target. At closer ranges it becomes more challenging because bullets becomes so fast that you have less time and space to change vector but it still works. If we would get example a barrage mode, the AI would be shooting front of the target in plausible position. Not to really try to hit the target but force pilot to start looking the tracers and start to maneuver so it isn't flown in the stream of shells. Just jinxing around randomly doesn't anymore work as you have high risk to fly in to them. And no player has the stress to look where shells are flying and then need to fly between the streams, and this shrinks the opportunity window to attack successfully as avoiding getting shot down, trying to keep eye on the target (or even spot it) and then try to get release done properly and changes are a lot smaller. Right now the AI is idiotic with a simple random error for the aiming. That causes that AI will shoot even behind the target. Like, what kind a idiot the gunner needs to be to aim 5 degree behind the target in first place? And difference is basically this: Instead firing by knowing that flying target will not reverse its direction, you aim all to front of it randomly. There is a better change to hit it as now jinxing pre-maneuvering does more harm than good.

The old ones had just the heading to the hottest part and explode there. Like example here what you can hear about AIM-4 Falcon bein superior to AIM-9 because it was so accurate. https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/106-f-106-delta-dart/ The same case was with the old MANPADS. You just had missile that went to tailpipe and blowed up there. Then in the more modern missiles like Igla, you had logic that missile will in the final moment lead forward toward the center of the mass instead tail pipe. This so that the fragmentation pattern strikes to the frontal section as well where the airflow will disturb the plane and it will destroy it itself by its speed etc. The helicopters problem is that if you lose one main rotor blade, the flight is over. You have massive gyroscope above your head that is now destroying itself to pieces because unbalance. You lose the tail and flight is over as well. That thing is in Mi-24 basically just a hollow thin tail where inside of it there are few cables, wires and just a anti-torque axel. So ripping part of that skin open and it will not support its weight and forces and it will tear it itself up. And the hottest part is just behind the exhaust, blowing all the hot air around that tail. There is a lot of documented events even just from Afghanistan where missile hit but it just made helicopter to smoke by losing one engine or something and disappeared. No wreckage but still counted as a "kill" as every hit was counted as a kill. For long time the pilot was in the safest place. As in fighters if you lost the tail section controls or engine, you still managed to at least eject. But now when the missiles are designed to fly front of you and explode there so you are flying to the fan of fragmentation, you likely die right there. These days the primary method is the proximity fuze. One of the most guarded secrets at the WW2 era. The backup method is the old impact fuze so if you happen to hit the target that you get it go off. But it is better to have fragmentation spread to large area and hit the vehicle to all over its places as you have nicer change to cause massive damage than hitting something soft and go through or explode in small contained area. The difference is like trying to hit something with a single bullet from rifle, and shooting with a shotgun with dozens of pellets spread on the target area.

Yes, as I said, I know that. You do know that Russia holds periodically massive military exercises? They don't really train those things there. They invite even foreign observers in them to show their forces. neighborhood countries makes own analysis from their forces etc and use them to make their own doctrines as well. There is plenty of information that what are the Russian doctrinal use of the helicopter forces as it has been shown in their training against all kind possible enemies. Just the opposite. In the AirLand doctrine that was developed in the cold war era it is about utilizing helicopters for massive attacks behind the enemy lines. You don't stop there. You keep moving when attacking the enemy second wave units that are waiting the spearhead units to open the hole for the enemy defense that second wave will then push through. That is where the Mi-8 and MI-24 were designed to perform very well, fast route around the enemy front line or even through it, then deploy troops on enemy backdoor and engage there. And slip out then quickly. The Apache pilots doesn't even anymore know how to do a low level, pop-up attacks or high speed engagements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-AzSGRAza4) as it is not their use anymore. Russians know, but they utilize even in the europe the low level and high speeds even when performing defensive tactics.

There are different actions to be taken depending situation. 1) Land immediately 2) Land as soon as possible 3) Land when proper 4) RTB These can be found even on some NATOPS for the pilot to understand what the manual means on each error. The most severe is "land immediately" that means "GET DOWN NOW!". Second is like you can fly to own troops side for safety but then land. And third is to land example on allies airfields or closest airbase possible. And least one is that you abort mission and you fly properly back to base. When you have other engine destroyed, people injured etc, you get immediately down. You will need to be alone sometime, but you can always surrender. It is better than die by trying to get 1 km further etc.

Other is newsletter, yours is development report. Those are posted on same day, 26th February 2021. Weekly Newsletter: "The AH-64D is a particularly complex aircraft, but the team is making rapid progress. We would like to kindly inform you that the AH-64D pre-order is planned for the beginning of May 2021." Development report: "Here are some of the features that we are currently working on for Early Access. We look forward to giving you an exact date when pre-orders will begin. We expect it to be in the first week of May 2021." Don't be so rude by calling other twisting the reality.... And claim that what a newsletter was saying was not that OP quoted, when you quoted the development report and not newsletter. Fact is, both are talking about May. Other is more estimating but other is very clear about it. Neither one is not giving exact date as talks are about plans. And plans can change. So give a little more respect. It is better that ED does give estimations and updates them. First in years and quarters, and then in months and even weeks. And when time gets closer then in specific day. It is not wise to withdraw the information of the release schedules etc. Keep your customers informed. And that means that you keep updating your information. PR work is that. If you make a mistake, you release new announcement ASAP to correct the information. If you get lots of discussions with wrong information, you announce it to everywhere at once instead just one forum thread. It seems that those two posts were written by different people, from same information. (Don't worry, IRC that you blacklisted me because you didn't like being corrected, but that is just what I said to you that when you do ignore others then you don't get correct information as such people live in a bubble thinking that they are correct when they don't hear or see what happens outside of that bubble.)

I know that, they can do it, but they don't tactics like west Germany with Bo 105 or other west countries got as is that you fly just NOE and sneak to the position, launch and sneak out. That is the idea that Cobra and Apache was designed to be using. The Russian doctrinal use even today is speed and mobility if following their lately years trainings. Not to go in hover and fly below trees to small pockets and come up. There is that stupid myth always going that "Hind can't hover" because it is so rare to see it fighting from hover position in west Russia/East Europe.

I don't remember seeing the flames such massive from the original video, but the muzzle flashes look minor compared to those rear flames... Anyways the whole cannon is on fire when firing. The original video has the cockpit at night, and it is flashing like nothing. You barely can see anything else than just flashing when firing even when it is at side.

Not just that crazy flames, that will blind the pilot at night and will make wearing NVG little useless as it is bright as day on moment of shooting.... But look at that recoil as well. At high fire rate you have massive recoil downward. So you are not wanting to use that thing. Take the low rate and you get nicer 1-2 shots per trigger and you become better by sniping targets here and there. Will be interesting to see how accurately ED has modeled that recoil....