Fri13

Same thing has happened on the in sailing, iPads and laptops has got to be accepted as official navigation instruments. I believe you still are required to have a paper map in a boat, but not required to use it. about 10-15 years ago it was that you needed to have maps and use them, but you were allowed to use GPS devices as backup (yeah, people used them as primary). I am old school, even when I travel to other countries I love to have a map available for me. I want at least to have a generic paper map (a A4 size etc) to give me easy way to navigate from opposite side of city to otherside etc. If I just can I use phone instead as all I want on the foreign place is a map and watch. But being able to draw on map, make the markings etc. It is extremely handy. But let's face it, flying is about navigation and not so much about searching fancy places where to go for a beer.

No matter count of anecdotal evidences there are, they might not be true. That is the problem with them. Pilots feedback is important, and it can be utilized where the measurements or lack of information creates a oddity. But it can't be used as primary source over technical evidence and material. Like people can experience a feeling that a control device shakes, while there is no measurable shaking happening. And I am not choking anything that memory is fuzzy, just pointing out that human memory is fragile, and it requires other technical evidence and such to be presented. This is not against you, this is against the idea that pilots are critical or important parts of the evidence, as the fact just is that human memory can not be trusted. There I lost Your points, but it is OK. I don't deny them. Okay, that is the point. Sorry, didn't connect the dots in the earlier discussion as didn't read to the end. I read that part about the diagram of the VRS zone and first I was little stunned that how I don't understand it as I was constantly reading the X axis as "vertical speed" and 0, 1, 2, 3 meters made me scratch head that how can a helicopter sink to VRS at 0-1 m/s vertical speed at higher angle than 30 degree... Until after a minute I read it correctly that it was a horizontal air speed... And the discussion about 30 degree being very deep angle, it is. In a Mi-8MTv2 in a DCS, I might have dropped to VRS maybe few times at the first flights. After that I have might gotten to VRS when I have made ridiculous and extreme landing scenarios that would never in reality happen, like having full bomb load on the one side of the helicopter and other side being empty, landing in a crazy 16 m/s wind and testing the flight modeling for various approach angles and speeds. But maybe it is as well about my first flight methods, where usually I put the new modules airframes to extreme tests to just brake them and challenge them. Find the limits and character by the feeling/touch. As then I know better what to avoid before even starting to look a proper values. For a normal flight I don't end to VRS as it feels easy to avoid. But if that 30 degree part etc is proper, then sure, it should be impossible to get into VRS in such approach angles. I have seen only few videos of the Mi-8/Mi-17 ending to VRS, and they have been fairly dangerous looking ones. Again difficulty to say much without more accurate technical data. Edit: I played Mi-8MTv2 last time on the 2D years ago. Since getting the Rift CV1 and going to full VR and building the proper helicopter controls and all, the Mi-8MTv2 flight experience has been totally different. All the helicopters are completely different to fly in VR with proper controls than it is on throttle/short joystick/no pedals or controllers on table and looking game via display. I believe I would be terrible with any helicopter in DCS if I would need to play it from table and display. That I didn't say that it would not be representive or it would be about reality.

Exactly. You can train and become expert in things, but it doesn't mean that everyone can do it, even with training. Actually there are people who can do it. About 2% of the population can do two simultaneous tasks excellent manner. But that is it, very minor amount of population. Like driving a car at begin is that you concentrate for everything and you need to alternate concentration from one task to another. But in time it becomes natural thing to do, until you hit to point where you are in situation that is not experienced. Like a emergency situation. In a high attention demanding jobs you can improve the performance by training, but only up to a point when your limitations are the end. That has been demonstrated to be just a way of thinking that one can learn very quickly, once they itself know what is going to happen. You can get average person to describe properly the process of X even when they do it at first time while they are doing it, but it is as well question that how accurately they need to describe things. It can be trained in daily life in normal tasks to get to that state of mind. That is the interesting part in the experience that how people's skills get better via training. You see them do something first time and then they get better with just few repeats. Doesn't work so easily for everyone, but most get to it. But when it comes to very complex phases, let's say to perform a over 100 proper functions in correct order and timing, it becomes very complex. And there are really just handful of people who can do that, who can example listen a song first time in their life and repeat it. Actually tasks that you do without thinking are likely those that will kill you. That is the most dangerous part of the in daily live. The mind being somewhere else because body goes by automation for something that has been trained and trained to level. The requirement to concentrate for the doing is challenging. Yes, it is surprising percentage that how many drops from being in the specific position. That is as well reason why it is wrong to say "Everyone has a change to get where they want to be in their lives" as it is totally wrong. And interesting part is, that even those will not train or experience everything even at the basic level as they don't need to. Well, let me put it this way.... When you are at the war and you have pilots dying all around you. You lower your standards. There is no any other way. The idea that you can just have a handful of extremely highly trained pilots to win the war is just wrong. Unless of course you can have thousands and thousands of such people. That is why even today militaries fund a lot of research projects that sounds like a Sci-Fi, where one could transfer one's experiences to a another person. Almost instant training. From years you could cut to days or even hours. As there is a genetic memory, and if it could be found how to copy and implement memories... I just wanted to point out that regardless what level pilots there are, there are majority still that can not transfer their knowledge to a simulator without doing proper questioning and proper context and environment to give the pilot a better understanding that what is the goal of the simulator to be. Like you can't have a helicopter pilot have same experience of flying with a just joypad and display. They can read the instruments and if some remembers things correctly then know if some things are going wrong like RPM is too high or aircraft doesn't stop at proper time based to instrument. But that is again more about why giving different testing environment gives different results. Pilots are humans. They forget things and they remember things wrong etc just like anyone else. Military has done a lot of studies and research for this as well among civilians for decades, and only in the decade or two has them started to be taken seriously and applied to the practice. The problem is as well that more you recall the memory, more you rewrite it. And when you learn even how to do it, you can wipe your own memory of events. These are not simple topics, but for comparing it analyzing and understanding VRS that is simple topic, it is still required to be more scientific and tested than memory based feeling.

If someone would ask that what person needs to do to drive a simple car from home to work, it is very difficult task to actually explain in detail that how much they need to turn the wheel or how much they need to push pedals or what gears they needed to switch in what order and at what speeds. Even if the person has drove that same route weekly for last 20-30 years. Human mind is very fragile and forgets many things, and it is very easily filled with false memories, information and doubts with simple suggestions. That is why these days ED should use a simple custom made "blackbox" to register all the aircraft movements if not just from cockpit, then from outside having them mounted there. They literally are gopro size devices that measure all accelerations and so on all G forces, roll rates etc. They can be used to measure with camera recording from cockpit instruments to check some values. Record the control devices positions and all movements etc.

Aaaand this is reason why requiring a track file for a bug report doesn't usually work as the track file on your computer can show the bug, but it shows nothing wrong on the developer computer. This is why every bug report should be detailed by the steps how to produce it so that bug tester can actually understand that what is tried to be done and then repeat it various means. And regardless that, it is better to have a video recording of the gameplay so it can be seen without relaying to track system or to someone else testing it. The track system is at best for generating some fancy movies and other things that does not require repeatable action in accuracy. It can't even be used for a game save feature where you would take control from moment you want to continue the game, as there is possibility that doesn't happen properly as replay system doesn't work right.

Well of course AI can be firing and guiding it. But if you are going to fly alone the Mi-24 as in all seats, you want to have AI to fly helicopter when you guide the missile. As you can not do both same time. This is reason why example the SA342 has unrealistic autohover so that you can sit as a co-pilot and guide missile while looking through optics, as otherwise you crash on the ground as you can't have right hand on the joystick to guide missile and on cyclic same time. In DCS you can bind them to same joystick and fly and shoot same time, but it is just unrealistic. In Mi-24 the WSO has both hands on the controller and eye on the optics and can't fly, so either use auto hover or AI to fly around. When the AI WSO spots something and is ready to launch ATGM, you as pilot need to turn helicopter toward that sight position so your gunsight shows the crosshair the WSO has aimed, and then you have aligned the missiles flare to be spotted by the SACLOS system and command guidance automatically. It is like flying Mi-8MTv2 and giving the commands and angles to the door gunner with Kord. Except in that you don't have any control for the gunner that what target it should engage or it doesn't tell you if something is spotted.

Map doesn't care about GPS jamming because it doesn't have GPS. A digital map doesn't care about GPS jamming because it doesn't care about GPS. The tablet in the military aircraft is not for the digital navigation system, it is for digital map. It is totally realistic to have a tablet as kneeboard that will digitally show you the map, the flightplan, the markings and all. You just don't use its networking capabilities to tell you where you are, as you are going to use the aircraft navigation system for that. And if the GPS is jammed, it means that your aircraft is forced to fly in INS mode, and that means you anyways need to have a map and flight plan visible so you know at what direction and how long etc you are need to fly etc. For a civilian flight the GPS is nice to have as your aircraft likely doesn't have so sophisticated instruments anyways, but regardless of that you still need to know how to use the map be it a digital or paper, and you need to have your flight plan drawn on it. A tablet for navigation is excellent tool, until you run out of battery or it gets broken. That is why you need to have a paper map somewhere for emergency reasons so you can pull it out and start figuring things out. These days they are plugging batteries and all kind gizmos to "future soldier" and they are mostly trash, as if the batteries die (for what ever reason) their equipment goes crazy. Like Russians are testing a battery powered body heaters for their soldiers. Where soldier has a controller cable coming from their sleeve to adjust the heater power. Like, from where are the soldiers going to recharge the system when in war and they are going to spend next 3-5 months in the forest?

Need to remember that we don't benefit from the 9M120M with 8 km range at all, as we are limited to 3x and 10x optical sight magnification. The 10x magnification offers likely about 110-120 meters wide FOV at 1000 meters. So at 5000 meters you are looking about 550-600 meters wide scene. At 8000 meters you would be looking about 1000 meters wide scene. You just are not going to get a shot at that and if you would manage to get the large vehicle (a truck with tarp) on clear contrasty scene (sitting in yellow the crop field in direct sunlight) you likely are going to miss as I don't think the sight and system can by any means deliver accurate guidance commands at those ranges to even spot the missile. So you would need a much higher magnification and improved targeting systems to utilize such ranges. Even with a KA-50 and its 7x and 23x magnification it is challenging to engage targets at 8 km range. The 7x is too narrow for KA-50 use in many cases, why it is great we have 3x in the Mi-24 as you don't have contrast lock and automatic target tracking, but need to keep pointing the stabilized sight at the target.

I recall that it is a modern one as said that lately the LIPA SOEP-V1A IR jammer has been in process to be removed why we don't have it simulated, a system that is stated to be ineffective against anything newer than blowpipe, so 60-70's era missiles.

Why those are major game changes for everyone as You say. That might be the major future new element for the helicopter flying to get the AI work nicer than now. Like it is not so fun in UH-1H when suddenly your commander starts spraying miniguns all over the places as he did spot a infantry soldier at maximum distance somewhere front between the buildings, while you are focused to support own ground units while just overflying them. We are again in the interesting phases where major changes are coming with the new and improve features. Like if this "Petrovitch" turns to be great later on when it is developed futher, I totally want to see it in the other helicopters like KA-50 wingmen. As it is as much about Mi-24 Co-Op with AI as flying with AI wingmen and so on all other helicopters. So for some period it can be the first major difference maker for Single Player elements how Mi-24 changes it to better by having a more aware AI with you. Is there information about is the "Petrovitch" just for your helicopter AI or is it as well used for your wingmen?

I don't have either problems supporting ground troops. And again I am not thinking about buying Mi-24, as I already did. And I did not buy it by thinking its capability in battlefield.... What I quoted was the OP created topic of the Mi-24 fitting to the DCS World. He is the one who is requesting discussion about how it fits to DCS world, how it can support ground units, is it only good for using ATGM against some ground targets etc. Topics can be discussed without doing it only from own opinion point of view. I can defend someone's opinions even when I don't share them. I can counter someone's opinions even when I share them. In discussions it is not about person, it is about the topic.

Yes, we are in the exactly half of the topic: "In DCS world what real purpose will the hind serve? The reason I ask this question is due to the fact that in DCS world combat is mainly oriented around the ground and air vehicles. What was the last time you really tried to support the infantry in DCS? Yes, we may have 4 9M120 against the ground targets, but that's about it. In contrast, the upcoming Apache will have much more "space" in DCS with up to 16 hellfires on board and various sensors such as AG radar, Datalink, and multiple self-defense capabilities." (half is basically about AH-64 vs Mi-24, but I concentrate to Mi-24 and its orientation for ground attack and how it fits to support ground units like infantry in DCS: Supporting Ground Units -> Ground Units capabilities and limitations relative to Mi-24 -> How it looks in future related to current (soon) Mi-24 weaponry and tactics = Why to buy it today (instead tomorrow when changes are done) -> How will it change in the future.

Yes they have. Why I collected few different interviews to show how things has evolved and got more impressive. ED has taken ground part far more seriously like 7-8 years ago and got to situation where they need to improve so many things that their dreams are only limit now. What multiple people (Wags, Katia, Nick, Simon etc) talk about ED goals in those is very impressive and reveals how challenging and growing projects those are. There is so many great changes to come in the future for helicopter and ground units players.

I am, so your suggestion about otherwise is misplaced. As getting Mi-24P is not going to change anything else we have now. It is that in the future we just can have far more enjoyment. At this moment it doesn't take so much skill at all as it should. That is the problem as it is not about right tactics but simply abusing the currently limited game mechanics and utilizing a proper tactics just gets you more likely killed than succeed (opposite), hence "Facing the Reality" what to expect years old mechanics in ground for those who have not flown at low+slow previously. Again, not about asking schedule. But about connection between Dynamic Campaign <-> Improved AI <-> Damage Modeling <-> Combined Arms, as in the interviews it has been mentioned by Wags that Combined Arms was put on the backburner to speed up other elements, so question is that are those later dropping more likely as a one major patches or in series. Again, not about schedule but more about can we see example improved AI spotting separately from a new damage modeling, and it separately from CA etc?

Rear-seat is responsible for Gun and Rocket delivery, so you get to be that with its CCIP capable gunsight. You can do all that as front-seat but you get fixed gunsight, and you can only use ATGM from the front seat. Considering that you are not going to use ATGM from close ranges, you can assumingly be all the time in the front and then when you starting using ATGM by aiming with the sight the AI will at first phase at least maintain flight for you until you return to fly. So mainly you fly from rear and then sometimes as from front.

You have not talked with the other planets leaders like high ranking officials are...

Not asking at all about the schedule, just that are the AI units logic touched in the dynamic campaign part of the development, if either one are separate process?

Our current problem in the DCS mission designs is that the Anti-Air units are in the airbase, not surrounding areas like building a 50-300 km defense airspace around the base that you have difficulties to penetrate with anything. Right now it is in common servers just flying to airbase and there is like a short range SAM system defending the runways, why people get shot down on short moment after they take-off as enemy can just circle around the airbase waiting players to get up. If all goes better direction, none of the aircraft will be able to do that. You need an army to do so. And that is what Mi-24P will be doing, supporting that army to move on the ground in front line. Attacking on the targets that are harder for the ground units. While being protected by the MiG-29's and SAM systems. Almost any aircraft can dominate a proper small combat group, like have a recon team in AFV and even a two SA342 will take such out unless that is something like a LAV-25 and few Stingers with them. But put any aircraft against properly set army division and they get down sooner than get to release anything. The Mi-24P will do fine when using common DCS style that place a 4 MBT's on the open field and shoot them from the distance. Place anything on the ground that can engage Mi-24 outside its weapons envelopes and it will be engaged as soon it just comes visible. So not even surprise engagements can be used at the moment when everyone knows where it is at that moment.

So Dynamic Campaign will not be including the improved AI and ground units behavior but just a strategic elements? I have remembered it wrong as in 2017 Wags said: "....once we get that done that will translate well to you know the modern aircraft and even the ground vehicles at some point...." https://youtu.be/JhUSSM4a7BU?t=1531

Growling Sidewinder interview with Nick Grey about Dynamic Campaign and AI logic. https://youtu.be/OhpwuAGqstc?t=480 CasmoTV interview with Wags about Dynamic Campaign, UI, AI etc about highest priority. https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=283 https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=1832 Grim Reapers interview with Simon about Damage Modeling and Combined Arms. https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=2866 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=3949 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4140 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4364 Here we can see a third party mention of the Damage Modeling WW2 -> Modern. But in their quoted original post from ED, it is not the case of the order: https://stormbirds.blog/2020/10/09/ai-and-damage-models-subject-of-dcs-update/ "All of their released fighters have apparently been already updated and their AI piloted bombers are due to get this upgrade next. Following that, more modern jets will begin to see this technology emerge which should lead to more nuanced damage profiles there too." -> https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4447624 In a 20th January 2020 Newsletter is mentioned this: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/?tab=comments#comment-4124781 "Once we and our clients are happy with the warbirds damage model system, we will implement this new damage modelling to the more modern aircraft, ground units, and naval units." Again nothing about the other orders than WW2 first, and after that the rest in general. On later newsletters (7th February 2020) there are other mentions: "Most of the Eagle Dynamics team will be focused on DCS World core to improve performance, lighting, and weather. We will also launch our new damage modelling engine which initially will be for the WWII aircraft. The team is also working hard to improve airfield air traffic control, more life-like AI, new AI units, and a dynamic campaign system." In the 2019 Mudspike interview with Matt Wagner: https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/ Are there any plans to expand Combined Arms? This hidden gem of a module can really alter the multiplayer landscape with a cunning user at the helm but hasn’t gained a large following. Certainly, but before we can do so, there are other items that first need to be addressed: Detailed damage model system for ground units Improved ground unit AI decision making New and improved ground unit effects A much more detailed ground environment So we are not going to see any new campaign mode or anything about Combined Arms before damage models comes to ground units. And it clearly said that order was WW2 -> Ground -> Modern fighters years back (not just week ago), but everything is subject to change. Just need to find the interview. In the other interviews it has been discussed how they are trying to get the first version of Dynamic Campaign for testing (again, requirement to have those other systems first in place) in this year, but again everything is subject to change. Overall is that changes will be major in the near future, as these things has been in ground work development like since 2014-2016 and couple years for more advanced major work.

Exactly. The vehicle crew roof guns are for self-defense purposes. So if the helicopter will fly 300-500 meters of them other direction and troops are already exposed (spotted etc) then you can try to take them down. But someone needs to pop-up and reveal themselves, vulnerable for a any average soldier in 300-400 meters and sniper up to 600-800 meters when stationary, and you want to be stationary to fire that (H)MG. If the helicopter is coming toward your position in purpose of attack (not at you, but someone in your platoon 100-150 meters away) then you can try to suppress the helicopter by firing at it to disturb its attack and break away. We need AI units to have even a basic logic that when to open fire, and when not to. As at best firing at someone you just reveal your position. And in DCS this can be easily exploited in KA-50 that you fly at proper distance from the expected enemy positions and get them to engage you. Jinking slightly as evasive flight and they don't hit you. You will spot them and then come around to engage them. The longbow radar is not suppose to be so effective. Sure if you have a non-camouflaged vehicles sitting in center of a harvested field, then you get to spot them easily from 3-5 km. But you do that already visually as well. Camouflage the vehicle and radar becomes basically obsolete tool among FLIR, and visual spotting is very challenging. If we would have those vehicles have a logic to withdraw to cover and conceal themselves, the CAS would turn to be totally different experience.

Good to know. As didn't know so exact things for its mechanics than there is a penalty and timer etc. But the point is that penalty for failing the mission is there. If we would have a pilot rank system, that you need to work for. You gain benefits from gaining flight hours, completing missions (like dropping bomb accurately where JTAC requests, or flying flight plan properly etc) and building career, then you build a virtual pilot that you don't want to waste for a stupid death. Like if it would take a 25 hours to get to a good average standing, you totally are not going to kill that virtual pilot at all same manner as you would if you have 15 minutes. And if with 15 minutes you are more about a target practice for anyone else with 5-10 hours, it will require you to put effort to fly missions properly and fear every single engagement that you might die for it. That is why there should be a good balance, and whole system of course be a optional. So those who are willing to go experience what time and effort gets you and how it feels to be worried to be virtually shot down.... The system could even require a reputation system as well where wrong doings are reported and registered and it can have on penalties. Meaning that friendly fires are very bad thing to happen, jumping in landing queue without proper radio communication and permission etc would just push you further away. It could help various virtual squadrons to be participating more to public servers when you can show off the experience and talent and so on. For a fighter pilot it can be easier to avoid getting shot, but helicopter pilot it can be far more dangerous at this moment before we get better AI to control ground units to engage helicopters. As it is far more difficult to build a career as helicopter pilot than it is as fighter pilot.

Thanks. Thought that they would have already counted for that from the start, but maybe the first step was for the small rotors first (like could be nice to see it as well for AGM-62 Wall-Eye generator or the L-39 wind turbine etc.

There is department that will allocate the codes based various purposes and then eventually they get distributed to mission by their area and time so there wouldn't be conflicts. I have somewhere a manual about that process. In the future the laser codes should be automatically set by the ground crew based the sortie for the area etc. So that the AI does it properly and pilot doesn't have any word about it. This would as well require that missions should be planned properly by the pilot or AI (and then only accepted by the pilot) so flight plan and all are properly done and pilot will stick to it and not loiter somewhere else.

Does the new advanced propeller modeling touch the helicopter rotors as well, or do players still need such mods in fuure?