Fri13

Yes, the OP is doing exactly the cherry picking fallacy. He specifically shoots to weak points that are vulnerable for 57 mm caliber and then makes a case that whole 57mm is overpowered because you can take out all MBT's by ignoring the fact that he doesn't even try from any other part that would make those 57 mm cannons ineffective. As I pointed out, the new up coming damage modeling will improve these thins in the future by adding various damage effects and more improved damage zones. The current models can be seen in the 3D model viewer. Someone said that there are multiple sub zones in the MBT's so they ain't just "left side" and "front" so you get different results from hitting various parts in them. Nothing fancy, but just more than people think just "It has one HP value". Edit: Just made a simple test with ZSU-57 vs M1A2 Abrams and T-72B3 (likely has the high end damage modeling) and you could get M1A2 Abrams destroyed hitting for that very specific small area, maybe about 50 x 70 cm part with the AP ammo. Everything else was invulnerable for it. Sometimes it was possible get the HE shell damage it from that specific spot. Then just shooting to rear part and it was down almost everywhere. The T-72B3 was invulnerable almost against anything. Managed to blow up one from the rear shots with AP. Each of the vehicle is from 90 degree to 0 degree with 30 degree rotation from opposite side of the runway. But it can be easily see that those two MBT's are invulnerable for 57 mm rounds from every where than those couple spots at the rear. Just as they should. And in future the 57 mm will become far more effective than opposite. As hitting to skirt area will take out the tracks. You can destroy the optics, cannon, engine (if managing to shoot from the hill above them) or other equipment from roof gun to radio antennas and so on. Easiest targets will be the gun, wheels, tracks and optics. What the OP has done is just trying to make a case that 57 mm is too powerful against MBT's by cherry picking highly vulnerable small rear hit zones only. Hit those at any other areas and you are just wasting ammunition at the current damage modeling. ZSU-57_AP_value.miz

So you really claim that 57mm doesn't punch through a 20 mm of armor? No... Those armor values are equivalent protections. If you have 71 mm protection and you have penetrator capable go for 93 mm then it will go through. RHA is a equivalence value. The RHA value for the rear compartment is just a 80 mm in total. Sorry, but it is fully commander failure to open your most vulnerable parts to the enemy. The enemy of course is trying to utilize all their tactics to get that flanking opportunity. That is why you have tactics to get that. Why you are not going to stay in the area where you are open for multiple directions as you die for that. What is platoon leader failure to be ambushed in first place. Again you are beating a dead horse. Don't you understand that I said already that it is not a tank destroyer? The classification of "Tank Destroyer" is to have vehicle that main purpose is to only destroy other tanks. It can be slow as tortoise and so heavily armored from the front that it can take beating from front while having enough power to put any tank out of the action from the flanking positions. It doesn't even need to be a cannon that is used but it can be a simple ATGM to perform the role. Personal attack is not an argument. It is just signal that you have no valid argument and lost. They are tanks. They are just specifically IFV's and not MBT's. It is common misconception that "A tank" means only a MBT because people have only that in their mind. "Tank" is a very broad class that has multiple various other classifications under it. It is like "Aircraft", that includes all kind airplanes and helicopters and so on. Definition of "tank" does not say anything about quality of the armor, thickness or type. "Tank" doesn't say anything about the quality of the armament or capabilities. It just needs a weapon to be combat capable. And what would be that as problem or requirement? Again you are confusing yourself. A Tank vs Tank doesn't mean that they are equal in the performance. You are talkin about Tank vs Tank situation where other is a IFV and other is MBT. And you try to use that as your argument that I have claimed that IFV's are as well protected, armed and capable as MBT's. That I have not done. There is a reason why there are all kind different type of tanks. As not every is meant to be a MBT that is todays most common idea of the tanks. Before MBT there were other more well known classifications of the tanks as light, medium and heavy tanks (and as well super heavy tanks). There are as well others like a "Tankette" idea that even Germany is utilizing today as in Wiesel. Of course you might try to argue that no other tank is a tank than a MBT. But it would be in conflict with everything.

We are not talking about old LIPA now that was even blocked by the fuselage from frontal section. I remember that in the presentation years back it was said that in the testing not a single missile hit the protected helicopter, it being 1.0 performing. But there is a claim that there was a downed helicopter equipped with President-S. But don't know much about that. So 0.9-0.95 performance would be then more than accurate. Need to remember that the system can not react to multiple attacks simultaneously. So having a three missiles coming at you will trigger a huge flare show, but likely no IR turret is pointing at third missile. But at that moment the missile might be so blind that it doesn't matter anymore.

I am yet to see a production F-35 with a HUD as the whole point of it is that HUD was designed to be obsolete as the pilot helmet projects all the information to their view. Scorpion sight is as accurate as aircraft navigation system can be. It is true at the moment that we have too optimistic navigation instruments and accuracies in navigation systems, even in GPS assisted ones. But the M2000C one is enough for reliable landing finding as it is not about GPS or helmet/visor. But if your point is that these are currently in development and testing, then it doesn't matter if they are not compatible with the modules tech we have now in DCS. If you can't just grab a new helmet and have it do all the work without connection to aircraft and requirement to have make changes to get the helmet paired with the aircraft, then it doesn't matter. I don't know what exact software suite A-10C II should be presenting but I have recollection that people who knew better said that it is mix of the couple suites and not exactly one. But if Scorpion should already have those features and capabilities then why not... You just need to show ED the information that and they listen. Likely ED has already made their minds and you can't get them to reconsider things no matter what. Edit: Scorpion is in the end just a another HMS system. It doesn't provide to aircraft navigation or controls anything to make them fly themselves or assist in landings or flying a route etc. All those needs to be in the aircraft itself already. Like the Thales marketing video about having these systems in civilian airplane requires that you have GPS and other information connection from plane to their system. As otherwise the scorpion can not have information from aircraft like AoA or slip information and present them on it. You could get basic GPS location, GPS ground speed, GPS altitude and electromagnetic compass to give view direction as standalone unit. And load some digital terrain data like airports locations, lengths, and then tall buildings and terrain altitudes at approach/take-off paths. But you really wouldn't be flying with that thing as you have no means to get flight path marker on HUD, artificial horizon or any accurate required information from the plane to it and align it with plane to be able use it land in zero visibility. As if most accurate thing pilot could do is to try align it to plane by adjusting it's position in forehead..... Then pilots are going to die as they can be pointing where ever in time.

AV-8B N/A and AV-8B+ are already funded to receive a JHMCS in 2023. Just a few years before retirement. Same time there is coming compatibility to AIM-120C, AIM-9X II, LINK-16 and couple other new upgrades. But one thing I know is that Harrier doesn't have a automatic landing function. It is all hands on. Best you get is Reaction Control System (RCS) and it is nowhere automatic. There is nothing denying you to flip over or assist you to perform proper landing. What comes to F-35B, that has all such things. It flies by itself and it has all automatic carrier landing features and assisted carrier landing and all. What you need to do in it is just to want to do something and you move stick or throttle and system drives and park it by itself. But Harrier has nothing that kind as far I know. It has AWLS: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/212206-icls-on-lha https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/159087-about-the-awls-all-weather-landing-system-or-ils-by-another-name/ DCS doesn't support AWLS at the moment.

The round in this case is not HE, and not a simple APHE. It is APCBC-HE-T. Quick explanation: "The APCBC munition type was an evolutionary development of the early war armour-piercing capped (APC) shell, itself an evolution of the more basic AP (armor-piercing or solid shot) and APHE (armor-piercing high-explosive) shell types. With respect to armored land warfare, the primary intended function of both AP and APHE shell types was to penetrate an enemy armored vehicle and incapacitate the vehicle and crew by internal explosion (in the case of APHE) or fragmentation/ricochet (in the case of AP rounds)." "Early World War II-era uncapped AP projectiles fired from high-velocity guns were able to penetrate about twice their caliber at close range (100 m). At longer ranges (500–1,000 m), this dropped to 1.5–1.1 calibers due to the poor ballistic shape and higher drag of the smaller-diameter early projectiles. Later in the conflict, APCBC fired at close range (100 m) from large-caliber, high-velocity guns (75–128 mm) were able to penetrate a much greater thickness of armor in relation to their caliber (2.5 times) and also a greater thickness (2–1.75 times) at longer ranges (1,500–2,000 m)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC The side armors in the modern 80-90's MBT's are fairly weak for AP rounds. We are talkin just tens of millimeters thickness. Example here is a T-80U turret armor thickness: The similar case is with any modern MBT. You want enemy to stay 30 degree angle from your front. Not to allow it to engage you from the sides and especially not to your rear section from any direction. That is the basis of any MBT warfare that you keep your hull and your turret facing the enemy. You turn those toward the threat as your maximum armor is only in the front of hull and turret. If you allow a enemy vehicle like ZSU-57 to slip to your flank, or to shoot you to your flank or rear, you have then completely failed as a commander by opening that shot. (And again this is partially problem in DCS as we do not have infantry modeled in the game as should). Again, that is the limitation of the current damage modeling that is fully functional, damaged (smoking) and destroyed (exploded + burning etc). But example what comes to Leopard 2, the side armors are the fuel tanks behind just about 25 mm of armor. Behind that is about 50 mm of armor before you are fully penetrated completely to the crew compartment. The fuel doesn't add much to the armor, but somewhat. IFV's are tanks, but not MBT's. MBT's are as well tanks but not IFV's. Both are AFV's, but not all AFV's are tracked but can be wheeled. But none of the tanks are wheeled as definition requires to be tracked. The modern (80's to this date) MBT's front armor is something that 57mm will never penetrate. And as can be seen OP didn't even take a shot from front because it is useless. Instead the OP was aiming to vulnerable side armors, to the rear parts etc where the armors are thin and very vulnerable to kill the crew and the engines (in DCS that means full kill at this moment). "Tank destroyer" has on classification, and ZSU-57 isn't such because it is a SPAAG by its classification. It just has capability as well engage ground targets effectively to protect itself if really required. The 57 mm cannon is not a 120 mm one. But it is neither a 30 mm one. And it will take down even modern MBT if you give it a change to get to shoot you at such position that you would not want anything to be firing at you with anything.

You don't know anything. And it doesn't matter as you can invent what ever you want to justify your believes. You suggested things that just wouldn't make sense. A 57 mm shouldn't be made act like a 20 mm because someone thinks it is "too powerful because it takes a MBT out with two shots". Please explain how does a MBT have its thickest armor protection all around its hull and turret? Please explain how does a firing distance lower the High Explosive effectiveness on the armor? Do not blab around all you want, please explain why it is true?

In VR there is a written rule that you do not move the VR camera position if the HMD is moving. Meaning you do not collide the VR camera on something because the HMD can keep moving. Otherwise you get instant nausea. There are other means to come around that. - Blackout - Blinders - Warning text - Desaturation/Blurring Some of those are that will guide the player to keep their virtual head inside a walls, windows etc. Like if you would have a greyscale view with blurred vision, you would not see anything well but you would pull your head out to see something again. Going blackout would as well work. Getting a G-force effect that your vision would shrink and you see just "end of the tunnel" something, it would work as well.

The MWS is part of the President-S. We are just lacking the IR lamp turrets. ED will wire the MWS to ABRIS somehow to show the missile direction/range and if it is a threat or false alarm (that might be left away). It is already interesting that manufacturer has released video that shows already most required informations to implement it to the game. The missing part is really the avionics integration. And it likely shouldn't be part of the ABRIS so that is ED own custom idea. I am against that as we know that system has own display with even two pages visible. We already know from public sources that how system work. You have UV sensors (places already there), you have flare dispensers (already implemented), and you have IR turrets (look, size etc known publicly). You don't need to know turret rotation speed or any frequency or strength of IR turrets etc the game doesn't even model those. All that is required to program is that if missile is fired toward KA-50, the system will alarm pilot (if missile is not coming to KA-50, it is not alarmed as it is not a threat) and wait missile to get to a proper range and then initiate automatic flare/chaff dispensary, turrets turns toward missile and starts emitting and missile is guided away. There is no need for algorithms, no wiring, no power requirements, nothing like that from a game point of view. Give it a 0.95 propability to guide missile away and you have it in. That is how other game developers can do it as public information is already enough. And as ED is going to guess it panel and all, they can guess a lot of things as well from public information. If it is illegal that manufacturer publish these things in youtube etc by themselves... Then ED can't touch it. But if manufacturer can publish it, then ED could only do a IP infringement... And that is again the case about KA-50 overall and it UV sensors, the IGLA system and everything....

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.