Fri13

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)

The whole view like "stuttering"? If it is like double drawing the frames only when you move head, then that has existed since Rift CV1. It happens sometimes that VR device gets to odd mode where the tracking is no good and all. I have tried to source that for years, but what I have found is that it has something to do with the DCS World process and memory how it connects to Oculus software. Because sometimes it starts right middle of the main menu, sometimes after loading a mission. And main way to get rid of it is to shut down the DCS. And when DCS process is killed, even the Oculus main menu can stutter same way for a while, and then like 15-30 seconds after that it is all away. Launch DCS again and it works correctly. One time it was such that you got away of it by triggering the proximity sensor in the VR to shut off the lenses and then back. But it doesn't work always.

Let "the Gun Jesus" say something about that stuff.... I don't remember what video it was, but he talked about this that how you could use US .50 cal ammunition on the Russian guns, but there is the technical fact that you really do not want to do that. By the numbers you can fit it inside but it had some severe issues to do so.

It isn't. Why we need the bag.

Yes, it is amazing feature. I was first happy that 2.7 changelog included a box form as trigger. Until I tried it and realized that it meant that you can set it in any shape you want by moving all four points.

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is so far away that you can not spot it by any means from peripheral vision. You need to get your fovea on it. And you need to actually spot it. That is why there are trained search patterns and methods to scan visually the areas. You can not just turn head on generic direction and spot everything in 90 degree field of view that is moving. We are talking here about dog fight, the enemy is "coming at you" just in a couple kilometer radius. It is tiny, it is small, and it is stationary relative to your position. The aircraft stops moving already in the lag or lead or pure pursuit modes at the distance. It is question of relativity of the distances. How many degrees per second does the target move, how strong contrast it has to even become visible even. A black object on bright smooth blue sky is easy to spot, but that same black object on confusing background like ground and it becomes almost invisible. And are you doing a combat spread in a 1 vs 1 dog fight? This is not about flying in a patrol and searching possible aircraft. This is about BFM and such. You have already been engaged, you have already merged, the enemy is at your six coming for the kill. You can't see it because you are maneuvering and pulling G's and you have no means to move your body to get a required good visual to your rear on target that is stationary to your point of view, possibly even almost invisible. And in the such scenarios it is not enough that you spot where possibly a enemy fighter is, you need to recognize its pattern, you need to see the details so you can see that what is its attitude, so you can estimate its energy state, you can see what it can do. And nothing of those you can do with peripheral vision, you need to get the fovea on the target to get the idea of it. So you do not respect others because you are trying to refute things that you didn't read... Good thing. If you think you have better things to do in your time, it is better then start to read so you are not just repeating your arguments that has been countered in the first place as you are just wasting even more your time. Fact stands, TrackIR does not have the limitations that the real pilots has. And the VR is far closer to the reality in respect of those limitations. Players has custom to use TrackIR because it gives them artificial capability to look around, a advantage that is unfair over VR users. No one wants to be blind to enemy that is behind them, that is why you do not want to give that position for them. That is why you don't give them a means to get to be at your six. Why you don't need to look at there. The common youtube channels dog fights etc are boring as people uses trackIR and they give the picture that real fighting is without G effects and that you can just turn around your vision perfectly while pulling maneuvers and have perfect visibility to rear without any challenges. It just leads to the air quake elements.

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is stationary no matter is it a WW2 or is it a Eurofighter Typhoon. It doesn't move relative to your view point no matter where it is around you. And that is why you perform the turns to check your six because you can't see there well when flying still. You do the turn, the wingman does the turn. If your wingman is not like 2 miles to your side, they can't see much behind you. What is not helping you because 1) you can't move your head to even see there anyways. 2) You can't spot something moving that is stationary relative to you. Your whole argument point is covered and countered in my "great big wall of text". You just didn't read it to accept that your argument has no point.

For anything else than a MBT's the 57 mm would just destroy them. Even the MBT side armor is questionable as Sweden has shown with the 40 mm Bofors gun on the CV9040, but that is more about getting bottom part on tracks and AP round. But you know this as you are skipping every MBT that has their only strong armor in their front, just to go their side armors that are weak. A modern MBT can have at front a 500-1500 mm RHA values, but at the rear it can be as low as 55 mm. These things gets fixed when new damage modeling comes to ground units and we start to get proper modeling of the AP and HE ammunition.

Movement, that the chasing fighter doesn't have. When you have a fighter behind you, it is maintaining a pure pursuit, then it is stationary relative to you. Even if the pilot would be pulling slight lag or lead pursuit, it is still relative to stationary to you. And the human eye is not so sensitive that it can so easily detect a similar colored (again, aircrafts camouflages and all) low contrast tiny speckle that barely moves at all. That is why you need to get that fighter in your fovea and keep it there. Do not lose eye contact with it. Maintain it or you lose it. You can acquire it when it is so obvious that it is making huge movement across your field of view. But not when it is almost stationary to you. No it is not enough. That is in TrackIR because you have unrealistic rearward visibility, you have resolution that increase nicely objects contrast to whole field of view and you can just fix your fovea on your six without any problems at all. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-vfc-13-adversary-pilot-explains-how-you-can-fly-and-fight-in-the-iconic-f-5-tiger-ii/?fbclid=IwAR2wH1JMsU4EzlRDc_9hj8IXkDQuWrUe_kYn6QUnK70Q92-lDRACGlTK-Sw "The F-5E was a peculiar bird (VFC-13 currently flies F-5Ns, most of which were procured after 2006 from Switzerland). It was tiny for a fighter, especially one with two engines. It had no modern systems, unless you consider hydraulics to be modern. No Anti-Skid. No INS nor GPS. No HUD. Just a simple old-fashioned pulse radar and a basic gunsight. It had no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures, other than the fact that when pointed nose-on to an adversary it completely disappeared, like a cloaking device being activated. There was no sophisticated technology required to enable the disappearing act, just the fact that the pilot sat in a cramped little cockpit on the head of a needle with tiny, razor thin wings behind him. And when that needle was nose on to a Tomcat or Hornet pilot who had lost radar lock or situational awareness, his skin would crawl and the hairs on the back of his neck would bristle. Because he knew that the very next time he was sure of where the bandit was, was likely to be when he heard the dreaded, “Trigger down, tracking, tracking…” It was a plane perfectly suited to the role of adversary; fast, simple, nimble, eminently beatable by a competently flown front-line fighter; but capable of pouncing on an error and creating a learning point in the form of a simulated kill. If you lost to the F-5, you had something to learn, and that’s the way it should be." When you are trying to find someone that you know is at your six, coming straight behind you. You need to get your fovea in that target. You need to get it separated from the background by some means like rolling while pulling, and if that means you lose air speed etc, then you likely die for that you are searching it. That is the greatest feature of the backseater that they will keep their eyes on the threat all the time. Their job is to focus to that one thing and not to lose it because they needed to check a HUD or something. The VR does block the extreme peripheral vision, but you wouldn't be pulling high G's and pushing your head behind the seat to see your six. You are not there pulling 9 G's and having body rotated out of the seat and having excellent peripheral vision as you can't move your body. Your 5 kg head weights 45 kg at that moment. Your whole 80 kg body weights 720 kg. You can't move your arms, you can't move your legs... You just concentrate for the pulling the high G. Your vision is already blurred, it narrows down. You lose colors, you lose vision to around. And more G's you pull, more you need to use your center cone of your vision. You have all the glares, all the reflections and such from your canopy. From the surrounding environment, the sun and all. And you need to try and find that one slight grey speckle somewhere at your six where you don't know in which side or where. TrackIR is like parkin a SUV in empty parking slot. You can easily reach back of the seat to look back and you can put your head out of the window to look outside and you can have all time to look the mirrors and everything. And you do this all just by moving head by 15-20 degrees around. All the time your eyes are fixated to forward section to narrow less than 50 degree field of view. You can glance back and worth at instant speed and have automatic head movement behind the seat. The VR does nothing of that. You need to get your fovea on the target and that is in the limits of the eye muscle rotation. You can not just flick head 10 degree to left to check six but you need to actually turn your head that 120 degree to side. And that is not enough because you only see that the ejection seat is blocking your view. You need to actually lift your body from the chair to move further to your side so you can look around the ejection seat. Then what if you find the target at your six? What does it really matter? Why not use the mirrors in your fighter that shows it nicely? Why not use some piloting skills to actually shake the threat away? Make it overshoot, make it challenge for him to get the lining shot? The whole concept of the "Look at your six" is unrealistic because you can not do that when you are maneuvering for your life. You need to find ways to move head and support it. You need to know already where the target is going to appear based your move and have eyes looking in there instead just "I can just look 45 degree to my left and I will spot it because my eyes are extremely sensitive to movement at my six". Even when driving a car, there is a such a thing as "blind spot". That is the area between the mirror and your flank. And if you do not literally look over your shoulder that what is happening behind your 8-4 line, you can crash on someone else just next to you. A hue large truck, a van, a big orange ambulance... It doesn't really matter because your field of view is extremely poor at your peripheral vision. When you are stressed, focused to find something, you might not realize it even if you are lookin straight at it. Yes they are not highly experienced ones, but it doesn't get so that they start to avoid all the G forces effects to their vision and to their breathing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUsyeKAZvxQ With experience you get to be comfortable at the 6-7 G forces but it is still very heavy for the body as 5 kg head weights 30-35 kg. And you can get easily injured by doing radical moves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDji9a_dqU The TrackIR problem is that it is way too easy and fast to look your six. The VR at least forces you to use your real head movements. And what you can't see in the extreme peripheral vision is not critical if you have already threat to your six as you shouldn't be flying by lookin to your six. If I need to look to six in turning fight, I don't do it to look around my sides as seat is blocking my wing. There are support struts an all on the way. It is easier to just put head to side of the headrest and look above the whole airplane. You get good visual to where your threat is as it is not straight at your 6, but higher than that as you are pulling upward from it. VR requires to move body totally different realistic manner but as we don't have G forces, we don't have restrictions for that either. But it is more realistic and immersive than TrackIR is ever. And thinking that dog fighting in DCS with TrackIR is realistic, it is not. It is just far more easier when you don't need to actually look around and find the target. It is almost same thing as using a snap view to closest enemy aircraft "Ah, there it is" and then back. It can be seen easily in youtube videos like:

And Arcade flight modeling. BF4 acquire lock in arcade manner. BF4 missiles pull maneuvers in arcade manner. and BF4 you can pull 50G turn indicated as only 5G turn in a deep dive with controls reaction capability that is.... Arcade. It does change everything. Have you tried to dive at 60 degree dive in F-15 from 800 meters at 450 knots while trying to aim and shoot a fast turning helicopter on the ground? It does not end well.... In your whole argument "I am going to do same as I do in BF4 and I will win" by not understanding that BF4 can not be compared because its arcade features. Exactly.... You can not use arcade tactics in a simulator that goes for realistic physics and all.... Both are games, do not mistake that. Other just tries to follow real world physics up to its best possible means. Other is just making a fun lookin game that gives shivers and happiness from quick action and make player feel that they are true stars. https://youtu.be/3NAXifmgDRs?t=107 Yeah, same tactic..... When you can turn in a dime in BF4.... You can do it so in DCS.... In real world the helicopters as well operate far outside their SAM net. Welcome to the AirLand Battle concept... You use helicopters to strike behind the enemy first wave units where the second wave forces are located. That is why the helicopters developed completely new means to fight because you got troops, vehicles and fire behind enemy front line. You are fast and mobile. Americans had UH-1 to go without escorts behind enemy lines, the AH-1 and AH-64 were to operate between to engage targets behind enemy lines to the second wave units. Russians developed Mi-24 that will not just shoot missiles and rockets but it will as well land special forces. It can mine the paths that first wave has cleared making the second wave not able to push through. Russia has massive air assault forces if required. They can come with 50 Mi-8's and 20 Mi-24's suddenly dropping troops just to enemy back door and enemy is forced to fight on two fronts, surrounded. The UH-1, AH-1 and AH-64 feared the Mi-24 because it had the speed to chase them. If they were operating 5-10 km behind the front line, they could not away from Mi-24 that was coming at them full speed. The Mi-24D/V has a rotating gun to just utilize speed and flank and spray the helicopter down. The Mi-24P could put just shots from couple kilometer range while coming at you. For the UH-1 it was not possible to even move few kilometers as Mi-24 was like a Usain Bolt behind them. Even if he would give you 60 meters lead in 100m sprint he would be waiting you to come to goal. When the Mi-24 knows where you are, it can just keep flying below you and you can't do anything about it really. And while you are chasing a one Mi-24 there, the others around you are just placing nicely a R-60M coming at you. Let me quote the US Air Force based their training and experience: "Apaches can hide in the radar clutter at tree top level, and use the INCREDIBLY sophisticated Longbow system to track literally hundreds of targets simultaneously. If I remember the numbers, the helicopters shot down ~5 fixed wing for ever chopper that got hit. Granted, this tested helos that were loaded with air to air weapons (NOT typical), but still… the Air Force left with the overall idea of “leave enemy helicopters the f**k alone.’" Mi-24P doesn't have radar, but it has excellent visibility to above them. And when you have enemy fast movers in your area, the GCI informs all the units in the area. They will operate and work together spot and report their sightings and information further. It is not so that there is one lonely MANPAADS waiting to spot something, they get the direction and distance to their targets from the network (radio, messenger and their own units). The ground forces has pretty good communication capabilities since the WW2. The portable radio changed a lot. Troops in contact can quickly inform about it. They can call the support and help. They can coordinate with the other troops in the area. And Mi-24P is there with the ground forces. It is in contact with the nearby units as with their own flight and further. They can relay the information across longer distances as they can get altitudes to do so. That is completely lacking at this moment in the DCS. If you do not place all the units inside a same group, they will not communicate with each others. You can place a EWR with perfect capability to one side of the map and it will not issue any warnings or any information to any unit outside of its own group it belongs. You can have a EWR tracking a F/A-18 flight through whole 200 nmi from the sea to the coast and 50 nmi to inland and it will not make a move what so ever to issue the warning to lonely MBT platoon sitting in a dark green paint middle of the bright yellow field - totally lost. And as long those F/A-18C do not fly inside those engagement ranges, they have no idea that there is a GBU-12 falling on them from 15'000 ft and they can circle and fly as wanted and there is nothing that happens. The whole valley is totally unsafe as there is no communication between different troops. The communication is the priority #1 in the war. So that you know: 1) Where your own troops are. 2) Where the enemy troops are. 3) What troops enemy has. It can be traced from the Napoleon wars to even further in the Chinese and Indians own wars (thousands of years ago their tactics were excellent for the time), and all that has today improved is the speed, accuracy and capability to react to information. And DCS models this how? AWACS and EWR radio calls. A simple few phrases for ATC and JTAC. A couple flight formation or "attack my target" kind calls to wingman. When you are trying to come high and above the MI-24P, all it needs to do is to fly below you. You are in deep dive straight to ground. You have no maneuverability to point your nose and try to get a gunshot or missile lock on them as they have all the keys for the engagement at that moment. Your best bet is really just leave them alone and not to get engaged with their weapons ranges.

Yes that is that what I have read but I don't understand what they can do more when already cockpit was updated in BS2 as free update. So maybe just a external model. The problem with the Eagle Dynamics is that it is not a Russian company. ED is registered to Swiss so it is a Swiss company, that has a office in Russia (in Moscow), and so on they are under "Foreign Agent" clause because they get funding from the foreign company (from Swiss where the money is handled and they pay everything to Russian employees). ED is a foreign company operating inside a Russian Federation. And that cause severe legal challenges when they need to acquire and handle a Russian military documentation. As the company that receives partial funding from non-domestic country/company needs to register themselves as "Foreign Agent" to Russian Federation. (Just like you do in the USA and many many other countries through a various other methods).

You extend the axis by using the X Saturation as I explained. The X and Y does not correspond the gaming device or virtual controller axis. It is only presenting the Axis tune panel white box relativeness. The red dot that moves horizontally is your real device axis. The black dot is presenting how will the virtual device move relative to your real axis movement. The another red dot that sticks to blue line and moves vertically as well is just linked to the axis presented blue line to visually show you the exact position so you don't need to try to plot it there. You want to concentrate that how you will get black box from left to right. That is virtual axis full movement scale. And how is the red dot (horizontal) moving with it as that is your physical joystick axis. In the end you can see that if you set Saturation X to 80% then it means you have just given 20% more input for physical axis as the virtual axis will reach full virtual deflection 20% faster than real one. Example with a physical joystick to virtual cyclic the black box will stay at the center when your joystick is centered in the axis. If you fully push joystick to one side then block will move to either left or right edge of the white area. The red dot moves with it meaning it is 1:1 ratio constantly. All the settings on the right you are manipulating that black box. How will it move from left to right relative to your physical joystick that is represented by a red dot. Always when you move joystick from one end to another the red dot will move from left to right. What you want is that black box would reach left and right edges sooner than the red dot does. That means you would need to move physical joystick less to get virtual cyclic reach its full deflection. If you have X saturation set to 80% then it means your joystick needs to be at 80% of its physical movement range when the virtual cyclic will reach 100% position. Now if you trim your helicopter so it moves virtual cyclic 20% forward (it is in 0-100% scale now at 70% position as 50% is center) and you are required to recenter joystick to apply trimmer, now you just lost that 20% as you have said. Now if you would need to pull joystick backward because you need to move cyclic backward, you can reach the joystick physical limit (0% in 0-100% scale) when the virtual cyclic reach only a 20% of position. How you can make the joystick have that extra 20% is to apply X saturation so you have that 20% extra in physical one. It will make your virtual joystick 20% more sensitive although, and might not be what you want for normal flying. What you really need to do is to learn to trim with multiple presses. So Move -> Trim -> center -> Move-> Trim -> center -> Move -> Trim -> Center. The only other option is really to get a non-centering joystick so you don't need to use "Center-Trim" function that is unrealistic but required for spring loaded joysticks.

Yeah someone insightful could lighten that thing. As so many discussions about back and worth that it got cancelled - not - just something - cancelled - postponed - it is coming - maybe... The KA-50 already received the 3D cockpit overhaul with new textures and 3D models. The BS3 would have been more than that but personally I have been waiting just the minor things 1) fix/implement the missing features and systems since the 2008 release. 2) Proper contrast lock system (for all modules) so Shkval could actually start locking easily on the air targets.... But if nothing of that is coming, then it is just 13 year old module with nerfed capabilities.

And BF4 flight physics are.... How accurate? That is the thing, unless the helicopter is hovering or stationary and doesn't know you, you do not get the change to get the lining done well. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat "The helicopter if properly flown will always maneuver to cut off the angle from the airplane, forcing impossibly steep closure maneuvers for the fighter. Typical helicopter turn rates are 30 to 40 degrees per second, three times that of the fighter, even at high g, so the fighter will find the helicopters weapons always engaging it during any serious contest. If the helicopter gun and missiles were selected for anti-aircraft (like the 30mm guns on the Mi-24 and KA-50/51), the results are that the attack helicopter becomes like a rapidly mobile SAM site, a very dangerous target.’" "‘It must be said that the fighter is only vulnerable if it drops down from its normal altitude to engage the helicopter. If the fighter stays high and prosecutes its normal mission, it is nearly invulnerable to the helicopter’s weapons." "‘I have personally flown many such engagements in trials, and the facts are obvious to fighter and helicopter pilots who know. The folks at MAWTS-1 pioneered the concepts I discuss above." ‘I have no idea why a fighter would engage an attack helicopter, and I can assure you if your erstwhile target is an Apache, KA-50 or Super Cobra with ATA missiles, expect to be surprised.’ One of the major benefits in the Mi-24 over others is that pilot and gunner has excellent visibility to above them. You will have hard time to get to jump on them from their front sector and need to get to behind them where they can't spot you. And considering that the Mi-24P would be operation 5-10 km from their SAM systems like Tunguska or OSA-8, you really do not want to get high to dive on a helicopter that has radio contact to nearby air defense to warn your presence and them flying in sections where one of them has good nice clear shot to you. These all requires doctrinal military behavior that current AI can't really perform (no dynamic radio communications, no dynamic independent units movement and shield-sword tactics) or players who are just with the battlefield attitude going on to do air quake and fly solo across empty spaces. This is why we need a Combined Arms to be prioritized so we can get a proper RTS mechanics to the game so on servers we could start to see dozen or so RTS players playing the ground war.

That is a good presentation of the problem. I had wrong understanding of that earlier as well. The key informations are already stated in this thread, a simple laser guidance and bang-bang wings guidance. When example a GBU-12 is dropping, it doesn't have any other energy than altitude and release speed. It has limited wing sizes and control method. Changing a 250 kg bomb direction aggressively is not really possible if target distance is unknown and bomb can not know predictive trajectory to it. This is what above mentioned GBU-48 gets with a GPS+Laser+INS guidance unit. The previous bang-bang unit purpose is just to keep bomb nose pointing straight to target. And now if you think about moving target or low altitude/low angle, but high speed release the bomb is falling by gravity toward ground. It doesn't have wings to glide or really alter it's trajectory. Even if the guidance wings can turn bomb nose on target, it doesn't mean that bomb wings has enough lift to start pushing bomb toward laser spot just by having it nose pointing at it. You would need a proportional navigation to it so bomb would try to intercept the laser spot by keeping it steadily in the field of view. This is as well reason why you shouldn't laze the target too early after release, as the bomb needs to use it's energy for the high trajectory to gain distance to above target and then use just aerodynamica to get it pointed around the already decided drop point. If laser is activated too early, then bomb will start turning to keep bomb nose straight to it. So instead high arc travel to above target, it is trying to go straight. And as more it is turning and turning toward laser spot, more drag the bomb gets and it stars to fall sideways by nose pointing at the target, and going short. If laser is activated too late, then bomb is dropping at high speed by it trajectory and wings has no enough lift to turn and alter it's trajectory. Relative to the targeting system, a moving target is same as a sidewind. There was a rule of thumb about how much you needed to lead the release point to moving direction (to the wind). It should be in the ED own bomb tutorials in youtube. But it was something similar as every knots you add a feet toward wind (direction of moving target traveling). And in A-10 you can program this to computer so it calculates the lead, or you could use the targeting pod lock system to point pod manually front of the target while it keeps off-set locked on target. So if a car is moving 40 km/h to east, it is same as 21 knots and so on you would need to aim 21 feet / 6 meters ahead, so about 1½-2 cars length. We don't have the bang-bang modeling in DCS and that leads to situation that GBU-12 and alike are too accurate for moving targets, windy scenarios and at short relase-impact delays as the guidance would be waving it around.

Seems that people don't understand that ED has nothing to do with this thread anymore. They have given their statement and you are not here to defend it by any means as there is nothing to change in it. You are to issue your arguments and discuss about the topic, and if you can not reason your arguments logically, then it is invalid. So far it has ended with circular reasoning against APKWS II with double standards across the whole DCS World offerings. And it is common thing here, be it a LAU-88 with count of Mavericks, a HARM and count of stations, JSOW count of stations, a cannon spread....

.....because very popular demand the custom weapon mods has been disallowed....