Fri13

Long time ago I stopped trying use any multiword commands and moved to just single word commands. And for the DCS radio system it is just painful to say "One, Two, Three" and so on do you mean F1, F2 or F3 etc. The script and all rest that would make easier to just say "Engage Ground Targets" and it would press correct combination/order to do it just cause often problems.

Pretty wild, but good assumption. Because if the Mi-8MTv2 is so rare that you can't find much information about it anyways, then wouldn't it been more sensible to... Like pick something that is more widely accessible for them? Sure the lead developer might have had personal experience with it or something, but just saying that they did pick a pretty "secret aircraft" to begin with.

I thought that You said that: "Wow, I literally saw the upgrade timelines and which avionics versions were in use in the fleet myself, I used them, I saw them fielded. But since I was probably imagining the past two decades of my life," So have you not seen and handled the information for whole AH-64 Fleet Upgrade timelines and versions by yourself? That is a attack to person.... But as my personal conclusion is that You speak truth and You know what You are talking.... What does it make You.... now? As I don't know You, I don't even need to know You. All I need to do is to believe to Your word (that I do), because You didn't say earlier that You would be lying... And I can't know that but that what the word "Believe" means that I don't need to have any valid information to... believe. Did I say that you have physically handled them all...? Where did I speak about battalions? So You have the feeling about it. I still believe you have the knowledge and experience too... Knowing not same thing as being aware. Believing is not same thing as knowing....

In the some time in future we should be getting those. As long time ago ED was searching for a M1 Abrams SME for upcoming module of it. They had fancy videos about new animations and all for it. But then they have changed their goals as they found that they need to improve everything else first. A new terrain engine to support high resolution terrain, new FLIR, new AI, new ground units damage modeling and all related to that. At this moment one needs to look elsewhere for real tank simulator (that is actually used to train the MBT crews in militaries) or if they can't afford for it (requires special USB key to use it) then there are some games that has second best modelings for that. But Combined Arms is not so far to be acceptable, it is now first lacking a lot about controls. And then maybe second thing is the terrain as there is not much cover that could be utilized for movement and combat. Like give the VR support for Combined Arms and it would be already nicer. Even today I will turn more likely to 90's games than DCS World controls as there are more about the cooperation between helicopters or artillery and terrains has the simple, but working elements where you don't just have one sneaky AI firing at you because it just saw a 1/10th of your hull. There is possibility that at least one third party studio would start developing a ground units to DCS World and then develop as well more deep vehicle simulators for DCS world depending what a ED can provide for them.

You have first hand experience, that I believe. But when that goes against company reports with the military for the government that contradicts you, then I need to trust only you as there is likely something false in the government and company documents for decades. You say you have handled them all and you know them first hand. What I am to disagree with that as first hand information can't be wrong. Instead it is more easily understandable that war machine business just files what ever needed to tap in the infinite money machine.

No, but to what Boeing and US Army has reported with the US Gov. Don't take it wrong. I believe you 100% that you are right. All those others just has lied for decades and funneled billions of dollars money around for some reason (not like it would be first time). I didn't talk about museums... So don't try to be nasty.

So You say that Boeing and US Army are giving wrong information about their timelines and budgets. Good. That makes it all then. You have personally handled every single Apache ever made for US Army from the Boeing, and they lie.

Never it says that they are avionics upgrades.... They are based to the re-manufacture contracts from the Boeing about the changed they include. You can sue Boeing then for lying to you. Yes, everyone run at the same time to update everything as a clockwork because you say so and not how Boeing and US Army (and US congress funding all) says, requiring years work. Good, then you can refute what Boeing says in their contracts and what US Army has reported to be delivering for Boeing. I haven't talked about them at all neither, so good.

So why a AH-64D Block II with earliest Lot version from 2003 to 2020 shouldn't have the integration? Again, not all had the new software.... The upgrade programs were slow. They were in batches in various versions. Most were in few 5 year upgrade programs but not all. Some were left as is. That it what exactly happened for some. 2003 Apache did say as is in US Army Service for at least up to 2020 so last year. Not majority, but some did stay as such. US Army did the testing already 2006-2007 before they cancelled the project in 2008 and Navy picked it up. Then US Army did again test it and confirmed it for fully functional as BAE has stated. Just the opposite. It is unrealistic and historically inaccurate to claim that no old AH-64D Block II variants has existed since 2012. And that APKWS II is not technically functional with any variant of the Apache, and that new software is required to use them (as they are not new weapons, just like BAE and US Army has reported). And that doesn't even count the export versions of Apache because those are so wildly improved and changed compared to what US Army has received.

Those are only the US Army orders and Boeing deals for new and upgraded models. The AH-64A's existed still in the time as they were used to a factory refreshed AH-64D's to export models. Where a foreign country buys a AH-64A and wanted upgrade package for it. Based to Boeing contracts with the US Army, there were old Block 1 and Block 2 AH-64's with various Lots in use, even today. Even at the 2017 has Boeing started to upgrade old ones to AH-64E variant for US Army from the old versions, taking few years. And that doesn't even include the few newer lots. Not all helicopters become a new version in one year, and new manual is in use for everyone who doesn't have the corresponding variant in use in USA. So how has the Boeing managed to get the contracts for US Army to start delivering hundreds of old versions for upgrading if none existed?

Rift S. That is why I didn't need to get anything between 40 FPS and 80 FPS as you need just steady 40 FPS. For the Rift CV1 it would have been 45 FPS limitation. And for various other headsets you need to get higher and higher FPS steadily to get the smooth performance. So with Rift S if you can't reach steady 80, then you don't benefit anything X better than Y between 40-80 range. So if the 2080 Ti would have given steady 80 and 2080 Super steady 40, then it would be no brainer to get the 2080 Ti.

The targeting system in the V for WSO to use YakB has a automatic ballistic calculation, similar way as the pilot has in Mi-24P for the gun and rockets. So you get the correction calculation for YakB. I am not 100% sure about the target lead calculation, but it should be there as well when firing, because so many sources says that in case of malfunction you need to perform lead calculation by yourself as well because the sight turning (yaw and pitch) doesn't generate the required target movement information. The difference is that where pilot has a fixed weapons (rockets or 30 mm cannon) the reticle needs to move in gunsight to show where calculated impact is. Where the WSO in Mi-24V would have fixed gunsight and the gun will take a proper correction to hit the aimed point. But the problems are as any CCIP mode without exact target range information (based to elevation) you are required to make some adjustments, unlike with the ATGM that does like you say "pure only".

We might get a better laser behavior when new FLIR system appears, but otherwise we need to wait for the RTS game elements and new AI to be dropped in DCS. As well many ground units behavior should be changed by simply removing the whole "Easy Targeting" as default and making it a "Game mode" feature (but anyone can enable it if really wanted, but it would be against the FCS and rest systems). But this as well means we should get dozens of new units as types and classes. Vehicles sub-systems to support the various means of targeting etc.

That is the problem of the Internet. Even when we are living in 2021, there is still a very serious iron curtain between East and West. Gathering information from the Cold War period is still a challenge even when it is already 30-50 years from this date to history. There are too many skeletons in the closets and too much information on paper and books, and archives that are just forgotten and hidden. Just alone the language barriers are causing troubles, and it doesn't help at all that Google and such will get saturated with a fan made content from DCS World that just makes it even more difficult to find information from black corners of the web. When the Mi-8MTv2 was announced, I couldn't really find anything about it. Only about the T, and TM, and then MTv5. There were some mentions about some similar other variants but that MTv2 is mostly just unknown or non-existing one. What begs a lot for that why did Belsimtek even originally decide to make it, and even ignore to make a proper bomb sight to it, and MG to front, and mine laying etc...

The only thing that ED should enforce is technical compatibility and capability. Forget the politics out of the simulator. As well ED needs to understand that every module they make, will be in-service for multiple years before last of them gets either retired or upgraded to something else, so every module needs to have realistic compatibility through their whole service period and not just one year. This does not open any module to be "fantasy" or "sci-fi" where suddenly a Mi-8 would be carrying Vikhr or ATAKA missiles and so on. It is very simple thing, if something is compatible and usable as is, then it is there. ED can then choose their own official loadouts for mission editor / mission for players to choose just by clicking as their political view sees to fit. But anyone could still go and build own custom loadouts based their mission history. Like few years ago Russia restarted S-5 manufacturing. Like this is what example the unsure Wikipedia says: "In late 2019, Russia announced it would resume production of the S-5 rocket for the first time since production ceased in 1990. The improved S-5U is 1,090 mm (3.28 ft) long and weighs 6 kg (13.23 lb), making it longer and heavier than the previous S-5M, though it is compatible with older rocket pods.... ...It features a universal warhead that can penetrate 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor, explode into 500 2 g (0.071 oz) splinters, and has incendiary elements; combat efficiency is comparable to the S-8 rocket" So, improved S-5 rockets available after 2019. Who would have thought that after all the talking how trash they are? 150 mm armor penetration is excellent considering the usual targets as there is no wheeled APC and most IFV are vulnerable for it, not to even forget every car, bunker, building and such. But even when production ceased in 1990, they likely had them in the warehouses. But even that doesn't really change the fact that is the Mi-8MTv2 compatible with the S-5 rocket pods or not. I don't have any faith that ED would change their argument for weapon loadouts, especially when it is a old module that is wanted to be left for "maintained" status. They have their business plans and if they have not included there such things, then it can take years again until such possibility appears that someone could consider a investment of money and time for such modules.

No matter what AH-64D Block II Lot version they choose, it will be In-Service for US Army in 2021. Even if they would go and choose AH-64A, it would still be in service in 2020. The AH-64D Block I models would have likely ceased to exist somewhere 2018-2019 period as being upgraded to Block III status.

Support all weapons on the vehicle that it technically can use, and then let the mission designers decide what filters they apply in their missions, and module maker will then go and make official loadouts as they see to fit, and leave players and designers itself to make own ones with just limitation for technical possibility. If someone wants to have a time limited loadouts or vehicles, then they keep it and if someone doesn't, they can disable such filters. Everyone would be happy as simulator would act like a simulator with realistic technical capabilities and limitations without politics or religion.

Not a problem when using plain text. If text is copied and pasted in rich form either way is the user setting a bright or dark, it will as well copy the backround and text colors that looks normal, but it will look odd then to others who have opposite. This is why the quote box function removes the formatting by default.

I had 1080 Ti before upgrading, and I bought both 2080 S and 2080 Ti models to make a decision. The Ti didn't give advancement for it's extra ~550€ price so returned the Ti and kept Super. From the 1080 Ti model it was a good upgrade, worth then the 650€. It put Rift S to steady 40 FPS in cities and usual 80 was reachable in higher altitude or in ural areas. The 2080 Ti didn't offer that much better to get over 40 at them in most stressing scenes so it was not sensible to have. If I would have got steady 80 with Ti, then I would have kept it. But if example one gives 55-60 fps and another 65-70, then it is not sensible as both will fall to 40 limit.

Hornet loadouts by ED: AGM-62 Wall-Eye was out-of-service in 1995-1996 (out of inventory). AGM-65E2/L is the laser maverick that supports self-designation, came in service 2012 (Our 65E acts like E21/L). ATFLIR was not in service until 2006-2009 for F/A-18C. LITENING II was not in use for F/A-18C until 2006-2008. Similar things are with Viper and Warthog... ED policy is to just pick something they like and make excuses when ever they would be required to be remove hard work implemented weapons and systems, simply put "We just want to" is their reasoning. Not technical facts or not political loadouts. Like do you want mavericks removed from Viper because that specific aircraft didn't carry any mavericks in 2007 for any training even? No, you don't as you want to have mavericks because it technically can have them even when politically it didn't use them in 2007. ED just removed modders capability to make realistic weapon loadouts for modules by encrypting weapons, so there went even that option. So all you can do is either try to talk sense to ED, and just accept their decision no matter how illogical it is because they are the one who has the code. "Please ED, remove the Mi-8 from being available for any other country than Russia in DCS missions...."

Your 2005 Apache doesn't exist in 2005 unless you fly it in mission dated to 2005. If you fly in mission dated to 2016 (default) then you are flying 2005 Apache in 2016 and APKWS II would be available to it. It doesn't go just that APKWS II is a future weapon that travels to past when it didn't exist. It goes that you take the mission to fly a old helicopter from the past in more modern mission when new weapons have come available. Not all of them are compatible, but some are. And APKWS II happens to be a such. If you do not want to fly Apache with APKWS II, then by no means do either one: 1) Fly only in missions dated to 2005. 2) Do not load APKWS II if flying in more modern day missions. Then just be happy. And yes, the APKWS project was part of the US Army initiated program to build a next generation smart guided light rockets (don't remember the program name now) and there were few participants. At the time the APKWS was with a warhead replacing guidance module, and it didn't work well as laser seeker was visible at nose like on many other competitors. That is why it got cancelled and soon restated with me name "APKWS II" and the new design was to make the laser guidance module as mid-part between existing warheads and existing rocket motors. And it became completely different thing than APKWS project was. Irrelevant. APKWS II compatibility is not dependable from any of those. If any of those updates removed capability to use Hydra 70 rockets, then please tell as it would change the case that APKWS II is not possible. So when players find a more realistic benefit from a smart munition, it is bad? Each M151 warhead is like a M72 rocket capable to penetrate about 250-400mm RHA. You hit with one on the APC and it is gone or you just killed the crew. Hit one on the IFV, and same thing. Even a MBT from the rear or roof has no armor protection against it. You destroy engines easily etc. Now when you get a change to put a laser dot on target and put a single M151 in it, you become a monster. Don't think that it replaces the Maverick or Hellfire, because it doesn't. As those things are required when MBT turns toward you. And current damage modeling and AI doesn't make anything to deny you utilizing APKWS II rockets, or mavericks or Hellfire. We don't even have realistic maverick modeled and likely not even hellfire. But you give players a way to load themselves to the theets and they do it. A-10C was seen overloaded, even today often. F/A-18C pilots load crazy amount of AMRAAM's. So what when the simulator support air quake and recklessly flying and fighting. No one cares if they eject or they die... You do not care because it is respawn and back up again.

Yes. We can't anymore do realistic weapon loadouts or use a weapon mods with more proper ranges and guidance etc. They killed important part of the modding community. He is using dark mode. That causes all the quotes to be included as rich text as he sees them, instead as plain text so only his purposely adjusted colors etc would show. Not his fault.

Exactly. Only the mission year matters is it available to all compatible (Hydra 70 capable launchers) aircraft. If mission is set from 2013 to this date it would be allowed to be accessible to all compatible units. Exactly. Anything that would be in operational use since 2013 would get possibilty. Sure. Nothing would be stopping it if mission designer doesn't disallow it by setting the warehouse count zero. "Naval Air Systems Command announced 2013 Oct. 15 that U.S. Central Command had released its Military Utility Assessment for the fixed-wing APKWS, which confirmed the laser-guided rocket system met all performance requirements to launch from the A-10 Thunderbolt II, AV-8B Harrier II and F-16 Fighting Falcon." "BAE also recently used internal funding to conduct testing on the Apache helicopters in the hopes of tapping into a pool of international customers currently flying that platform. On Sept. 4 and 5, soldiers at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona fired eight shots as part of the process of becoming qualified under the Army’s airworthiness release process, Riffee said at a press briefing at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting and exposition on 2013 Oct. 22. Apaches and Hydra rockets are already approved for foreign sales, and Riffee said that qualifying the APKWS could attract several foreign militaries. He added the company is in talks with “multiple” other nations but declined to name them." "BAE submitted all its engineering data and test data from September and is now waiting for the Army to review the package and sign off on the qualification. Riffee said sales to the Marine Corps are moving along nicely. The company recently completed its first full-rate production contract and is negotiating the terms of the second contract with the Navy now. He could not get into the details of the contract but said the Navy had BAE’s proposal and that a contract should be in place by the end of the calendar year [2013]. He added the company’s production facilities in Nashua, N.H., were being expanded to accommodate future foreign military sales, as well as hopefully sales to the Army eventually–the Army started APKWS but dropped it in 2007, with the Navy picking it up the following year on behalf of the Marine Corps." Someone could argue about 2008 year, but 2013 is safer bet for Apache as foreign sales started then. So doing mission dated after 2013 and it would be option to be used. You are talking about politics. And DCS is not about politics. Only technical facts should matter, not what a some pencil pusher decides that funding are used for.

Why it is that APKWS II is "a weapon from a future"? Why it is not as what it is, mission editor defaults to 2016, that it is Apache from the past in mission from the past in 2016? (As we live in 2021 at this moment). It it is not a fantasy when a modern ammunition is technically compatible with a old weapon. Why it is assumed that on the year that new specification for new block/lot/tape etc becomes available, that every single unit is upgraded and modified to that new one, and there will no more exist any older ones for some time? LIke even today military personnel's are flying and using vehicles that are decades old without updates. There is no need to change them or that upgrading is so expensive that from 500 units only 50 will be upgraded per year and it takes 10 years to get all upgraded, or only 125 units will be funded for upgrading and rest are kept as is. The only fantasy is that DCS simulates only a single year vehicles. That those vehicles do not exist any other year than one very specific. Like a country buys 145 new fighters, and they are delivered them in 5 year period. That is 29 fighters per year. What if the country decides to upgrade their 75 fighters to a new version? It doesn't happen in a single year. And after buying something or upgrading something, it is going to be in service in that configuration far longer than a single year. Like one ground crew chief told here at the forums about F-16CM Blk 50 that in the airbase he works, there likely was not a two same kind F-16CM Blk 50 as all are different. There are software features in some that are missing on others, there are different panels, different wiring, different many things. So what is the one of all of them that is 'the correct one'? If DCS go to simulate a unique airframe, in specific airbase, in a specific squadron and all... It is more asking trouble than anything else.

Simulation means as well that you can do stuff that you wouldn't in reality. Like you can go to fly apache in combat without anything else than a cannon and extra fuel tanks. You can load a 16 Hellfires even if going just taking out a flight patrol. You can try to land at 4000-4500 meters altitude bases fully loaded if so wanted. The realism comes from the technical capabilities. Like Apache can not mount Vikhr system, so it shouldn't be there. It can't have a AGM-88, so again not to be included. But it can load and launch APKWS II rockets all of its rocket pods. There is not a single thing stopping that. Again that is not a single year when their any chosen configuration is in service. And it shouldn't be restricted in a simulator to be impossible build wanted scenarios. Tag all the weapons, all the features and choices with proper time stamps. So by default they get filtered in mission editor by chosen year. Don't let the politics rule that what someone decided should or shouldn't be done because funding or because logistics or because someone else needed them more elsewhere or because someone decided that this specific group are not so important to deserve things early. Let the mission designer to make their decisions that what they see more fitting. Let them to decide do they want to go as close as possible with a real history, or go and fork it as they see it fit. Like maybe someone would like to try to remake a First Gulf War when apaches should take out the radar stations. Or maybe someone does modern Syria missions. Maybe someone wants to make a Fulda Cap scenario in Normandy map. Maybe someone just want to remake the Fire Birds movie like people remake top gun and other flight movies. Nothing changes the fact that APKWS II is backward compatible and it is irrelevant what software, block, tape, lot etc the aircraft has, as long they can launch unguided Hydra 70, so long they can use APKWS II. Only limitation should be that time filter for normal missions unless designer disables the time filter to get unlimited access for everything.