Fri13
-
Posts
8051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Fri13
-
-
See, now you've retreated to an even more extreme scenario.
Oh really? I did so? How about if you would read what was stated above....
The fact is, MBT can get hit by any tank, from any direction and from any distance. You can't cherry pick that it is always from front, that is the most wanted direction, then that you can see enemy but it can't you, and you are further than it can engage you while you can it. But fact is, real combat isn't such that you are always in best possible situation.
Before you were talking about a T-55 flanking an Abrams to shoot at its side armor. Because the facts aren't on your side there. All the estimates I can find for 100mm HEAT rounds put the penetration abilities at under 400mm RHA. That's less than an RPG-7 round. It also means that only a lucky shot will damage a late-model Abrams from the side. More than likely, the first few rounds are ineffective, at which point that T-55 had better run and ride real fast.It takes less than 300-100mm RHA capable penetration to get mobility kill or disable M1 Abrams and very likely penetrate.
As if you didn't notice, I didn't talk about HEAT as M1 Abrams has higher protection against it, I used AP ammunition samples and against that M1 Abrams has much lower protection.
Of course no tank is built to withstand any high caliber hit to the rear. But if you rely on a rear armor shot, you have no business sitting in a tank. You should be hiding in a built-up area with handheld AT and leave the deathtrap obsolete MBT behind.Don't ever believe that enemy never gets around you or flank you. Don't talk like things goes always as it is told it will go.
I didn't bring up the claim that M1 can withstand T-55 from any direction, from any distance up to point blank range.
All what I did was state the fact that T-55 has capability to penetrate M1 Abrams armor from multiple directions and from further than just point blank range. If you would have read what I wrote, you would have find out that I have said it requires a optimal situation T-55 to win M1 Abrams.
And people have hard time to believe it and try to argue that it is always to front armor or always from further than T-55 can engage or hit etc. It is possible but very unlikely. After WW2 the possible engagement areas were mapped in northern Europe and if I remember correctly, 90% engagements would be below 2km, 80% below 1.3km and 50% below 600m. Only 10% and below of the engagements would be over 2km range.
You can't always choose the place or time where engagement happens if enemy doesn't give you the change. And then attacker is usually the undertaker. But if western nightmare scenario is that thousands of T-55 will roll at groups position or are in defense against western attack, then those are outnumbered, flanked and get more hits and hear hits to do serious damage faster than western forces could have inflict back. But that is like craziest nightmare with 0.000001% change ever happen in anyone's else mind than someone in pentagon.
I could go sneak up on a heavily armed soldier right now (taking advantage of terrain, of course) and stab him with a screwdriver. But no one would ever dream of calling me a serious military threat. Not unless you are extremely biased in favor of screwdrivers. And at the end of the day, sneaking up on an infantryman in MOUT is no more or less likely to happen than sneaking up on an MBT in similar fashion.Your comparison of D-10T to screwdriver is hilarious. Again like it would not be effective cannon to be used.
Maybe you should understand that I know what you try to do and say....
Maybe we can say that IED is like a screwdriver and not a serious threat in MBT battlefield, but it sure is very effective against invasion forces vehicles when you don't have a MBT,even T-55 level in use.
But would you probably say IED isn't effective...
But if you suggest that any older enemy MBT than latest or couple upgraded variants older from latest isn't a serious threat, then I would never want to hear you commanding any forces in the battle as arrogance and underestimating enemy is death to own troops.
-
Okay the T-55 can damage a tank when in range, but the T-55 can't outrange an Abrams. And also someone with no experience in real actual combat can't tell somebody who's been there, and done some of that I sit here and well... I don't do internet research unless I really have to, which means most of the time I speak from experience and not from other sources, such as political ones.
Problem is A there's note at the top of the page that we have to refrain from political topics, but a kid from Finland isn't going to convince a vet that you're right. Sure the Abrams can be destroyed, and if you "gang-bang" it with RPGs, or IEDs you're going to break it. But the belief that the T-55 has as much firepower as a modern MBT, even upgraded T-55s to my knowledge still have 100mm guns, so yes it'll damage anything, physics demands it. But the return shot will kill it. Hell I can carry an RPG or use a .50 cal to disable it.
It's fine you like the T-55 (as much as I like a certain plane) but eventually you'll have to accept reality and realize (like my favorite plane in some respects) that you're uninformed or just misinformed.
And of you can't try not to read between lines and support your own ego because you can't withstand the idea your own experience isn't no where near what is a threat and what isn't.
A boy with BB gun isn't a threat. A IFV with 20-30mm autocannon is a threat, a MBT with 100mm cannon is a threat.
You are jut naive if you believe M1 Abrams can turn its rear to T-55 and even reverse next to it without being in any risk getting destroyed or at least disabled by a single hit.
Or if you believe that every MBT fight is from 3-4km range in flat "billiard table" where there is no obstacles or any cover whats so ever to make a ambush, then you are naive.
The topic still is T-55 vs M1 Abrams in DCS, how it works and how real world works and what should be allowed to be expected to work in DCS. If you can't accept the fact that decisions to build armies, invade other countries and feed money to upgrade and modernization is a political one, then you are in wrong place as simulations and anything in DCS is drawn from political results in history. But maybe you don't get that the notification is to avoid talking from current political situations or recent ones.
In real world T-55 is serious threat to latest MBT from any manufacturer. That is pure fact that no one else can deny than naive brainwashed soldier who cant take fact as is.
What isn't questioned, and as I have told, is questions HOW and WHEN does the engagement happen and I have gave possible limits and changes in different ways.
I have not said that T-55 has as much raw firepower as you claim I have. I haven't said it can fire as far or penetrate as much at same range or hit as accurately from long range or even see in dark as well. Neither I didn't claim that T-55 can penetrate M1 Abrams front armor.
After all, I have talked about basic T-55, not even T-55A or any upgraded models with digital FCS, latest TIS, Kaktus-5 reactive armor kits and all other fancy features the old T-55 has got in all service years.
And I don't like T-55 as you claim I do. As you try to make that I am fanatic fan for T-55 so you could dishonor pure facts.
I just don't like the false claims that 100mm cannon can't penetrate M1 Abrams from any angle or distance. That M1 Abrams would not need to even worry being disabled or destroyed from single hit.
It is the brainwashed idea that M1 Abrams or any variant after it is somehow superior to anything else previously build. As that is the most dangerous talk and idea there is, that gets real people killed because they become arrogant or they work in totally wrong illusion being superior to everyone else.
You (not You) can talk a kid inside M1 Abrams and fire at them from flank with 100mm BM-25 as they easily trust that they are perfectly safe if said so or because they have been brainwashed to believe so by media.
You can try to talk a experienced veteran to same situation, bit no one really wants to get inside because they know what can happen and it is their life that is in risk.
A soldier who knows all the possibilities that can happen at him and truth why something needs to be done, becomes self aware and starts being afraid and cautious. And you can't command a such soldier by any way.
And you can try to dishonor me by calling me as kid or from anywhere you like. But you don't know what I do know and who I know and what they know from their own experience. You can only believe.
-
You're REALLY stretching it here. Trying to put an excessively rosy spin on basic facts.
A T-55 is a serious threat if it sneaks up on the flank of a modern tank. Okay. What you've basically just said is that a T-55 is LESS dangerous than a teenager with an RPG. Because the teenager can actually move stealthily and conceal himself, while a decent RPG warhead is more powerful than anything the T-55 carries nowadays.
Impressive.
You just try to deny hard facts by making joke of me.
Yes, using the Gulf War as a point of comparison is quite unfair. But let's be honest here. No matter what model T-72 you are talking about, the Abrams can still kill it from any angle and at considerable range. And the T-72 can't do the same.
When T-72 and T-64 were revealed they caused panic on western side. And T-72 had benefit that it could withstand hits from that time beat shells on Leopards and Abrams but could penetrate their front armor further. That was a crisis that as on fulda cap where the expected first strike would happen, would render western armors useless.
And T-72 had best stabilization until Leopard 2 was developed, even today T-72 gives awesome accuracy from move when tested against today's MBT. It even the metering was automated so once the distance was set, targeting system calculated distance correctly any direction T-72 went as long tracks didn't slip on ice or in mud. The laser made distance metering faster in upgraded variant, while it required to move metering point to target and then back to target, slowing down valuable seconds to get target.
While western "intelligence" mixed T-72 to T-64 in many cases, it didn't mean T-72 was less dangerous as it after cold war was found out.
-
. But when you turn on stabilisation in The options menu Them The vehicles movement dissapears as Well . I would like to see that Fixed in The future .
Reason I could buy the Steel Beast to play with friend was exactly that. I got so sea sick with the waving and is one of few if not only one what made me feel sick. It might sound silly as all head movements in DCS airplanes or full 3D directions in fast games like Aliens vs Predator 2000 with Alien doesn't cause any problems.
But for same reason I have disabled the motions in CA as I can't stand the sideway waving without good reason (and in real life I don't get at all motion sickness on rough storm at sea, in helicopter, airplanes etc, only in some games).
I really wish that in future DCS maps get noise to terrain mesh so there would be covers, larger rocks, small hills etc that could offer the cover and concealment.
-
In DCS CA its like this.
AP > Destroys Tanks and other stuff quite good. Sometimes for Tanks you will need 2 or more hits.
HE > Destroys everything at first hit.
And all Tanks use the same rounds in DCS. There is no diffrence between an Leopard 1A3 fired AP round and a T-90 fired AP round (or HE) in DCS.
And that is a problem, not just for the HE boost or same ammunition between all, but there is missing very basic features like you can fire as many AP to lightly armored or unarmored vehicles and you don't cause any other damage than a neat small hole and sometimes spelling killing infantry inside (if not hitting to engine etc). Why HE or HEAT is the most effective to such targets but slower to fly, most difficult to hit a moving target and often you don't have time to reload correct shell so you just fire the one in gun and then reload correct and fire. Meaning often you can fire a AP to lightly armored vehicle causing little or no damage at all, or then vice versa for modern MBT.
But then we are easily on level requirements of Steel Beast and that is out of the question.
-
But seriously, a T-55 in an engagement will simply not win against an M1A1-2, it's just common sense in the real world, or nor do I expect it to. Matter of fact during Desert Storm a platoon of T-72s was being shadowed by an M1 platoon or maybe a few tanks. The T-72s tried to fire and got wiped out. I mean if you upgraded the T-55 a bit, maybe give it better sensors, etc. It'll have a better chance of firing at an M1, but not killing it. And lets not get into tank crew quality as the M1 would still kill it and quite frankly the 100mm just doesn't have the range either.
If you mass T-55s you have a chance, but in an open field shooting environment, no it'll still be defeated even if its like one M1A1 or two against a three-tank T-55 platoon. It'll be tight but most crews can manage.
And as I found out the hard way on the BI forums, the Steal Beasts values aren't considered reliable either (as one of the artists mentioned that) so yeah but no.
The desert storm can't be used at all as sample to anything else than bad example.
T-72 were export variants of T-72 Ural (Not A or any newer model) that had much weaker armor (no armor upgrades what's so ever, thinner than original -73 thickness and steel had polluted from sand in manufacturing, resulting much weaker structure) and T-72 didn't have TIS (thermal imagine system, even how bad it was on M1 Abrams at then it was clear help) and Iraqis were using shells from 1962 or 1972 that had penetration at 2800m max 320-370mm. (Some even had training shells, what very likely is urban legend as using so old ammunition is like using training ammunition).
Then many Iraqis T-72 were on desert in hull-down positions so they couldn't move but sit down as ducks.
And then finally, almost all (over 80%) T-72 being destroyed was from air, by A-10, AH-1 and Apache. Then rest of the destroyed ones were from IFV mainly with a TOW missile or M1 Abrams.
The USA had M829A1 "silver bullet" that was depleted uranium shell (that causes cancer and kill more civilians than biochemical weapons and Iraq land and cities are full of radioactive dust from those) that could very easily penetrate Iraqis T-72 and main force using T-62 and T-55.
When other has air superiority (four AH-64A flied in night and destroyed early warning systems for invasion from 10km width, if I remember correctly, to clear path to bombers, fighters and A-10 close support.
The Desert Storm is good by the book example how to do invasion to country that posses weaponry that is 20-50 years older than yours and that has no tactics against your weaponry or that its air force is destroyed in start.
And it is good example how those are used to promote M1 Abrams armor, while no one really know the exact composition of it, but know protection values and other use similar in other MBT.
T-55 is still very serious threat to latest MBT from any manufacturer and it can't be allowed to sneak near you to its firing range as it will do damage easily if hitting vulnerable flank, rear or roof.
If T-55 platoon is given to skilled tactical commander who knows terrain and enemy, who has platoon of M1A2 or even M1A3 and doesn't know the terrain, the fight can be very much a tie.
But if it is 4 vs 4 head to head at open 3-4km range flat terrain.... There is no change for T-55 as long Abrams keeps its front armor toward enemy and keeps moving diagonally to avoid lucky shots to destroy prisms, radios and other systems.
Americans commanders knows when to fight and when not and what to use (ground, air) against what. And they brag about it when they just beat a child and stole candy how awesome they are.
Only fool goes to knife fight with MBT and if you have a element of surprise, longer range, better detection range and air support, you use those and play safe.
The steel beast values are very good estimations, drawn from tests and first hand experiences from people who operate them and use them. It isn't 1+1=2 calculations as in real world there are so many other factors depending what hits, penetrates or protects. But I would not even say BIS forums is better at all or closer to what Steel Beast developers and main users are (military training tools for military with a license and NDA etc).
But even believe that M1 Abrams is safe from T-55 is naive and ignorance.
-
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Combined Arms. Yesterday, I initially noticed an unrealistically optimistic result when a Leopard 1A3, armed with the Royal Ordnance 105mm gun, defeated a T-80 at a distance of about 3 km. I thought to myself that perhaps a critical hit had occurred, but to test my hypothesis, I set up another meeting engagement, in which a T-55, armed with its D-10T rifle, and protected by its face-hardened cementite armor, would go toe to toe with an M1-A1, armed with its Rheinmetall-Borsig 120mm smoothbore, and protected by its Chobham composite laminate armor. In real life, the D-10 has nowhere near the energy to defeat the M1's Chobham armor, at any angle, at any range. An M1 can literally BACK UP to a T-55, and the latter's D-10 rifle lacks the energy to defeat even the rear armor on the M1, at point-blank range. The result of the engagement?
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1A1_(HA)
As you can see, the values for side armor are very weak against KE and even HEAT. That's why M1 Abrams was knocked with unknown weapons (likely RPG-7 of some kind) trough whole side middle of other side armor.
The T-55 cannon D-10T has different kind shells.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data
As you can see from list, many AP shell has capability to penetrate 211-350mm RHA depending variant (year) etc from 1500-2500m range.
The HEAT is 380mm and that doesn't even get affected by range but luck to hit anything moving with it...
Now consider that T-55 being first MBT, the 100mm cannon was a beast against anything west had. Example Leopard 1 front armor was just 70mm thick and sloped http://i.imgur.com/rIokAxF.jpg . While T-55 front armor was 200mm http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/T54_Training_Parola_Tank_Museum_9.jpg
and Leopard 1 L52 cannon penetrating around 300-320mm from 3000-3500m range was as well very ineffective as then there were newer MBT models on Soviets like T-64 and T-72 and Leopard 1 had even challenge to penetrate T-55A from front.
Even the old T-55 can penetrate M1A1 from side at 1.5-3km range. But luck to get the shot and even hit the target.
But to penetrate front armor? HAH! But my understanding is that DCS doesn't much model the hit zones, but has basic hit box. As Vikhr doesn't always destroy Abrams if hitting front.
Even T-80U probably has only 4cm thick armor at rear...
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html
So when it comes to battlefield, you don't want to be inside a MBT when you are against a capable forces (others than firing training rounds at you or incapable to see you or even fire as far as you can or that no air superiority or cover) as you are the first thing to get targeted and you are sitting inside a large tin can.
So even considering that M1Ax armor is superior to T-55 at any angles or ranges is just believe to propaganda it being superior MBT.
Today IFV can field 40-50mm autocannon that does very nasty things from very far away, and even 20-30mm autocannon from flank or specially rear or top does very very bad things with rapid 600-800rpm.
In battlefield it is more about who fires first, and that comes to who see other first and from what range the engagement happens.
-
isn't it gonna be a separate module? it would be like adding full fidelity plane to flaming cliffs ;p
Hopefully not, as would kill idea of CA.
-
Ideally, I'd like it to be more or less similar to what Men of War series do. Different weapons & rounds have different penetration capabilities, for kinetic energy penetrators range, therefore energy of round at impact matter, round's angle of impact on armour matter, and of course thickness of armour itself again, matter. For chemical energy rounds, range comes out of equation, but angle still matters. Non catashthropic hits cause damage to vehicle systems like mobility, firepower etc, but if a hit successfully score a penetration : no damage amount, no hit point or anything, it just goes boom.
Of course, this would be A LOT of processing overhead in a flight simuation. So, some simplification should be taken.
But probability stuff doesn't sound right to me at all. Such systems are good for report and statistics alright. But what we have here is a physics simulation of actual hits / misses and their effects, so in my opinion above probability formula shouldn't be the way forward.
I could take that in simplifactions like 15° steps for hit angles, a penetration values between 25-50 steps and then some random damage changes for parts in 5-10% steps like lose a track or kill infantry because spelling behind IFV.
-
I would buy any armor module that comes out to DCS, but as penguin said, proper tank Sim has nothing to offer ordinary WoT customer to be interested in. completely different type of excitement.
We need and highly get a semi-beliavable simulation for casual players (who want action and fast in 5-10min from start and spend 30-60min in game) once the EDGE is out.
Speed up the actions, make trees to give cover and concealment, easy way to command platoon or infantry to move, get urban combat possible (AI movement etc) and then easy way to get radio frequency to contact air units if needed etc.
I would not need personally serious damage modeling for penetration, just basic modeling for rear, side, front in hull and same for tower.
There are the other group as well, the RTS fans who are willing to play few hours a evening but they need very easy way to command units, get info and see the map for commands etc.
But how to get RTS and WOT player work together? Other wants to drive where wanted at that moment, not to take commands from others, that is what RTS player so want.
-
4xGBU10, dropped one after the next, NOT ripple pairs or pairs, single. Or the GPS version of the same bomb. Reason being the pairs will explode one of themselves, and it registers as one hit, not two.
Did I now understand correctly, dropping in pairs causes only one of the bombs to be actual damage causer and other just effect?
Or do you mean that the first one hitting ground/target and exploding causes the other blow in the air and it doesn't register as hitting the target?
-
Chappie, you are aware the Hind is already on BST's roadmap? ...I strongly recommend to do a little research on modelling complex system and think again. Please reconsider terms like "easy", "simple" etc. If it would be that easy we would have seen far more modules in the past two years...
For heart surgeon it can be easy to do heart transfers, but to me it would be trying to even dare hold the scalpel, never less to cut someone.
There are different difficulty levels and skills.
Even a driving a bike is very difficulty skill to learn, for some.
Learning to drive a car can be easy to many, but still many makes mistakes and peoples life's are in line. But some are skilled that they can handle a car in "impossible" ways, to most other people.
To many a Microsoft Office Excel is very complex, or the functionality of web browser in very basic level like address bar, history of visited web sites, bookmarks etc.
Like how many of you know what the web browser really does between typing address, hitting enter and reading loaded site? How many of you knows what the whole computer (all hardware and software) does on whole that short period of time between key press and loaded page on screen?
To some people making a DCS level module is a impossible task, but many knows how to do such things and they can do them if they have time and will to do them.
If you are doing alone something and it is your first one, it is hard, time taking process etc. But if you have done dozens of such things already, it is easy and simple thing to do.
But it doesn't mean you do one on weekend... But it doesn't mean it takes 10-15 years like you would be building a whole new real aircraft from scratch with latest theories and problems needing to be solved.
Making a DCS module of cold war era aircraft isn't like building a F-35.
The skills that DCS module developers have is great, but that doesn't make them better than people who work with projects like F-35 or PAK-FA. Otherwise F-35 would have been finalized in 1998-19999 period. Or it really takes a lots of time to make a single cauge with its needle and test it and think how to wire it etc....
Either we can laugh when someone say "its easy" that it means "done at weekend alone in drunk" or we can laugh that "it is like building a new aircraft from scratch".
Or we can simply be objective and consider that what the "it should be easy" really means, in context. Or do we need to get to discussions like does the different skins in DCS aircrafts affect to flight modeling and could we get models without paint to minimize the drag from paint?
-
And you know this how? How many sims / sim modules have you written yourself?
I believe that many now specifically want to misunderstand his words...
Compare A-10C and Su-25A and you get the idea....
How much there is technical and computerized technologies differences between those two?
ALOT!
Sure there is the data required for flight modeling but if DCS can apply a Blade Element Theory, then it is easy to make a AFM level by experienced modeler alone. Then it isn't much required for skilled modeler and coder to make a A-10A or Su-25A level cockpit (non-clickable) with 6-DOF functionality.
Just as quick example: Simple Plane maker tutorial Part 1: http://youtu.be/l4m2wRb7ZBA
Now, how long you think it would take from skilled modeler that has access to designs or samples and textures to build a FC3 level aircraft, when basic models are already done, weapons etc data and models exist etc?
Sure for PFM ED would need more real life data to confirm and adjust flight modeling and get externals etc more accurate, but I believe many would be happy to pay 25€ for "early access" that gets later updated to AFM/PFM with 20-25€ more....
I would be willing to pay 30-40€ for base model like Mi-24P and then 10-15€ for each variant like V and VP that requires just base model. Same thing with any existing module that has upgrades. Like when aircraft gets upgrades that simply change avionics and carried weapons only.
-
Apache definitely get's my vote but with the dual seat modules inbound I'm not sure how the front seat optics controller would be correctly simulated in DCS.... (If at all) It requires you to hold it like a Playstation controller including buttons on the back. Sure the keyboard would work but...
Just a new product to controller manufacturers to build.... Or how about buying a Saitek Yoke?
For that gunner use, I would by Yoke (around 50€ as new) and then buy a joystick board (around 30€) and then craft a own custom controller around, requires just some time around electronic store to find a wanted switches and buttons, then use my skills to solder and place to make plastic casts.
Result would be a dual-controller joined together and it would work in DCS as it accepts multiple controllers separated. So instead one cable, I would have two cables coming from custom yoke.
Done this for Russian HOTAS and works great.
I have a small idea to make custom stick to friend TM Warthog but I don't know does the stick axis base work without official stick connected? As the screw would allow very nicely to mount custom stick with own USB cable with more buttons, switches and hats than any sim-pervert dreams....
-
Thanks xxxJohnxxx
I thought of that - I just don't want to wait all night for the download to complete on my slowish broadband! Also, I don't want to add anything else to my existing Steam directory because it has a habit of getting messy!
No worries, I'll just wait for another sale - or stump up the full price! Right now I'm getting to grips with the MiG21 which is keeping me fairly busy :-)
Just start the steam download so it creates the files (allocates disk space) and then pause download, shutdown the steam and then _copy_ your standalone DCS installation to correct steam directory and overwrite the files there are.
Then start steam and validate the files in game properties. You should either get few megabytes download if standalone version is up to date or at least radically save time/bandwidth.
-
Maybe download it through steam (you can uninstall it afterwards). The key you get in steam should be usable in the standalone.
Edit: didn't see the earlier URL or reply as using Tapatalk to read forums: "Please note though that keys purchased on the Steam store will work on DCS World downloaded from the DCS Store." http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2085202
So Steam -> Standalone works.
Sorry to 'hijack' thread littlebit but i have been wondering this.
Previously ED could sync in batches keys between standalone steam versions. Then Valve didn't anymore allow it so ED stopped it.
But today we can use Steam keys on standalone, but not vice versa?
Steam -> Standalone = possible
Standalone -> Steam = impossible
-
Damn.... Can't wait to fly A-10 at that map and wait to get AH-1 and Mi-24 to get to chopper fight...
If those overlaid maps are 90% accurate, the Nevada map will be huge to fly.
-
What is unrealistic at how is now?
That it is just a green circle middle of the screen....
What is wanted, is that it would be more like a HMS for KA-50 or like it is on the first frame from video taken inside helmet.
So what we want, is a that there would be a extension arm visible (very blurred as it is so close our face) and the metallic circle (blurry as well) and holographic reticle inside (that is sharp).
It would make the HMS have a more authentic look for immersion.
-
When you look at the swashplate position at hover and it's max UP and DOWN travel end points ( Blade Pitch Angle for Cyclic & Collective ) it is obvious why you have to set collective somehow back to the standard hover position so you cyclic has enough travel to actually do something.
What many beginners, Sim or R/C do wrong, is when they try to get out of a steep dive nose down they pull collective far too early, before the nose is horizontal. If you try to get the nose 90° up while full collective you will soon find out there is very very little cyclic travel possible.
Keep collective around hover and your nose will do what your stick says, then gently apply collective to flatten out.
If you could look at a swash plate you could see what I mean in no time.
Bit
Not just pulling from dive, but the problem is that co-axial rotos blades clash to each other very easily in rough maneuvers if collective is up. That's why when doing loops and hard ACM to avoid missiles or fire, it is crucial to learn in what moves collective needs to be totally off, not even in hover level as otherwise you don't have blades anymore.
And when coming from deep dive, if there is speed, helicopter is flu as airplane, don't touch collective at all. Requirement to know when and how to do autorotation is very important as well because that way it is possible get quickly down without clashing blades or gaining air speed or momentum.
And as the problem is too that co-axial rotors are used to turn the helicopter, it is required to pull collective up to do maneuvers as without blades having higher angle of attack, you don't turn easily or at all, the swashplate has enough traveling anyways with a co-axial designs as there is a another rotor disk giving more counterforce for maneuvers. So simply learning the co-axial helicopter flight possibilities is easier when learning from keeping collective down when in hard maneuvers and you can do almost anything. And when speed is slow enough, loops etc can be done with full collective too with more powerful control reactions.
-
The F-15 has a PFM, the A-10A has an AFM and AFAIK, all of the russian birds don't have toe brakes in RL.
Even if so, neither does KA-50 have a trimmer reset, or most cockpit knobs and switches be a buttons....
Seriously, just not adding the axis possibility makes the customer interest and possibility invest to flight controllers when not all functions can be used.
I would love to have possibility to bind some axis to some functions, switches as such and so on.
For simplicity reasons most planes doesn't have a clickable cockpit so virtual pilots would have easier time.
So why not allow one to bind a wheel brake to pedals break axis?
I can even control Shkval with pedals toe brakes, how realistic is that?
-
... Or Switzerland :-) small with lots of mountains
We already have enough high mountains.
How about Germany? Fulda Cap etc?
Terrain for helicopters and ground units. It would support CAS aircraft modules and combined arms module very effectively.
Lots of hills, forest patches and then wide open areas for ground units.
Sure no ships but all maps should not have always sea.
-
1
-
-
Needed to vote Su-25KM "Scorpion" as while having both Su-25 planes, we really need a equivalent to A-10C in clickable cockpit and deep/complex avionics.
georgian jet su 25 km scorpion 31th factory:
If would take a fighter jet, then it would have been Mig-23MLA.
I find it sad that DCS doesn't have flyable cold war planes other than F-15C, as it is a boring one. Same can be said about Su-27 family variants or Mig-29, they just get boring as everyone does those.
Then going to even older planes like F-86/Mig-15 what as well feels little too old but still nice to have.
Mig-23 vs F-14 or F-4 or F-5 would be very interesting to see.
Just wish there would be more ground units from same era.
-
In the Ka-50? Try 400+ :D
(That is including recovering from the dive; the generators will usually cut out, but that's about it if you're very gentle on the controls as you get back to level flight; probably need to check F2 view for speed because in the cockpit it won't show correctly :))
Edit:
I just re-read tusler's statement. In my experience, this has nothing to do with RPM and everything with the collective all the way down to the floor; maybe that's what you meant, not sure.
With KA-50 it is better to get a habit to lower collective every time hard maneuvers are required. Then learn how much collective is required to pull a needed turn.
KA-50 allows all kind crazy maneuvers when collective is down.
Like full nose/rotors a down altitude droppings from 400-500m to few meters. The problem is just to learn the autorotation and then required glide altitude for given weight, that is around 30-40m usually on me, so you get safely to ground effect altitude if needed.
For friend sake who was "first time" in KA-50 as wingman, we enabled the Game Flight modeling and I can't stand it well as I can't maneuver KA-50 as learned. And trying quickly to get altitude off, even from 30m to 4-5m range is most often result of death.
The 400+ km/h sounds about right and there is huge benefit to have a effective tail and co-axial rotors.
-
1. Switching mode "free look/clickable" make like trigger - when press assigned key I get free look, release and get back to clickable cockpit. And possible to reverse this function by pressing some key sequence - which primary is clickable, press key and get free mouse look when key is holding pressed, release key and get back to clickable.
2. Perfectly assign this key for fast switch modes on middle mouse button. Click and hold and you get free mouse look, release and back to clickable.
Sorry for lot of words.
if you can, assign a default LAlt+C to RMB (right mouse button) and it is easy to move camera and switch back to clicking mode.
The impossibility add switch or modifier to mouse is a crucial feature missing.
Surprising CA Result
in DCS: Combined Arms
Posted
I couldn't agree more.