Fri13

I have recollection that the new FLIR is coming soon (project started a long time ago) and it should change all modules then. So likely there will then be a short period when the module developers implement new systems, but it should be fairly short period. Is it possible that F-16 is already adding some of the fruits of the development, as being a test subject or something for some of the new coming changes? But totally all modules with targeting pod should come with that alignment feature (but again, it should be possible be disabled in the mission difficulty settings so those who want it pre-aligned could get it so).

Previously it was the clock times when lock range was simply cut short or extended to full range. That made it silly that you were on the desert at 5:30 in full sun above horizon and you were limited to something, like 4 km. Yeah, nothing about that is implemented. It is simple "is the a 3D object origin inside targeting gate?" kind a system. The unlocked status should be the primary method by guiding missile manually as you can't get a good lock in many situations because system locks on contrast instead vehicle. But when the manual aiming is challenge itself as system starts moving suddenly to random direction and you can't stop it without lock button - that will reset the laser guidance and you lose missile.

I think he means a helicopter flying at 20-50 km/h NOE vs car moving 60-120 km/h.

Only for security is one to use burners phone, prepaid connection paid with cash, not to visit specific sites usually, not to have any accounts anywhere etc. As profiling even a random new internet device becomes very easy if one visit same place periodically. Even with style of writing one can be profiled. Question is always, who wants to see all that trouble to find it out who is the user? Or when the specific person is using what... Everyone has something to hide, that is not the question. It is what someone benefits from knowing it...

Has been already for a long time so. You can get easily lock on piece of fence but not on clear vehicle. It is very difficult to get a lock on aircraft against a sky as strongest contrast you can find there. You can get perfect lock on buildings, even their bottom part that is hundreds of meters below terrain for altitude placement reasons, by getting that through any terrain. These things are easy to find out in active pause mode and just trying out. But at this moment we are expecting a overhaul to black shark in any month now... So we need to make new bug reports when new system gets in place and if it doesn't work properly.

It could be rare, or could be obscured... Yes that I know that it was quickly gone to just four hardpoints in later models. I don't talk it about V as Version, it has just stuck to me that it is MTv2 as it was so written in the Steam pages and otherwise as MTV2 (and not as MTV-2 as specification). Have not remembered that what the V stand for, so thanks for reminding about it. It was odd that the MTV-2 was fairly short lived before MTV-3 appeared with only four pylons (like previous ones as well) but had three times more weapon profiles than MTV-2 had, and then they jumped to MTV-5. Seems that -2 and -3 were manufactured simultaneously for some time.

ED didn't mention anything else than "new datalink features"? As I don't recall those at all, why asking that what I have missed.

What those would have been?

Nice find for that. Tried to search for it but couldn't find it because I was looking it as F-16 one. At 0:55 part to check the six. Need to twist body pretty much to get eyes on the rear. The nice thing is that they have the canopy and cockpit to take support and pull them around and get to rest their head there. I don't need to do that kind twist to get to see past my six in Rift S. But i don't either has that nice support to lay my hand and back. Maybe I should add those as it would definitely come in use in some cases. I just removed the headrest part as I kept colliding my HMD on it when looking to rear. But having something on the shoulder level could be very nice addition!

So, we really don't know what exactly is coming and what was dropped? I haven't yet read newsletter so of there is more confirmed status...

Yep, gone thought the "glass cockpit" modernisation to become "one pilot KA-52". Why does Russia use US defense department standards? The BCU are at the rear but are routed through faucets to the launcher itself. It isn't possible to unmount the missile, launcher and then insert the BCU to it for normal shoulder launched operation?

That is the technical limitation. If it can not be launched, then it can't be. If it doesn't fit in, then it doesn't. If it can't be powered, then it can't. But leave all politics out and let the mission designers use all compatible weapons and systems as they see to fit, even outside their timeline if they so want by disabling the time filter (like use AIM-120C in 1991 mission) or if they want they can give 9999 of missiles in warehouse even if in reality just few dozens were produced at the time. This way mission designers can go to make most accurate historic events, or build plausible modern scenarios, or even go full for story mode and make a MiG-15's flying against modern enemies a la "Museum Relic". I hope with KA-50 we get to choose the wing type by some manner or stick to BS2 like version (with fixed systems etc) without really requiring to use BS3 to get Shkval working properly.

British and japanese at least opted to use stingers there. Looking the gulf war Apache videos, the contrasr locking was little odd, liked to show random parts to be tracked etc. But all would benefit from proper contrast lock system (Su-25T, Litening, ATFLIR, Harrier DMT, Apache etc) than just KA-50. It is likely part of FLIR upgrade that is coming from ED.

If the coolant bottle is in the central large tube, then it likely could have far more coolant than the chemical battery provides for 30-60 seconds normally. I could think that we get a fixed reticle that is IGLA boresight by just switching to A/A mode and then you get tone when you have a lock. I wouldn't even wait to see a artificial count down on the HUD for estimated power. I see that you would have as for now the inner/outter selection as nothing changes there. And then just get the A/A mode select the IGLA as nothing else can be there on third pylon (I hope so).

"Realistic loadouts" are mostly political loadouts. They get changed by politics and not by technical facts. That is why modules should support technically capable weapons and features, and then leave the politics out of the game and let mission designers to decide what are loadouts. If something is wanted by module developers, then make the official loadouts with political loadouts and time periods. Otherwise DCS should be removed from whole mission editor and only sell a official missions and campaigns that are all based to real history events and scenarios. And that point people would get angry. Like Apache has the wiring and lugs and all capabilities to carry Stingers, but for political reasons they are not allowed to have those loadouts and so on no training. USMC instead had a training programs for those and they simply loaded them for Army pilots for the training period. Like how many wants that Litening and ATFLIR to be removed from hornet? It didn't have it officially in 2005 because all went to D models or Super Hornets. Technically compatible and usable but official loadouts were without as Nitehawk pod was the used one at USMC and USN service in C hornets. The KA-50 was going through the standardization at the end of 2000 but never pushed to large scale mass production. We can't get final technical capabilities like a President-S because military secrets etc. I am happy that we could even get missing systems modeled and really hoping to get proper contrast detection system for Vikhr use.

Yeah, I made that mistake as well when only photos about it was from front. But they has just two missile tubes and the launcher is the middle part. The beauty is that you can have multiple launchers stacked together, so you can have 2/4 missiles joined together. The battery should be the faucet looking part below the missile tube. So each missile has own battery. But if you can wire the launcher to helicopters, you could get infinite power without chemical battery and so on nice operational time.

It wasn't fantasy. It was modeled after #25 that was in Chechnya and then in combat trials after that. Those few in the war received KABRIS just before entering there. They were in first production standard at the time and after feedback the second production standard was drafter from that experience and the combat trials. Around there is the time when Our #25 has ceased to exist as is, because it likely got upgraded to different capabilities with the #18. KA-52 was not an upgrade to KA-50, it was all the time the planned version from KA-50 to be the flight leader version. (ie. 3x KA-50 + 1x KA-52). The KA-52 project was behind the schedule as it had no funding. Even Kamov was paying the KA-50 units to be upgraded for the war. As they were so sure government buys it as deal was, so it was investment to get it shown. So it can be said that KA-50 BS3 is made well based to educated guess, but problem is that our cockpit is old steam cauged and TV monitor, not the glass cockpit one. But it would be better keep what is known than try to guess what is on all those displays etc. As third pylon doesn't really add anything hard to guess when it is available only for two IGLA launchers on both wings, and DCS has already offered the collective box with function to select them. First KA-52's didn't have third pylon. They were mostly same as KA-50 but with a radar screen for commander and new radios. So just enlarged nose section, added another person in and a radar. Later on the third pylon appears to KA-52 wing, when it cockpit was fully modernized with glass cockpit. Same time KA-50 had a glass cockpit se as the KA-52 but just for one pilot. As the KA-50 difference was the nose section to just behind the cockpit, they shared rest of the body. Same wing attachments and all. So it is safe to assume that if KA-50 would have been pursued forward and get maintained as KA-52 project that it too would have received the same wing as KA-52 got. This alone just to keep the strike group service and parts simpler. If you can share the wings, engines, landing gear, blades and all as much as possible from MFCD''s to individual parts etc, then just better. Fewer individual parts, better. Like radar for KA-52 while both get same optical targeting system. Exactly, you did know it. Designate targets for sharks and the pack would swarm the enemy from multiple directions and cooperated attacks etc. And that pack would be moved togther, serviced together and maintained together. Logistics should be as streamlined as possible for good war mahcine.

That is why SPO-10 has only quarter symbols with 45 degree accuracy as it couldn't do better. Why SPO-15 has about that 10 degree accuracy as it can't do better. What comes to ranges, it is easy to give a factor for radar mode that change the scale, and then use a range scale as you say with random error changes like +/-10% depending mode and angle etc.

It shows it always when the head moves, regardless even if you have 80 FPS. It is not low FPS effect. That is totally different look. The effect is not about low FPS. You can have 80 FPS and still you have all ghosting because double draw. The smoothing doesn't help there. 40/80 FPS is the Rift S framerates, not the 45/90 FPS. And this is very severe double frame drawing and ghosting without FPS causing it (you can have even steady 80 FPS and it is there, but only when the HMD moves, not when it stays stationary and action happens in the scene).

The mirror view of the DCS will show a great high FPS, even the constant 40 FPS if locked to it. It is not that PC can't produce enough FPS as everything is perfectly smooth when you just keep head stationary. Once you start to turn head it starts to draw double frames. It is easy to see in the circular movements that there are two frames drawn, the new one and then previous one, new one and previous one. So it is not that you are dropping frames as it is not just low frame rate but previous frames are drawn and it makes it look ghosting and jittery. But it happens only if the head is moving, so something to do with the tracking. Increasing illumination or spotlights are not a cause or solution for it.

The blowing up is the limitation of current damage modeling. But they would get destroyed. A typical APC is air tight vehicle, they are protected against small arms fire like 5.56-7.62 non-AP ones, but most are not protected against even 12.7 mm that gets through their armors. What you think that 57 mm does? Already 12.7 mm is enough to penetrate their armors, 20 mm is even more than enough. You don't need a 120/125 mm cannon to blow up a APC. You put a 57 mm APHE on the APC and it will get through in and blow whole interior. A pure AP ammo would go through both sides with severe spalling. Killing again everyone and whole vehicle. IFV's are not so much better, yes little more armor but it is again 57 mm cannon that we are talking about, not 7.62 or non-AP 12.7 mm. Damage is not overdone, the effect is limited. We have values like "smoking", "burning" and "blowing up, and then burning and smoking". We need to wait a new damage modeling to come to see actually better effects. Yeah, sounds pretty possible and valid. You don't need those than for the frontal section of the hull and the turret in the modern MBT's. The sides are weak, rear and roof are even more weak. Again, we need the proper damage modeling to come so we can start to have the minor damages. Like destroyed optics, antennas, wheels gone, tracks cut, engine broken various levels, hydraulic and batteries gone etc. Not to forget the most critical part, the crew. Lowered moral, fear, incapacitated from shock waves etc. A 57 mm cannon with APHE doesn't really lose much energy at 1000 meters as the key word is the "HE" part, not the AP part. HE doesn't care about the range, it is as effective as it explode same force regardless distance. You only need one good 12.7mm, 20 mm or 30mm round on the APC and it is gone. You can as well hit in bad angle with any of them that makes it bounce. You can shoot with the 120 mm APFSDS on APC and you might get zero effect because the arrow penetrates the whole hull like a hot knife through warm butter. Unless you happen to sit front of its path or hit something critical, it doesn't even cause spalling as it is so damn fast. That is why you want to use HEAT or similar that will actually blow the whole armor side etc.

I see the greatest benefit/advantage/help from the Mi-8 is to learn the various panels looks and functions. As then it makes easier to be familiar with the Mi-24P panels when you recognize the panel itself. As well learning the systems use order can come handy, as the logic might be there as well. The few characteristics like how engines behave or how they sound can be helpful too. But for flying it might be just two things that help, to be prepared which direction main rotor rotates and if coming from a UH-1H then that how much heavier and larger relative speaking it is. X

It starts to feel that everything gets reordered to be lined behind the Apache release. If the Mi-24P would get to be pushed behind the Apache release - I would call a treason It is already annoying to perform any "familiarization" with the Mi-8 for the combat operations in DCS as it should be so different to Mi-24P flight characteristics that they can't be really compared. Maybe at the moment the BS2 is closest for the speed and maneuverability for rocket runs and fixed gun run, but so many pilot has said that Mi-24P has the fixed wing characteristics that you just point it and it flies that direction, that it might be a shock to finally get to fly it.

Sad part is that VKB will be delivering the linear movement throttle as last one. http://forum.vkb-sim.pro/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5054 OK, versions? Prices? 1 - ARC STANDARD. Grips like in the picture, but with considerably more controls on the base, with "classic" mechanical detents. However, as electronic detents are now entering the market, we feel unfair to ask anything more than 200 bucks for such construction. Hence, RRP = 200 USD. - WHY ARC???? We were waiting for RAILS!!! THAT'S WHAT YOU PROMISED!!! - ARC is what is used in real aviation. We held extensive consultations with active pilots and engineers working for real aviation corporations. Even conservative Russian aircraft makers such as MIG and Sukhoi turned to arc throttles. However, if we promised, we deliver. Read to the end. 2 - ARC PREMIUM. Electronic detents and a couple of outstandingly sweet extras. RRP US$ 350-400. 3 - RAIL. Only offered as PREMIUM. All the same as ARC PREMIUM, except linear move. This version will be released the last due to extra complex detent solution for such layout. RRP US$ 400-450.

No. It is a bug. The laser code should zero out on landing because weight on wheels switch, and after take-off you would need to enter a valid laser code or there is none. If you do not enter the proper lase code, the LST mode is not available with SSS Aft but you will go straight to TV mode (only to that). And you can do the laser code entering by various methods, but it will be accepted and you do not need to be switching the DMT system Off and On. The laser code 1111 is a valid laser code and it is most powerful one (and 1788 is the weakest)