Fri13

That sounds much easier, and should be possible be set in the gamin devices as joysticks. Well the force feedback I think could be just overlooked as when most joysticks don't have it, then it is not there. So just adapting the system that joystick deflection in degrees would give correct amount of G's should be doable. For the player it is just easier as there is no force to pull, but then again more difficult as you don't feel forces so you need to look more of the instruments. But in time player would learn to recognize the joystick angles better and it would become easy to pull wanted G without looking HUD. Question is more that is ED willing to implement that kind system if it isn't there already? They have limited force they can really apply. We are talking maybe a 2.5 kg at max I think. There are people who have built own ones, modified existing ones by using stronger motors etc. But it is totally possible to in its force limits to make the increasing force from the center for wanted output value in the game like G-number. So more G's you are pulling then harder the joystick tries to center. Okay so there is no such modeling in the DCS for it. What is sad thing. I have always felt that while ED can make very good flight modeling, it is their input/output logic that is lacking severely. That there is missing the "feel" to the plane aerodynamic forces as the joystick input is just read as is, without any control system really sayin anything about it. Okay so that is why there has not been any reasons to even add any "safety features" in there but kept as is.

I don't know how to put it, but I think ED needs to redesign the whole input system for DCS. As there are lot of differences what controls players has and then how they can tweak the axis in it. Divide the real cyclic length (from the position where grip is to gimbal) squared and you get the required movement. So let's say that with 50 cm it is required to do a 5 mm movement, then at 25 cm length it is 2.5 mm. With 12 cm joystick it is 1.25 mm. With a 5 cm it is 0.6 mm movement. Add a spring force, mechanical stickiness, axis jittery, low resolution (8-bit) and all, and it becomes impossible. That is why I have for helicopter flying a 50 cm length (from gimbal axis to palm rest, so with two fingers it is little longer) as it makes possible to do all the small corrections without thinking the control. That is better said about the input system. I think that is the key that we would get to options a simpler value to select the proper length of the stick to have a acceptable compromise for the control input. I am believer that stick and joystick should match 1:1 in their movement range (hard to do with F-16 force stick) so full joystick deflection is full stick deflection. As right now example in the Gazelle the stick barely moves visually with full joystick movement. It is like stationary one that just is there. And it can be seen even in the cockpit videos from flight students and instructors that how much they need to wave the stick around to make the required corrections. And you can't have that kind movement in DCS with 1:1 ratio as the cyclic in cockpit doesn't like to move. Yeah, but could be improved. Like having a setting so that system would take in consideration the joystick real length to start with so it would be easier to tweak. Those who have a short joystick would get assisting features easily enabled to make the helicopter enjoyable. As hard fact is that not everyone has same gaming equipment and hardware, and not everyone has skill to fly with limits that DCS can offer. But it would be nice to have various settings across different gaming devices. As I don't think it is acceptable to expect gamers to buy all expensive helicopter controls to start to get as close as possible, or to force such settings to those who do. It is just very difficult to model a real control system to completely different kind.

The whole MWS kit in KA-50 was to be a part of the President-S system that has the "smartness" in it, to make a threat assessment for each launch. So when a launch is detected (the UV sensors are well capable to detect launches past 200 km even if environmental conditions applies, so they are very sensitive) the system tries to categorize it to "Cannon Fire" or "Small Arms Fire" and "Missile Launch" kind a way. And then if the threat is coming toward the helicopter, it will only then make the warning and track the threat for automatic counter measurement program at proper distance (so it will not launch flares on missile launch at 6 km distance but wait it to fly at 200-300 meters or so). If we do not get that "intelligence" then it would just be wasting flares on friendly launches next to you, for someone just firing a cannon at some distance and be blinking to every heat source there will be. Then it totally is reasonable to disable the whole sensor suite as you say, if you are not middle of nowhere. And what use it is if would get a single light lit up for warning, if the missile can hit you in any second from any direction without having any idea?

I think that Polychop said few months ago that they are 70% ready in the flight modeling for Kiowa. That gave doubts to many that they are going to complete the Kiowa in 2021 as it was like 9 months left at the time to get last 30% of it done. And if they now have changed to renew the gazelle flight model same time... It is just going to slow down both. I am happy to be wrong with such assessment as I would have liked to see Kiowa out in 2021 (hey, it is suppose to be "Year of Helicopters" after all!) but now it might go to 2022.

I don't get that "G command" part how to apply it to DCS. So as typically we are talking about a gaming devices like joysticks with centering spring and that being its only force. How it should be translated to the simulated stick that has the "same G command for a given stick force"? Like we have now possibly in DCS that joystick deflection from the center is linear to the control surfaces range. If in 0-100% scale in pitch the 50% is the stick centered, then 75% position is stick half way aft and it would translate that control surfaces are as well half way (75%) from their maximum deflection angle for pitching up, and that gives whatever G you can just get at that flight condition and a force feedback for that G you got? Or so should it be that (regardless we don't have forces in stick) the joystick angle like 75% to pitch up would translate always to example 5 G no matter of the flight condition as the system would turn control surfaces as required to give you that 5G? So you are "commanding G forces" by the joystick deflection angle, and we would be just missing the physical feedback to tell us the required pull force to stick? As the latter I imagine would make flying easier as you would be thinking in G's to pull. "I need to do 7G turn now" and you pull stick to known position and the system gives you that 7G turn on that position. Am I totally lost in that? So the ailerons are fully in pilot control and system can't do anything about it if pilot want to kill self with those but other surfaces has those partial authority to limit the command to help pilot not end to dangerous zone.

No need. You just need to push it momentarily forward to get the wanted forward angle and then return it to center for continuous forward flight. To me it seems that they have made the Gazelle to be flyable by a table-top joystick that is spring centering. I do not get any other reason to make it so wrong, than just make it flyable by large majority of the gamers who have no extension and have no non-centering/springless/FF joystick properly attached to between legs and collective and pedals and all. They say that they had a real Gazelle pilots to confirm the flight modeling. But that doesn't mean a thing as it requires the context that the pilots would need to validate it. If it is a "yeah, it doesn't perform crazy 360 turn in half a second" or "Yeah, you get to fly low and you can hover nicely" by using table top joystick and all, or even a gamepad. Then they can sign anything as "valid" as if they do not get the understanding that it should be a study level simulator where they should be able use even a real helicopter controls to fly on parking slot with a big flat TV front of the real helicopter... If someone is happy for having Gazelle regardless what is its flight modeling or input system modeling, then they are having trouble when things gets fixed or if they really believe real one flies like it. I was today flying Gazelle just to confirm those few things, and it is just funny that after you get past 50 km/h speed the flight happens with just the cyclic. You can take feets off from pedals, hand off from collective and just fly around with cyclic to do all maneuvers in tight streets and so on. But that is a dead horse to beat as Polychop is going to fix it.... So they know they need to fix it.

Does that mean the stick has same force constantly or that the force changes by the G to give a feedback of it? So where example Su-27S provided a AoA limiter, the F-15C doesn't have any other than numerical values on HUD, pilot feel on pants and stick forces? Why it couldn't be just copied as flight behavior alone with controls is totally different.... Thank you!

Thank you for making my brains have some gymnastics by trying to think a such behavior that wouldn't make a sense... Well, I recall that people went mental when the reports started to come about oversensitivity and odd behavior. Only that reporters got attacked by claims that Gazelle is perfection but it is speciality as it is so light small and has fancy SAS. I haven't read about that. I thought as well that they visit Gazelle after Kiowa is out and "polished" etc. As far I know it was that they needed to do new development software for the Kiowa and then use that same for Gazelle later on. But sooner we get fixed Gazelle, then better.

Wasn't the whole F-15 from the start designed to have the FBW control system? I am now surprised as I have thought that it had FBW system since the A model.

The Harrier was tested for automatic landing (shipboard-relative GPS) 15 years ago already. It did not go further even in last decade, and it has nothing to do with Scorpion helmet system. The Scorpion helmet has nothing to do with the JPALS (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System) that F-35B has already had a couple years for couple carriers. It is going to be added to all in the future. The helmet system that you talk is as well working with the JHMCS as it was tested on it but it as implemented to the F-35 helmet systems to show the pilots the data. But none of these has to do with a A-10C having these technologies as it is not relative to the helmet, and that DCS doesn't have a A-10C that is technically compatible with the system you are talking about.

So let me say it differently for others hypothetically. Let's say that one's joystick has +/- 35 degree gimbal movement. Applying a 0.5 degree tilt to the right causes Gazelle to continuously roll to the right at 0.5 degree a second. The rolling to right will not stop (in 2 seconds it is 1 degree roll to right, in 4 seconds it is 2 degrees, in 6 seconds it is 3 degrees etc) before the cyclic is returned back to center (0 degrees). And having the joystick centered keeps that X degrees roll angle to right infinitely, until joystick is tilted to left X degrees and then the Gazelle starts to roll to the left X degrees per second until joystick is again centered to 0 degrees. That is how fixed aircraft work and not like helicopters work.

I take anything extra from the current empty airbases etc. I have just one main requirement that is "unnegotiable". All those needs to be automatically in the place for the missions without mission designer required to manually place everything in there if the base settings is set so. If a parking slot is by any means set to be allocated for any respawn (by client or player or AI) then it should have all those in place. They should move to the location first if it is empty and pull the proper aircraft from nearest hangar or something if it doesn't exist there. IMHO the ED should anyways make a living airbases as default thing. Where troops are moving, vehicles are driving around, there would be some static aircraft in service etc. A bonus would be getting a option for the airbase to make it "functional" so that some random aircraft will actually start taking off and go for some random patrol and then return. Just like in the RAT script (Random Air Traffic) but without requiring to actually use these third party scripts. In a airports that has civilian aircraft, they would have their busy traffic going. It would make them more interesting to fly and operate by seeing the planes flying to some random directions (proper directions to foreign countries etc) and just disappear at the edge of the map of infinity (meaning you could chase it 500 km outside of the map but it would eventually just be "ghost". I wrote somewhere in a reply how to do the animations based how the aircraft is parked in the proper slot. So if the aircraft is not properly centered (red cross inside green zone) in its parking slot then either pilot needs to move it or a tug will come and move it to center of it. If the aircraft is centered inside the proper area, then all the service personnel and vehicles and such will come from the nearby service center/hall to correctly allocated positions (blue zones) around the slot. In that slot then personnel will move dynamically to around the aircraft (red dots etc). This would allow players to taxi to parking slots and be careful to get it in proper position. And then wait that the service personnel and equipment will arrive there if it was a uncalled one. Otherwise you would be taxiing to parking slot that was designated for you after landing and there is the ground crew already waiting you and guiding you properly in.

I can see this feature important for those who have a full 270 degree multi-projector home simulator where the view stays locked as they need to move their head in reality physically. So having a JHMCS/HMD separated from the view to be assigned for any axis (TrackIR) then it would allow them to use as well the helmet mounted system with TrackIR because they could set it to 1:1 and have it follow their head movement while projects draw everything stationary. For those who want to little modification for their TrackIR, you can add small transparent plastic caps over the TrackIR infra-red leds. You can buy something like this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/193705359885?hash=item2d19bd3a0d:g:xtIAAOSwmNtfg2Dt There are similar shaped like LED diodes are so you can just get it around the TrackIR lamps. But before so, sand it with fine sandpaper so it is not clear anymore. Then it will be frosted and it will show the IR light source on every direction. And you can then turn your head over 90 degree as the TrackIR can see the three IR spots and calculate the direction via that way.

Is the canopy suppose to be opened by just pulling the unlock lever without first opening the sealing lever? It seems to me that I should first require to unseal the canopy and only then get access to pull the unlocking lever.

The MiG canopy is currently opened by clicking a left edge of the cockpit, but it is as well the place for close it. While when the canopy is open, you can click the support bar at top to close the canopy as well. This makes it so in the VR hand controllers that when you move hand close to the left cockpit edge the canopy will open and close immediately as the zone is for both open/close. The "Open" part should be moved from cockpit edge to the canopy edge so it would move with the opening canopy high above you. And then if wanted to close the canopy, you need to click the support bar at the top to get it closed. This way accidental open/close/open series doesn't get triggered as the function to close is not on same zone as open is.

Agree. I wouldn't take Channel or Normandy for the faster jets than a L-39 or C-101. A-10C fits there nicely but it is already so slow to begin with. Flying example L-39 in those works for a navigation training and common sight seeing, but for that helicopters are already better because nicer visuals (sadly F-16 can't be used as it is so fast). The WW2 era maps are really more suited for WW2 era aircraft as said. IMHO the Caucasus would become far nicer if there would be community edition for tweaking the visuals (adding trees and buildings) that changes would get then later on voted to it officially. As after flying in Channel or Normandy it starts to feel that other maps are little "empty" in such details. Maybe that is why I don't do so much flying in Nevada and Persian Gulf as they are so empty mostly and I don't like their terrain desert textures and low resolution height maps. In Syria I have enjoyed flying just the long routes as there is fancy small places all over, like follow roads and you see small family building area or so.

All controls are modeled wrong and not just cyclic, and then there are other subjects like the 20 mm cannon has no recoil, the missiles has no recoil, the tail wind direction as I mentioned above post (in the end) is wrong (Gazelle flies within wind and can't turn into the wind as it has no authority, the wind pulls the tail instead pushes it) and various other from engine power to mass dynamics etc. Yes, it is the smallest one we have and only one with the European idea of the anti-tank helicopters with just few ATGM. I am waiting the Bo 105 PAH-1 with its six HOT missiles instead just four. Even when the Bo 105 was just a temporal helicopter to fill a waiting time to get a proper combat helicopter out (Eurocopter Tiger) and it is not really different from the Gazelle, it still be something unique. As the Gazelle and Bo are both underdogs. No armor, no good weapons, just small and agile and that is it. They never really developed anything like example Kiowa did with its mast mounted sight for laser designation, hellfires, rockets, good MG and doctrinal way to fly without doors and shoot from there etc.

Just like the US Army Air Mobility Research And Development Laboratory documentation about the Gazelle flight controls position, the 50% literally means center. X movement 0-100% scale the 50% means cyclic is at the center. Y movement 0-100% scale the 50% means cyclic is at the center. Collective 0-100% means collective max movement range from bottom at 0% and maximum up as 100%. Pedals are at 50% at center, 0% and 100% being corresponding full left and right. In the documentation the Center means physically center cyclic. Cyclic is not moved in any direction more than others. If you need to move cyclic to one direction to maintain hover or level flight, then it is off from center position (50%) and is measured in physical position for the status of flight. That is in reality, but that is not so in the Gazelle. And that is the problem. You will maintain cyclic at the center position regardless your speed, pedals etc. You are not required to correct controls positions to maintain attitude. As you quoted the book, it happened. The pilot went to too high right bank and he had cyclic in left stop and there was no more any authority in his cyclic to stop helicopter from rolling to right. Event lead to crash. This is same thing in many other helicopter cases, especially when higher winds come to play. You need to plan carefully your approach and which side you will turn as you do not have same turning capabilities to both sides (just like as your quoted book text says, Bo-105 has slow roll to the left, while faster roll authority to right. And if you come to turn to the left in the wind, you can find yourself that you have no authority to overcome the wind with cyclic etc). What is not required in the Gazelle either.... You have full authority to fly almost in any wind conditions (I have tested up to 60 meters per second and no effect to Gazelle) Yes it would take nose up. But the DCS: Gazelle does... Our DCS Gazelle doesn't have that. Here is only collective and pedals being used. First only the collective ramping up and down as maximum. Then only pedals used by going full left and full right. Maximum input is given with those two. And neither one is used simultaneously, but only one control at the time (first just collective, then only the pedals). The cyclic is not used at all. It is always centered (50%) People here claims that is a fully proper helicopter flight modeling and behavior. Not in forward flight but in hover etc. The Gazelle in DCS is not affected by the wind. It will only start to move you laterally to wind direction but it does not matter are you in which way or what attitude as the wind has no other effect than just "sliding you with it". The wind strength and direction matters for the helicopter attitude, cyclic and all. There are limits for max wind where helicopter is allowed to fly. Example for the Mi-8 IIRC it was about a 16 meters per second. Like the Mi-8MTV2 manual: Page 39: "Main rotor thrust varies strongly depending on atmospheric conditions: free air temperature (FAT), wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure at the altitude of the airfield. This variability necessitates performing a hover safety check prior to initiating any takeoff to ensure safe flight operations." Page 228: "Any headwind increases maximum takeoff weight: +200 kg at 5 m/s; +1200 kg at 10 m/s. Crosswind up to 5 m/s reduces performance by affecting the tail rotor and increasing engine power requirements. Reduce maximum takeoff weight by 200 kg in the presence of a crosswind of up to 5 m/s. At greater crosswind speeds, translational lift effects become more dominant. Performance reduction in tailwind conditions (blowback of hot exhaust gases into the exhaust system) is not modeled in the simulation. When calculating wind corrections for maximum hover weight, consider that wind speed and direction may vary during takeoff/landing. Assume the lowest maximum hover weight corresponding with possible wind variance. If wind conditions cannot be determined, assume poor hover conditions of 4-6 m/s tailwind." Page 268: "E. Wind speed during taxi must not exceed 15 m/s. In crosswind conditions, the helicopter tends to turn into the wind. Correct any uncommanded turning tendency with slight opposite pedal and any uncommanded roll with slight opposite cyclic." Page 288: "Vertical takeoff and landing on an incline in wind speeds up to 5 m/s are permissible from any wind heading. In wind conditions above 5 m/s, vertical takeoff and landing on an incline is permissible only into the wind and within above grade limitation guidelines. Always attempt to perform takeoff and landing from an incline in either a nose or right side up incline position. A nose up incline position is best." With a 16 m/s wind the Gazelle flies without any challenges any way wanted. When put a maximum 50 m/s at 10 m that makes 105 m/s wind at 500 m, then flying Mi-8 is crazy as you can only keep nose into wind, but you can fly like flying at high speed (180-250 km/h). With Gazelle things gets interesting as you can not turn into the wind. The tail is forcing you to fly within the wind. It is challenging to get Gazelle turn in the wind as you need to nose up and pull fancy vertical roll to get nose into wind and even then it will slip 180 degree very quickly as tail has zero authority to keep nose into the wind. So it is like flying a 250 km/h backwards without any problems. The Gazelle just does not follow real Gazelle flight controls, real helicopters control inputs requirements and it is even flying backward faster than other helicopter barely can forward. Gazelle Flight Controls max wind.miz Yes that mission is ridiculous with 50-106 m/s wind but it presents very well one of the flaws in Gazelle that I didn't realize, that its tail rotor effect for wind is inverted. You are headed to North, and the wind is blowing from the North (so you are flying into the wind). And Mi-8 will not have anti-torque rotor authority to turn within the wind (turn to South) as wind is blowing way too hard. But in Gazelle it is opposite, you have no authority to keep heading to North but you will flip heading to South. And you can apply full pedals to get Gazelle to point West or East through the South, but you can not turn Gazelle into the wind.

He was meaning that there is a own box in avionics bay and from there comes a own video feed cable to ABRIS that would behave as a display for it. This to overcome the requirement to have a additional display added to the cockpit for just the threat display. It is not his job to go such details in hypothetical brainstorming. As he said, have a switch next to KABRIS that will flip between the main mode or external video feed (the threat display). It is not his job to go such details in hypothetical brainstorming. It is not his job to go such details in hypothetical brainstorming. You have the avionics bay with the proper "black box" that process the data from sensors and only outputs the threat display over video feed to any display. You really do not understand the difference between a reasoning and discussion in hypothetical scenario for why something could be reasonable when already gone to "fantasy" (as you like to say). So why to nitpick about technical details about hypothetical scenario? And maybe the L-140 LWS is so simple device, each optical sensor is directly wired to each corresponding light in the box. When the sensor receives laser energy, it will generate a signal that gets to its own box, and from there that signal is sent to the box where corresponding light will lit up. There is no software in play, there is no graphical user interface to be done as it does not do anything else than just say "Laser energy detected in front left sensor". There is no logic programmed to tell that what direction or what kind laser energy it is other than ranging or guiding/designating one. It is just "Front sensor got painted by laser energy" and that is it. So do you know how much challenge it would take to program a digital computer that KABRIS is to receive those sensors signal and present it as some meaningful graphical interface on its screen, when just a small box with four lights in it will get lit up, and maybe is the top or bottom proportion of the sensor (could have a prism to detect the upper/bottom from horizon). I would be happy for the LWS box being used for it. It would just give a lot off false-alarms when wingman launches or someone even fires a cannon in couple kilometer distance etc. Basically you get warning on everything with that logic, while the President-S whole system logic is that it calculates the range of the launch, the missile direction (toward you, or flying somewhere else) as threat assessment and then it waits that the missile gets close to proper distance before it initiates the counter measurements and jamming process to maximize the effect.

That is what we have been saying.... When you roll to right and you have banking to right, you can not keep cyclic centered because the helicopter starts rolling more and more to right by forces. That is why you need to start applying a left cyclic to keep helicopter from flipping over to right by increasing forces. You have the cyclic at the full left, limited to maximum scale. (0-100% scale the 50% is center, so you are at 0% at that moment). If the roll continues to right, you have nothing to do as the cyclic is already maxed to left, and you will flip over. In gazelle you turn cyclic to right (ie. 55%) to start right bank. Then you return it to center (50%) to maintain right bank. There are no forces to flip gazelle around to right. When you want out of right bank, you just apply left cyclic (45%) to roll left and when you are in level you return cyclic to center (50%). This with all augmentation systems disabled... If you have sidewind, example blowing from the right, you should be required to apply right cyclic (into the wind) as otherwise wind will roll you over to left. But in gazelle the helicopter stays in level and it will only start to move (slip/slide) to left without any rolling. You don't need to apply cyclic to stay in level. This with all stabilization systems disabled.... With gazelle you never run out of the cyclic authority. You fly with cyclic centered. You don't need to use cyclic or pedals to fly with just the collective. You don't need to touch cyclic or collective to fly with just pedals. And you don't need to touch collective or pedals to just fly with cyclic. Gazelle flies like a airplane with all stabilization/augmentation systems disabled. If you don't apply anything (keep centered), it will go straight and level. With other helicopters you need to use all controls all the time to compensate each control changes in advance.

Harrier has FBW and it has this "HIGHLY ACCURATE NAVIGATION SYSTEM". Harrier is already in the game. (Yes, it system modeling is not that great, but those systems are already "there".) But Harrier is not funded for scorpion, the USMC opted for JHMCS already years ago. The deal is already done. Funds are allocated for the program and so on. Harrier doesn't have a autolanding system, it is not a secret. It is all hands on... Nothing else than pilot skills to get that plane down. Harrier is not a F-35B that has that feature. Because some civilian version has a synthetic runway, it doesn't mean that military version has it as well.

There you are wrong. - They have wished a new cloud system so clouds block line of sight in A2A, A2G and S2A combat. - They want the new FLIR system to start being affected by weather and temperature changes across the time of day so it wouldn't be so super easy to spot units. - They want proper targeting pods optical limitations modeled, so finding ground targets become challenge and getting target coordinates. - They want proper laser systems modeled so you can't just designate target from a 20 nmi and opposite side of vehicle etc. - They want proper weapons seeker limitations, fuze times, warhead effectiveness etc. - They want proper counter-measurement systems, flare, chaff, jammers and all. - They want proper radar detection capabilities, limited ranges, dynamic RCS, weather effects, and all. - They want proper service times for modules, not just a single year but the complete service history based to technical specifications and not to politics or religion. - They want improved damage systems that cause more sudden malfunctions middle of flight, that would require to through checklist in start up to minimize those. - They want more realistic munition flight dynamics, like bang-bang control surfaces and so on. - They want more realistic G forces effects to virtual pilots, the limited head movements in high G and seriously limited vision when doing so. As well having stamina modeled so one can't keep pulling high G constantly forever, especially on planes without G suite. - They want better AI for ground units that would understand and react to threats by hiding, concealing, smoking, moving etc. Communicate between units to share threat picture and work together to take them out. - They want more realistic SAM systems capabilities and doctrines to make pilots lives miserable and dangerous. They basically want game to become more realistic, more challenging, more risky, more demanding and more about experience of reality than people who just start calling others by names and use circular reasoning to try just stop more challenging and realistic scenarios from happening. There are as well those who want the latest and greatest, but they are as well those who then buy those latest and greatest. Like F/A-18C Lot 20 instead F/A-18A, or A-7 instead F-15E or F-4 instead F-14 or A-10A instead A-10C with latest tech... Luckily we are getting something older on the Russian side so we don't get Mi-28 or KA-52 and all fancy most modern things like west side goes. Mi-24P from 80-90's with old RWR is better than one Mi-35M with glass cockpit and latest electronics. Wishes to see a Mi-24D or V is welcomed with negativity "it is not so effective" when people want the "latest and greatest" with most powerful gun to just make things go "boom". And instead having a limited Falanga missile, some people want with latest Ataka with 8 km range and all.

ED said that they do not fix the SPO-15 in FC3 modules unless there come a reason to make one for a full fidelity module. It likely is a still in operational use, so the law is on the way. And that way they don't need to touch FC3 modules either at all as SPO-15 is not done by ED. Now our hope is that Razbam should keep their word and deliver MiG-23MLA with SPO-15 so we could get it that way to FC3 as well. Anyways it would be nicer to offer both variants in DCS of Mi-24P to simulate different era.

The ABRIS is the whole display. It is(was) sold as such in civilian market as well. What the President-S system is shown, it has a own small display with own function buttons around it. For a such system it has a lot of buttons in it. So trying to get that display to ABRIS will be interesting. But considering that system doesn't just have a IR jammer, it as well has the RF jammer for radar guided missiles and all, it needs to have more configuration options than just "Turn On/Off". When that system is as well designed to measure the launch distance (from the direction and vector) it will have in that the 1/2/4 km missile range and direction symbols. Likely it would. Maybe the switch next to it is just to switch it On/Off, and then have in main menu list a new L-370 page that you can rotate to and then use there the five buttons to configure it. But... What to configure if we don't get the turrets to perform the IR and RF jamming? Can we even have a automatic flare/chaff dispense or only just flares? Or could we configure the automatic display switching logic on/off? So as you say that when launch is detected that is a threat (coming toward KA-50) then it would perform the automatic warning, prepare counter measurement program and present it visually as missile estimated range and direction before executing CM program? Of course I think I would be happy to just get the LWS panel used for the missile launch as well. As if you could even just see in about 90 degree accuracy that where the missile is launched and automatic flare dispense on proper side, then you can perform proper maneuvers to get out of the area. But there are talks that it will be part of the ABRIS so just a new page there. No new display in cockpit or anything so fancy as it doesn't require to start re-ordering whole cockpit to get it there.

IMHO the ED has some problems with the input systems reaction speeds and forces across all modules. It is even more so for the WW2 where even slight movement (with 40 cm extension) can result fast responses. Never flown a WW2 era fighter but it just feels odd that these would be so sensitive that you just move stick around the tenth of the full stick movement range and be able perform crazy moves. And then there is always these pilot G effect problem that allows players to do these crazy negative G moves and high G pulls and just maintain excellent vision and look around capabilities. It is like questioning that why in the historic videos the pilots are flying so steady and "predictable" manner when in DCS you can just yank your aircraft around and pull crazy amount to avoid being shot. It is the constant feeling how everything is so "digital" and has such reaction as well. The G forces effect needs to be redone so that we can get the proper forces for pilot to be the consideration how to fly.