Fri13

http://www.turnofftheinternet.com/

Yes, and nice thing is that we can choose to use or not them in the missions.... So we can build missions from various years and so on get interesting campaigns as well done.

That is very difficult to really say. In DCS the radars are not so well modeled. The ground clutter and such doesn't really exist. Radars act more like a AESA in their capabilities to detect something in their mechanical steering function. Like the Mi-8 that got blown by a laser guided bomb was hovering at low altitude and evaded gun solutions, AIM-9 locking and radar lock in multiple attack runs. But because it was so low, the crew decided to use a laser guided bomb. The UH-60 incident was again Visual ID error, AWACS operator error and finally as well that those helicopters were flying high above the terrain to be picked in the first place, not trying to hide or evade when fighters flew the VID from couple hundred meters distance. So fighter should really go just high and fast and try to circle around to get the helicopter make a mistake (come out of hiding, increase altitude greatly and get to go fast) so they would become easy prey. Now it is more about even so easily visually spotting a helicopter on the ground that you can just surprise them with a gun or IR missile if they don't see you first (their rear and side visibilities are low, and especially to top side) as the IR simulation isn't so great either so you get easily IR lock in DCS. When you can be spotted visually (before 2.7 you had large generator for white clouds when you flew at NOE) then the surprise can be very easy. Again we don't have any proper ground units protection (MANPADS and such) or early warning (again local area troops reporting low flying aircraft) that could tip you off.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat "‘A well equipped attack helicopter flown by a trained crew will defeat most fighter airplanes in 1v1 air combat, should the fighter be foolish enough to drop down to try and engage,’ Nick Lappos, Technical Fellow Emeritus at Sikorsky and former U.S. Army AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter pilot, said on Quora. ‘A helicopter immersed in ground clutter is very hard to detect by almost any means, and so is hard to engage. Meanwhile, the helicopter can be equipped with air to air missiles and large caliber guns that easily engage fighters as they maneuver at low altitudes against a blue sky in their attempts to engage the helicopter. 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.’" "‘When I said clutter, I really meant “intelligent tactical use of clutter, obstructions and terrain”. In the blue sky you always envision, there is nowhere to hide and terrain is to be avoided as a potential threat, in Army combat, terrain is your friend, savior and battle buddy. Fighter pilots who face a trained, deadly and sneaky adversary in an attack helicopter will always see its missiles and guns, and never see a fleeing bunny to add to the kill list. While the fighter is in a blue sky, exposed to everybody within 10 miles, that attack helicopter is now sneaking below the ridge line with no clear line of sight, ready to pop up when the fighter shows its two hot tailpipes. And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotorblades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic.’"

Because you could get a Laser guided Flechette rockets or laser guided MPSM rockets too? If we get any time a more properly simulated infantry, then flechette rockets would become handy...

They do that trigonometry. There were few units with laser rangefinders in Afghanistan but it was not generic one like we have Mi-24P presented (as the Mi8Pilot said in interview that they model the most generic features instead all that some units had). So it will be very interesting to engage targets when their altitude is different than yours. So simply "shoot" and then correct your aim based what was the error and try to hit the target "from hip". Or think about cases where targets are in the canyon and you come from top of the ridge or mid way of the hill... Or you engage someone at top of the hill and you are flying over terrain that is 100 meters below their position. Edit: Forgot. The lead developer talked something about "placing crosshair on target" and then "wait a moment and then fly to put the crosshair on cross and shoot when minimal difference" or somethin. I didn't understand that what it meant but it was something about firing. Maybe there is some kind a range calculation between the WSO sight and the pilot so that if WSO maintains angle to the target and pilot maneuvers to make the difference for it that system could get some kind estimation of the slant range? Edit 2: Here is the part I didn't understand, as it is said that there is no other ranging method than visual guessing: Q: How does the gunsight work? A: The cross on the gunsight shows where the operator is looking on the URS setting. If you switch to the fixed cannon, the cross shows the computations from the air data computer and tells you where will rounds land if you fire right now. The pilot initially places the fixed crosshairs on the target and waits for the mobile one to move. He then gradually straightens out the helicopter. When the angular offset between the mobile and fixed pippers is at its smallets, the pilot carefully moves to align both and only then opens fire. This applies to both cannons and rockets. There’s a manual mode where you add corrections with the dials, but pilots don’t use it often. Traditionally you just fire, watch where it lands and correct accordingly as that’s simpler. The pilot chooses the weapon on the dial for the appropriate sight calculations.

I don't see what interesting there really is. But maybe it is just me as I am not going to fly missions to go hunting either one... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it....

Still the fact that multiword phrases to be spoken for the sound recognition systems are not 100% reliable. "Take 10" and so on are as well more confusing than "Ten".

@NineLine How about the wishlist sub-forum for the Combined Arms?

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.