Fri13

The new hand is off-set to right and down from the real finger pointing. In this video can be seen the off-axis angle by pointing the emergency brake (left red) and master warning light (right red) with real hand and then with a VR hand. The VR settings requires a adjustment sliders for hand off-set position in X, Y and Z axis. User would adjust each slider a corresponding amount until they get the hand matching the direction their real finger is pointing, and get the 3D glove match the real hand position in depth (as glove is now too much forward). This could be done as automatic function as well where a player is asked to point a "magnetic dot" in air where the 3D glove finger will attach itself and rotate around it by pointing the finger on it. And then player would hold controller button down and move the real hand position until it starts to match the 3D glove in game, and then release the button to store the new off-set axis to hand. Or That player is asked to point a dot in a air with real finger and press a button, where on each press the 3D glove finger is automatically adjusted to point the dot. So player looks a dot, points it as would with real finger and then press a button. This can't be used for Z axis positioning but it could be then a own separate slider.

The DCS 2.7 made progress by adding new hands look and all. But one old bug still exist, how each button, switch and such reacts to finger tip unlimited speed. Moving finger to trigger the button or switch operation causes them to operate rapidly as long the finger is in their trigger zone. This makes bad mean to use finger for operating buttons and switches as they will continue flicking until finger is removed from the position. The suggested fixes are: 1) that every operable button, switch or knob can be operated only X times a second so there is enough time to move finger away from the button/switch before it is triggered again. Example every 500 ms the switch would flip to new position as long the finger is hold in its space. 2) Every switch/button (etc) has a "bubble" that is needed to be in with finger to operate them one time. Once they are operated the finger needs to be pulled out of the "bubble" before switches/buttons can be operated again with the finger. This means that flipping switch Up -> Down requires only one touch of the switch, while to get it again Down -> Up it is required to move finger away from switch and then touch it again.

The 2.7 update made great progress in immersion and usability by hiding the laser beams in the cockpit. There was discussion that old laser beam should come as opt-in choice to VR settings so those who need it can enable it. The hotfix patch in 22.04 does enforce the laser beam even when not enabled and there is no way to disable it. This is how the 2.7 feature worked:

It is sad that ED didn't add the LeapMotion support years ago. Then the device was worth 20 € and everyone could have got one cheaply. It would have been enough to have just the index fingertips recognized as a mouse cursor and then the pinch for grabbing knobs, levers, dials and switches and operate them moving corresponding direction.

Neither are answers for question, is something technically possible or not. "That never really happened" is a reply for politics that even if something would technically be possible - it simply can have been denied by politics. "No, it's not worth doing" doesn't either say anything about is something technically possible or not. The LITENING II pods were used by the USMC Harriers and F/A-18D Hornets in 2005, not by the F/A-18C. Even in the 2006 the USN and USMC had not made a decision that what pod (LITENING or ATFLIR) they will take to replace the Nitehawk, what was their sensor. We have USN/USMC Hornet modeled in the game, not the Spanish. Sounds like you don't know what the commanders has claimed in front of the congress in 2005... Witnessed that there has not been those pods for the legacy C hornets. ED wanted just to give Hornet something special so ATFLIR regardless it was not available for it. They did give it the LITENING pod because it was already done in the A-10C, even when it was not available for it. Instead giving the correct and properly fitting Nitehawk targeting pod, they ignored the 2005 year and went to give them the options that were available past 2005. So please explain again how they are going to model the AIM-120, R-27, AIM-9X and all the others in the game without guesses? I thought You said that "It has nothing to do with politics." So are ED going to remove the AIM-120, AIM-9X, R-27 and all those because they are based to educated guesses? The community has already been on their throat's for years, so are they going to skip those? How much we know about Ataka missile guidance frequencies and jamming possibilities? How much we really get simulated in the R-60 seekers? The benefit of the Mi-24P is that it is so old that you can make most of it as it is deemed as obsolete already.

Tell how does the APKWS II know where the target is? How does the pilot know where the target is? What you actually need from the CCIP/CCRP for the APKWS II to utilize it? Tell how has the rocket changed to new one as it is not the "same old rocket". So.... You never fly in Hornet with the Vipers, or with Eagles, or with Flankers, or with Fulcrums?

But...but but.... They didn't know that Apaches were there so they were not targeted.... but but but.... F-117 is a bomber regardless its classification as fighter. Not capable to perform any A/A kind things than carry just couple bombs. The F-111 was a bomb truck as well, with maybe capability carry AIM-9 (don't know, more knowledgably people do). So basically Apache's were totally alone down there. The helicopters like Mi-24 and such are in danger from being shot by fighters. Nothing changes that. But how to get to that situation that danger becomes a high risk and that risk will happen? That is more about mission and helicopter crew to do. It is not like when a helicopter is flying NOE that it is visible to every fighter that just happens to have radar beam hitting at them. It is different thing to fly below 50 meters from the ground in ground clutter than it is to fly 150-200 meters from the ground or even higher. Like in the Afghanistan the Mi-24's were operating freely at the high altitude as enemy did not have fighters to threaten them. But they were very well designed to operate in a AirLand war where they need to move quickly behind the enemy main forces and engage the enemy troops at rear, support the landed infantry there and then get out or continue fighting. And that is where the enemy has easily tactical fighters presence to operate after short while. Similar thing is with the Apache and AH-1 and so on. Designed to get over the front line to enemy side to operate there without ground support. The Mi-24 is like the A-10 for russian army aviation, but they do have their own Su-25 as well there. But the Mi-24 can operate lower and be tactically utilized totally different manner.

Sure, if they don't even train for it, then you are not going to use it. But that doesn't change the fact of the technical capability rule. But that is politics. Nothing more. It is someone somewhere making a decision that what are the allowed loadout and nothing else is allowed to be done - even if things would technically be possible and all required stuff is in the warehouse just in case. And that shouldn't matter what is politics in reality, as that is for mission designer to decide. It actually means exactly that. If a 30 mm M230 chain gun is 30 mm, it hell is not going to shoot 25 mm shells from it. Even when it is 30 mm caliber, it is not exchangeable with the GAU-8 caliber. Why? Because technical facts are only thing that matters. The idea of the simulation is that you can do stuff that wouldn't otherwise be done, you can try new things. You can test and make a evaluation before doing something in practice. A lot of things change when conditions change - politics changes, enemy changes, terrain changes etc. What is technically possible should be right there in first place. If something is not technically possible, then it is not there. (So "technically possible" doesn't mean that "Yeah, technically we could little tweak that pylon so we can mount the HOT3 missile launcher on it, but it would take time to program a new FCS for it. It means that what is possible by already designed and tested features that works). Really? So they don't seem to have.... Technically possible features should be simulated. Let the politics go to the mission designer story. And here we come to situation again about what is "a worth" to do a simulation to its details... ED did huge effort to model ATFLIR for a Hornet even when it shouldn't be using it. A feature that was pushed and moved through whole EA phase until now in 2.7 version that it came out. A extremely niche feature. And then in other side of ED it is again "not worth to do that niche thing there". Please, that argument has no ground to stand. Or are you ready to remove majority of the game weapons? We know nothing about AIM-120 guidance system and logic. We know nothing about R-27 seekers logic and capabilities, even the flight capabilities are unknown. The IFF system is well documented in unclassified materials that what are the principles and logic in systems, but we do not know codes and encryptions and all minor details that are irrelevant for a simulator. ED works so much around "We don't know" and implement things just based to words of the pilots or guesses that no one can ever validate as they are not public information made by ED. And many things don't need to acquire official documentations and all specific technical data as a lot can be done with educated guesses when things get very undocumented (and no, that doesn't mean that one can just imagine things, as that is not what "educated guess" means. It means that when you have enough various information and evidence that doesn't exactly tell and you have information from the history and whole genre, you can make excellent hypothesis based to known systems, and it is almost always better than doing nothing because 5% of the information is not known but 95% is). And that is the problem that these goalposts are moved between the project and time, and that is the problem. No consistency. ED claims that they only use unclassified and public sources, yet they have no where a place where they have all these sources, files and all publicly accessible so anyone can go and recheck their argument or source of modeling. Yet they demand that anyone who is suggesting anything should only use a public unclassified documentation or otherwise it gets removed. But how would they otherwise even go to model anything when they don't really known much at all in many critical important main features like a A/A missile for a Air Superiority Fighter? Like example if ED knows the 3D model for the IGLA (as it does) and it main specifications (as it does) from even unclassified sources and history, it doesn't take much to actually know how to model the IGLA launcher tubes from photographs to pylon. It is known how missile behave differently when shoulder launched and fired from the move, that is the physics part really. The seeker function is known, the battery requirement is known, and based to everything it is known that you need to energize the weapon so that missile does it own known thing and get to point that thing at the target as known. And if SME could help with the cockpit logic part that how it is launched and is there something extra panels or so. Like one doesn't need to get a blueprints or technical drawings that how a system is really wired and what color is each wire and what voltage is moving where or what kind a electronic signal is sent from system to missile for launch etc. (Again, remember the AIM-120 or R-27). Getting something 50-80% correct and rest with educated guess is better than scrap everything because specifications for one bolt is unknown for time being. If errors are found in the future, they can be changed and fixed. The things can be revisited in the future with the more detailed information.

IMHO the glare, dirt and such can be added to glass but maybe they need to be made blurry so they look like looking through.

The flares are not registering to everything. Example in MiG-21Bis your gunsight pipper will jump to the flares if you have IR missile selected for launch. On other aircraft like Su-27 and rest the flares do not show up in the IRST systems or trigger anything like with example JHMCS (no idea about now but it use to be so) when guiding AIM-9X seeker. What people do not seem to understand is that the system is not a hot spot tracker. It does not go pointing the hot spots. The IR seekers does that in the missiles, but not the thermal cueing FLIR system in Harrier. The system has multiple configuration options that some are set pre-flight to mission computer in mission planning and some are programmed by the pilot, mainly to adjust the system to work better for the mission parameters. The system does not track hottest parts or anything like that, it is cuing pilot to programmed temperatures in scale, its size, its range (relative to aircraft altitude and look down angle) and what the surrounding thermal type looks like. The Razbam system works fine for missiles like example Hydra 70. When you launch those rockets it can track them to the end even when their rocket motor has burn out almost on the moment they fly off from the pod in couple seconds. What Razbam should do is to make the system to be able be configurable as simulator should, and then wait that ED will provide the new thermal mapping and FLIR system that should allow the player to configure the system for given heat values and differences. It will be challenging work for Razbam as they need to program the system to understand when the FLIR is looking a snow covered hill and there is a vehicle at day, night, sunset, sunrise or it is not operational or it is being heated up. It needs to be able do that differently when it is a meadow or forest. Where the player is required to learn what is wanted to be really pointed out by the system and then configure it to such scenario. The system doesn't care about target size as it only sees the heat. And flare is massive heat source in the eye of the FLIR and it should ignore a such based how the heat source size is programmed to be, like small, medium, large. If the scale is set to low that targets are searched for finer differences in the complex temperature changes then flares are ignored as they are too big difference in the scale.

It is not about clocks being out of sync, but the analog clock not showing the proper time as set. Our only hope is that someone else than Razbam itself will fix the Harrier because Razbam does not even seem to be interested to communicate what they are doing or fixing years old bugs. Like now our only hope is that someone like myHelljumper will get something to happen.

Is it suppose to be flush with the body? It can be that there needs to be a slight cap as it is just for moving ammunition from storage to the cannon.

I don't really get the wishes to see a IGLA instead a proper A/A missile. As you have just about 30 seconds time to launch IGLA once you activate the seeker, then the battery does and it is useless. R-60 you have nitrogen reserve for 30 minutes after activation. The R-60 is more agile for close maneuvers, but slower as it is fired from slow to stationary position. But if the IGLA is technically possible loadouts, then it should be there. Leave the politics and religion out of the simulator and concentrate to produce technically proper simulator and let mission designers make their politics and religion decisions... These ED double standards are not nice. They don't care about technical, historic or any facts but it comes to just their politics. Example: - Our F-16CM is mixture between tape 4.2 and 5.1 because they wanted to add AGM-154. - The F-16 shouldn't have LAU-88 launcher for triple AGM-65. - F/A-18C has a AGM-62 that was removed from inventory 10 years earlier, doesn't exist whole weapon in 2005. - USMC/USN F/A-18C Lot 20 was only using a AN/AAS-38 old targeting pods in 2005 and they didn't have ATFLIR or LITENING as those went to super hornets or D models. - Our F/A-18C and F-16CM has a AGM-65E2/L that is capable be launched for self-designation instead just 2nd party designate targets like older AGM-65E, and that improved missile came to production in 2011. In the Apache episode in fighter pilot podcast it was said that all american apaches are capable operate with stingers, they just don't carry them when no need. https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4 I look forward when the fighters can't detect the helicopters so easily and would really have challenge to fight at them.... Now they just point radar in the direction and "there it is!". https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat/?espv=1/amp/ "And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotorblades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic.’" So simply put, Apache should have stingers option, and Mi-24 should as well get IGLA option if it is technically correct. And ED should stop to boxing arguments for specific year of modeling as they can't even follow their own argument about that. Instead stick to technical facts like if a module models software S2 that service time is between 1998-2007 then anything that is technically compatible with it is simulated regardless the year. But if something requires S2+ or S3 to be technically usable, then it is left out. The DCS problem is that all radar equipped fighters spot helicopters way too easily. Why they can utilize those crazy long range sniping even when helicopter is clearly in the clutter.

It was designed to operate all over the Soviet Union (Russia) and that country has as well high temperature and high mountainous lands. That is why their vehicles are made to operate from -50 C to +50 C as they need to cover whole country. But that argument about the rolling take-off, it was tested for how to get faster in the air. Like why you would first go to hover and then start to move forward when you can simply start rolling and take-off? The Mi-24 flying at 4000-5000 meters altitude is severe limitation for almost any helicopter, what brings the KA-50 co-axial design that works far better in high gusty mountain environments at high altitudes etc. But you are not operating in such conditions normally so it is just one place where you really want to utilize tactics to safely take-off and land. There are lot of myths about Mi-24 like it can't hover or it can't take-off without doing rolling take-off and all. It is almost 1500 rounds for the YakB and almost 500 rounds for the 23 mm cannon. So the 30 mm being 250 is just its main load then.

It was designed to operate all over the Soviet Union (Russia) and that country has as well high temperature and high mountainous lands. That is why their vehicles are made to operate from -50 C to +50 C as they need to cover whole country. But that argument about the rolling take-off, it was tested for how to get faster in the air. Like why you would first go to hover and then start to move forward when you can simply start rolling and take-off? The Mi-24 flying at 4000-5000 meters altitude is severe limitation for almost any helicopter, what brings the KA-50 co-axial design that works far better in high gusty mountain environments at high altitudes etc. But you are not operating in such conditions normally so it is just one place where you really want to utilize tactics to safely take-off and land. There are lot of myths about Mi-24 like it can't hover or it can't take-off without doing rolling take-off and all.

You are remembering correctly. The cargo was used sometimes for the extra ammunition. Like second set of the rockets and missiles. So why not have gun ammunition as well? That is something I would like to see in the Mi-24, as it would make it more different from others as you can land anywhere and resupply yourself in few minutes (hey, if it takes from ground crew to rearm in so short period, then it takes from the crew as well...) and get back to fight for a second set. We are not in Afghanistan. The same way was said that it is myth that Mi-24 carries infantry, but it still happens. It is not the normal thing but still. There is old video where the flight engineer and the WSO performs the rearming while pilot keeps engines running. Because your base can be 100-150 km away? It is a fact that it is not a normal procedure as you don't come with fully loaded up because you can, but you will add more helicopters for the flight or add another section if you need extra firepower and tactics. But the possibility is there.

So would you say that the improvements comes in other things than range increase, like more solid lock because improved processing and sensitivity?

We need to as well remember that no matter how people say that chaff is easy to ignore and it drops immediately out of the speed gate because it speed literally stops like 0.2-1 second after release, that every nation fighter is carrying chaff cartridges and selects a various ones depending the possible radar threats. If chaff would be so useless as it is spoken here, no one would never use them but come with only flares. (and those again as well be almost useless). And one scenario doesn't make a case. It is just one evidence among many, but more is required.

Seeing the Mi-24P gun ammunition being replenish, there is no way that you could get a 750 shells fitted to its box.

I don't see specific "set of skill" in there. Like "You can now launch missiles 5% faster" or "You have just spent skill point for advanced radar operations, allowing you to slew TDC 10% faster" (sorry, couldn't resist making exaggerated examples) but be more realistic about the pilot physical conditions. As well as in reality, you don't get to be the new guy in the squadron and do everything that the old guys are doing. So you need to go through the learning process and all. In a up coming dynamic campaign that is as well important, where as a new virtual pilot you are not to be sent to dangerous / high risk missions and you don't get the latest and craziest weapon loadouts for that reason. It is just optional possibility to make the virtual pilots as careers. Like example the online competition (air quake) behavior would change if you could lose all your progress by getting killed. So the reasons to try to escape from situation, to avoid it, to not to be doing something so stupid in first place would become apparent. Aborting mission would be acceptable thing. Landing on the carrier would be more stressful etc. (and of course all these as well requires the proper penalty systems where some n00b doesn't just want to kill you on the cat because decided to just crash on you for fun).

Totally. First Woman to Fly Harrier Jet in Combat Joins Team https://youtu.be/5IEJf_SDGC4?t=368 Fighter Pilot on NEGATIVE-G's (Don't do it) and Flying Upside Down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5xKukgnfGQ&t=210s GOING SUPERSONIC with U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds! Pulling 7 G's in an F-16 -Smarter Every Day 235 https://youtu.be/p1PgNbgWSyY?t=1550 So having a virtual pilot that one needs to maintain and have some exercises to build the withstanding and all before getting to turn fighting and all. It would change the gameplay where players with more experienced virtual pilots would be able to pull more G's and recover faster from the effects and all that. But if you lose that virtual pilot (KIA, MIA, POW) then you lose that virtual pilot and you need to "build a new one". Totally optional, those who wouldn't want to enable it wouldn't need to fly with the rules. Those who do not want to join on such server, fly on others etc.

Those are required to require player to put effort to advance in their capabilities and missions. And when you get the advancements and better capabilities, you start to protect them so you don't lose them. That will generate the troubled/stress to player to be more careful and mindful what they are going to do and not to fool around and take stupid risks. And when player starts to consider risks and possibilities, their gaming style changes and they start to take things more serious. So of course it needs to be a option to be disabled in the mission design, but not if server enables it or the campaign sets it On. There are players who do not want any realistic G force effects. There are players who do not want realistic head movements or any restrictions to anything. There are players who want all the latest tech and weapons and all.... So of course there will be players who do not want any risks to be killed and they have right to be playing it that way if they so want.

I believe that Mi-24's never fly in combat alone but at least in pairs, and in the cold war era there was the two sections where each had four Mi-24's. It is dynamic, inside a fog of war etc. But Hind doctrine was not designed to be alone. Maybe a one Mi-8 that is escorted by 2-3 Mi-24's when picking up some troops or something from dangerous place. The US has a Huey that could have been send alone to pickup a special forces team or something, to minimize the detection that way. But Soviet Union didn't really had anything as small as that if the Mi-4 doesn't count. The US defined fairly nicely the UH-1 line with the AH-1 to make a nice small tactical group, but Mi-8 + Mi-24 doesn't really make anything like that. Maybe the KA-27 for assault operations, but I don't know. The soviet pair is more of a full force engagement than trying to sneak around. The KA-50 is a nice proof of concept how easy it is to operate a combat helicopter as single pilot. The workload is really smaller than a multirole fighter pilot has, but that is more about the capability of hover and slow speed as your window of opportunity doesn't appear so quickly and you are not so high to be under threat of various targets. So you have more time to move and more time to pick your targets from your point of view. But then again in DCS at this moment it is not so often simulated as mission designers do not really have moving targets so much where a fighter gives nicer opportunity to engage them from above, where helicopter at low angle will have fewer (if at all) attack opportunities. If we would have a more realistic AI for ground units that would hide and conceal the troops in start, and then at least on moment when someone blows up, the whole combat environment would change dramatically. Less time to be high and above, but same time less changes to be at low. And that might be case where Mi-24 would really show its capabilities by offering "go fast, hit hard" approach where at the rear comes Mi-8's to drop troops and they get to deal the ground war then forward.

Yes but both players in two helicopters has AI as WSO to scan ahead with 3/10x optics. And with two you can fly and lure MANPADS, SAM or AAA to engage the flight lead while wingman observes from the distance and warns about incoming missiles or fire so targeted can release flares and maneuver properly. Being in one it is more likely a missile or getting shot to side/rear without neither noticing it.

Two players in two Mi-24 becomes as good spotting things as two players in one. As you fly in formation of closely and you can share directions that you are looking for. In the same helicopter the benefit is that WSO can aim the proper target for you over short discussion and you see his crosshair in you pilot gunsight, where you fly cross on cross and shoot. Alone the AI needs to aim at proper target for you. So you might need to adjust AI target selection of you can't spot target yourself. But overall it is better for in two separate Mi-24P because only pilot can really utilize rockets and gun. And having twice the firepower is great thing for one attack run. As well capability to split and attack in turns will be more effective than attacking with one helicopter. There is not really a reason to fly together as WSO can't really do anything else than ATGM launching and target designation for pilot gunsight. And two helicopters is better than one. Especially in P that is one man pilottable helicopter more than two.