Fri13

If the "spread a bit" would be "a bit" and not "Shoot 10 degree after the target where it was". When the first WW2 damage modelings were shown, it was mentioned by ED that they needed to improve that shooting accuracy as the AI always aimed at the pilot and killed the pilot on each time. So they made the WW2 pilots to shoot and then correct their aim based their shells trajectory until they started to hit the target. AI does always spot. The only factor there is the random timer from entering to LOS and reaction. That is tied to the difficulty level. There was a one forum member that made a good test of the AI spotting timings and it had like 10 units in line on group and basically even at lowest skill level the AI reacted right away but some were delayed by a second or two. It was funny to see how the turrets started to point when he popped up behind from hill at their flank. It is not too complicated as it requires to be done by cheating. If we put 100 units on same side on same small area, there is no reason what so ever to run any single LOS checking or scanning surroundings when there is no enemies. It is waste of processing time to even try. Now if we suddenly spawn a enemy unit middle of the group, that is very unrealistic behavior to happen, but it would require just a few units to really react to it and then alarm the others. So just few searches and then all to know what is going on as it would be so obvious thing. And we are talking about real-time from player perspective, there is no requirement to calculate everything in real-time as computing perspective. Meaning that 100 units to perform a LOS check is not required to happen in X milliseconds, but it can be done in 5-10 second period. We need to add to AI as well the human factor that it does not constantly scan the places but gets lazy. Why the ALARM STATE is important factor that unit can stay as such about 30 minutes and then the focus will drop. It is currently once per second. So every second the AI rolls a dice that is a unit X inside unit Y spotting range. If that happens, then DO. Every second wasting processing for tasks that AI shouldn't be doing. Place a 1000 units on the island 500 km away from player and CPU dies for the processing. Make them shoot at point on ground and your CPU is melted. Totally doable. It was already a couple decades ago, with single CPU. Now we have 6-16 cores (or 64 cores with Threadripper) and we would very well have plenty of sharing by allocating different parts of simulator to different cores. 1. Player aircraft systems and flight modeling. 2. Blue side AI aircraft flight modeling. 3. RED side AI aircraft flight modeling. 4. AI pathfinding and LOS 5. Missile/Ammunition trajectory calculation. 6. Fragmentation / damage modeling calculations. We could very well combine multiple calculations for own sub-simulations that doesn't need to work in sync with others. That might happen if it is up to the AI that is being developed for Mi-24. As it has interesting spotting calculations. And such should be done for AI trying to shoot at you. Like if you have a Mi-24 flying toward you from about 1000 meters distance. Why would you shoot 5 degree away from it? You would shoot little above it or straight at it, but not below it. If it is flying around you, you wouldn't be aiming behind it or directly at it. You would be aiming to predicted flight path front of it. Trying to estimate a lead and get shots at it. Totally would. Just simple current AI adjustments with the aiming time, the aiming point, randomizing aiming around that aiming point and make the AI actually shoot more proper bursts than full auto for 4 seconds each time etc. Simply having a AI to have blind zones (smaller scan sectors) would make amazing results.

It was for all ground vehicles, not just WW2 ones. As ED is developing as well a new fragmentation system. Chicz just mentioned about it hour ago. That includes as well all missiles and everything that explodes and cause fragmentations (so WW2 flak cannons as well etc). Just adding a damage values and effects for various parts of the vehicles is not enough if the cause for damage can't be calculated (fragmentations). This is as well about all bombs, rockets, artillery shells etc. As it is about A2A missiles.

But did it lock EXP mode for mapping a new area?

Yes it is. On the moment the weapon is launched, the 3D model is swapped to ED one that runs the weapon. So module developer can only hang 3D models on their aircraft to be carried, unless they make a own weapon. And even then they are limited to ED weapons functions. Like happened with AIM-54. Problem is that there ain't much information from sidearm, other than pilots comments about it awful range. But considering that you can engage a SA-8 with safe margin distance, it is great ARM when you don't need to get inside such systems ranges.

Just cheat. Check the line of sight to unit to get the sector that unit model occupies. And then take the fragmentation pattern (varies by warhead, angeles, fuses etc) and divide the matching sector from it. Then run a ray tracing (on CPU, not on GPU if not supported) for the remaining fragments on the target. This can be done early before impact as when flight path is known like unguided rockets or free falling bomb. Guided munitions are more challenging but does not require so much either in the timely presented processing. As after the explosion there is extra time to calculate hit points and damage before smoke and fire disappears.

Thanks, looks great what they have done. Gotta place on the download line once getting front of the computer. Will be interesting to take-off from a ramp.

I have a principle that I fly one month the chosen module. Instead hopping in/out on multiple one. IMHO Harrier is best ground pounder there is. It mission capabilities and the systems to support that is just well concentrated. What you mean with that? Razbam promised to make a AV-8B+ once ED completes the Hornet A-G radar.... I have the quotation for that somewhere too. The + was first suggested it would come as additional to N/A owners, but later I think Razbam decided that it would be fully own $79 module. Considering it is mainly nose reshape (DMT off, NFLIR reposition, Radar In) a hornet radar MFCD pages and new throttle with couple extra buttons, it is fairly small change considering while product. After all they are so similar that official manuals are same and they just mention if there are differences between variants (Day-time, N/A and Radar). Main difference is really the radar operation like in Hornet. THat AV-8B+ would make it less capable for A-G pounding but open up a totally new Air-Air combat options and means to perform a air patrols and ground attack missions in enemy airspace. It could become shocking to Hornet pilots that there would be a challenger for subsonic AMRAAM carrier (As Hornet doesn't get Supersonic either with few bombs and missiles).

Yes, IF you screw up with controls the Harrier for unrecoverable state, it is then unrecoverable. But it is easier with Harrier to come to stop, rotate around, adjust altitude and position than with a helicopter. And because the Harrier doesn't react strongly to small inputs, it is easier to keep it steady and do as wanted. It is as well said that the Pegasus engine has great responsiveness for the throttle. And in Harrier it is so as you need to be careful with the throttle movements as it reacts very quickly and jumps up in the air with small overcontrol. In helicopters that is lagging behind.

Didn't talk about Kiowa having datalink, but laser designator and act as JTAC over radio.... The Apache might have a datalink to A-10C (my only questionable argument) that would make it better if A-10C pilots can see where Apache is and its pilot can see where A-10C is to sync their attacks.

What I mean is that when you have LOS below the trees (as is), the AI that knows all the time where you are (just not allowed to engage you) the moment you slip through that underside of trees, the AI starts to react to you, and if you manage to come up behind trees on that moment, they will engage you. You can not fly behind a ground unit to surprise it, as on moment you enter its engagement circle, it will spot you unless you have something between you to brake it. This means that you can not perform a proper scouting (as to see you need to reveal yourself) and pop-up as AI will react to you on moment you become visible. So you can't start a attack run from 4 km by firing couple missiles as AI knows your existence. They are just currently so stupid to do anything if you are outside of their engagement ring even if you would hover just 1 meter further than it. I should have somewhere a video where I am in a KA-50 hovering behind a tall office building (like 10 meters from it). I know that AH-64 patrol is flying about 3 km from my location and waiting them to appear on any moment the edge of the building to shoot at their flank. Nothing happens. Then I decide that I perform a small pop-up to check where they are. On the moment I come up slowly the building roof I get 30 mm shells on face and dead. The AI Apache pair (only other unit in mission) knew where I was even when I have been all the time behind a building, and not just did it do that, it did know my velocity to time the shells hit me from about 1 km distance before I could even see it. I only saw the Apache in the replay video before shells hit, that it is just visible above the roof. The only thing I could get was that the hitbox for building LOS is shorter than the 3D model is. And that was reason why it could fire by anticipation couple seconds earlier to kill me on moment I popped up visible (or it saw my top rotor in time).

I wouldn't say that Mi-8 is underpowered aircraft, but as anything if you load up them to maximum weight you will have penalties. That was example the Mi-4 problem that when it was in assault configuration you couldn't load any infantry on it. So it was either troop transport or assault helicopter. And Mi-24 was wanted to be different where it can have the infantry squad in and some weapons to perform the assault and support for them. You can example see here the transport configuration: https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=1748 Where at 29:30 it unloads squad and carries 4x rocket pods. It is out of the frame does it have AT missiles with it even. As the ~2500 kg max loading capacity is limiting factor. But you are not so effective attack helicopter if you are required to land to unload infantry and then get up in air to support them. Why it is better have a more capable Mi-8 (more space etc) do it while Mi-24 defends it or attacks the enemy. (btw, person who calls me wrong to say Mi-24 is a multirole attack helicopter, can check the 29:38) The KA-50 was to be more than a recon helicopter. The one pilot had smaller workload than a multirole single-pilotted fighter (like F/A-18) has. But it is easier when you have a flight commander to designate you the targets (tell what found targets you engage) sitting in a KA-52 next to its pilot. Together you could get a flight like 3x KA-50 and 1x KA-52 where you can attack effectively using all datalinks and digital navigation and targeting systems. Like compare it to Mi-24 where you need to fly in formation, stay in contact with radio and coordinate with the flight as trained to do things. Where KA-50 was to be able separate and position themselves more freely and share their targets to each others. Literally like a swarm of sharks does. The Mi-24 is just old limited design compared to KA-50 or Mi-28. Comparing it to even SA342 Gazelle you don't get anything like that in it. So what you get your or target GPS coordinates, but when you don't see on a digital moving map where others move or where others are aiming, it is limiting factor. Many player knows that Su-27S in DCS is great in single player as you have the datalink for flight, but it doesn't work in multiplayer that you would see here others fly and what they are targeting at. It makes coordination far more difficult, compared to now F/A-18, A-10C and F-16CM where you get the datalink working. The Mi-24 will be interesting to fly as it doesn't have all that "mumbo jumbo". Like good old paper map with cross showing where you are, and then just visually fly to engage targets. It is like Su-25A but as in helicopter form and many other capabilities.

It would not. As it is not processed at all by all units all the time. That is why we need a one AI that is cheater. We need dozens/hundreds of different AI's to work standalone form, without information of each others. And key component for all is a "Cheater AI" that is responsible to control what AI units gets activated and what processing they can do. Example you have a one MBT and one helicopter. The MBT sits in a edge of forest having 180 degree view to south. It has engine turned off and crew is outside observing scene/waiting. The Helicopter is approaching from the south flying NOE behind tree lines. It would be stupid to run all checks once a second (as it does now) for MBT or helicopter that do they spot something, until it is really possible. That is where the "cheater AI" comes by, as all units are stupid/simple until the "Cheater AI" activates each unit corresponding AI functions. So not until the helicopter reach a pre-set "audible" range to another unit, neither AI does anything. When the audible range is reached, is the MBT AI commanded to check that can it hear the helicopter. Check includes "Engine Off", "Crew member outside" and some other values that needs to become TRUE to be able detect the helicopter by sound. If that doesn't happen, no checks are performed further until Cheater AI tells to do it again for some reason. If the detection is made, the MBT unit gets activated some modes. Like crew becomes alerted and focus visual search on the direction of the sound. On that moment the MBT AI is just scanning the general direction as a IR seeker or Radar scans in the fighters. If the spotting happens, again MBT status is changed to combat mode where crew buttons up and now it is commander and gunner only that will try to find and track the helicopter visually. Each time the LOS is broken, search is committed to general direction (like a missile guidance mode) for X period and then returned to general direction etc. The units on the ground are not so many that would each require perform it that would stress a CPU. We can have even a hundred units to scan a given area as it is about spotting something. And if someone does spot, it is assisting others by various rules to spot the one. Like it is expected that once a one soldier in a squad spots something, he can alarm others and point the threat direction. Similar thing is in the vehicle commanding, one spots something and alarms others and others need to concentrate for search in the general direction to find it. Even if you have 5000 units, lets say 5 km from the helicopter, they don't do anything because they do not know it is there. Unless the MBT would alarm someone on that area to their direction, like a SAM system or a MANPADS patrol. Again they need to perform visual search or activate Radar and try to search target. Now it is two units instead 5000 that is performing the search, where one is visually tracking target. The "Cheater AI" makes the check that can the MBT radio a another party. If it can't, no processing will be initialized. Majority of the units on the ground are stationary, dummies. They don't move, they don't react or check anything unless they would find something or they are commanded to do something. Their job is to sit somewhere and wait. Even a recon units can be moving across the land without performing any single LOS check or such. Because the "Cheatin AI" is not activating those modes as there is no one near by. Once the "Cheating AI" knows that opposite units are closing each other that various spotting methods can be done, it activates them. Friendly units do not generate such tasks as it would mean that all are running it all the time. And assumption would be that units know how to ID each other visually. There are rules that could be done for that as well but there are many other rules like assumptions that same unit will stick together and in time they know who belongs where. It is all about cheating. In a dynamic campaign the player doesn't care that what kind a clash happens 150 km from player plane. It is totally irrelevant. It is literally just rolling some dice for generating the possib combinations in a real time process, meaning it is simulated by long period of time the gun shot exchanges and wounding, destruction etc. Instead running all in 1-2 second period, it is done in 5-15 minute period. All that extra time is spent for other tasks. Combat is not over in seconds but minutes or hours depending are artificial units made to retreat and reposition themselves by various rules. Like if group A is commanded to defend a bridge, then they are not going to charge after a enemy recon car that is driving 2 km away already and leave the bridge undefended. There is no need to simulate any complex things in majority of the places, that is eased with the inaccuracies in units exact positions, conditions etc. A lot of things needs to be cheated and kept vague, but it needs to happen in proper manner where one AI is not controlling to units to engage each others, as it is similar case as playing chess alone and purposely try to make other side win. It is like a RPG where the game host controls what other players can do, change their statuses based their actions and simply limit their options and capabilities how to engage each other but let them to do the play with rules. The whole gaming industry is about cheating. But it needs to be done clever way so it doesn't become obvious and it requires building rules what everyone can do. As dynamic campaign is not one that is over in 1-2 hours. We sit in a cockpit flying in real time, there is not happening much in real time in a large scale conflict. The hard part is to run a simulation in high speed, like 8x or 60x accelerated speed to jump in specific future time. As that is the moment when lots of things needs to be simulated and roll a dice. But this is nothing new in the RTS game side where thousands of units are run this way 20 years ago, each turn to make major changes. Far more stressing than running things in real-time where such simple things as moving unit 100-500 meters can take literally a minute. And one minute for CPU is infinite time to be used for other things to check out. But right now in DCS all AI units are performing checks constantly. Just having units active on the map is consuming CPU cycles for worthless checks and polling time schedule to do nothing. Why such modes are required as "deactivate group/unit" and so on are required because otherwise you can't run anything if you don't cheat and tell game not to care about such units at all.

The KA-50 was in the early phases planned as replacing the aging Mi-24 fleet. For various reasons it was not driven further for that, hence as well why Mi-28 won competition. It was surprise to me as well before reading about its history from Mil.

Let's see what nice thing ED gets with their Super Carrier as I believe lot of things are required to be developed in that side first. Like all the deck crew movements and guidance systems for pilots etc. Get the decks "living" by default and get the logic systems for proper process recover aircraft etc automatically. Like isn't the ultimate goal be that one can just drop the carrier on mission editor and have it populated properly with just one tick, and then spawn aircraft on it or come to landing and have deck work correctly without requirement to set all elements and their tasks? The Harrier is very unique aircraft considering how it opens up different operational capabilities in DCS. The M2000C is fresh air for the common BLUE | RED sides like the Viggen is. And it is great to see AdA to guide Razbam how to fix and and improve it as they benefit from it for their training purposes. It could be good idea to focus all effort first for M2KC to get it done and then maybe on next year or year after that get the Harrier completed when major new works are done like FLIR, Weather engine etc. Razbam has still lot to do for their three primary modules, M2000C, AV-8B N/A and MiG-19P.

As I have already stated multiple times earlier, 3D work, texturing and animations is not Razbam problem. Main problem is the communication and their behavior. But that is not the only one. it is as well how they react to bug reports, how they simply claim things are correct when even official documentation says otherwise. There are clear broken things that gets just hidden by their community manager behind "Resolved" status so no one would find the problems. The M2K was in bad shape before AdA jumped in and said "Hi!" to get things fixed for their purposes (we need to be thankful for AdA to do so). Similar thing is with the Harrier, 4th year is going and even basic things don't work properly. All is about programming, about actually doing the systems work as they should. They can hide as much they want in their Discord and pretend that everything is great they are doing, but it doesn't change the facts that their products requires more programmers time than they can handle. Waiting is easy, but communication would need to be really improved. It is easy thing to really do - but they are unwilling to do so. But when you get systems that are not working correctly, it is requiring fixing and if they don't want to do that, it is problematic. We already have forum members writing fixes for them! Simple ones even! Years has passed without any action for such minor things. And when your product is full of minor problems here and there, it starts to look bad. Even the big ones becomes worse because of the overall experience is not so good as it could be. It is not too much to ask them to fix things they have already implemented but wrong way. It is not too much to ask them to tell what is their source for claims when things are "As-Intended" and still in conflict with the official material or just even common sense. If someone is happy that they can equip Harrier with Mk.82 and they get it dropped and it says *Boom*, it doesn't mean that all systems how to get that bomb on target can be wrong and it being acceptable! There is a very high quality standard that Eagle Dynamics try to maintain, but when some module doesn't meet that one, it is problem for everyone as it weakens the overall quality.

Did I say it? Where? Your argument is flawed. You are 100% ready to accept any flaws, problems and clear errors as long "there is no one else to provide it to us". How about you would actually start accepting that when a documented system is to be simulated, that starting point is that it will be done properly, instead incorrectedy? Like Razbam made a claim that compass rose in TPOD was "As-Intended" and done. It required time and effort to get them admit that it is not correct, and needs fixing. So simple thing for anyone to really realize that something is not right, and we should be happy that it is in such condition because there is no better simulation for consumer PC? The Targeting system is wrong and broken. We should be happy that it is so because there is no alternative? The Navigation system is wrong and broken. We should be happy that it is so because there is no alternative? The Start-up process is wrong and broken, but hey.... One of the kind! ..... But who cares, you get 40-50% of the systems properly done while paying for 100%. But who cares, there is no alternative choice so deal with it! Ah, the fancy argument "If they don't deliver for your money that was promised, do it yourself!" And your ad hominem goes totally wrong by "learn to code"... How about you would accept that when someone sells you a product with promise that what features, capabilities it should have and what quality it would be, you would actually be expecting them to deliver that? It is no good is pretty valid one when things are broken or clearly made wrong! If you ask someone to get you a ketchup, it is not fun when they hand you a squeezed tomato, vinegar and tell you mix it with table sugar/salt. Yes, you are good for broken code, for purposely wrongly made product, with broken promises and sale material. And you don't even dare to request them to finish, fix and complete their product, but you are ready to attack person when they ask simple question from someone to explain their way of thinking that would explain their opinion or argument. What are you doing here? As you are so happy and glad what you already have, why don't you just go elsewhere as you don't want anything fixed, improved or added? As you already have in your opinion the best there is... So why to demand anything more? You have the best already! Don't come to whine that others might want more than your standard, as there are others that at least try to deliver that higher standard than Razbam does.

The LOS calculation should be performed even then. The problem is that AI knows all the time where every unit is moving even if there are trees or buildings between, only the terrain will block the LOS checking and AI will revert back to its previous state. This is problematic as when you perform a pop-up behind a ridge to hover above trees, the AI has already reacted to you on the moment only trees were between you and AI, so on split moment you peek over the trees, the AI will fire at you and you see shells coming on your way in moment you lay eyes on the target. The Group logic as well applies, if any unit in group detects you, all units will detect you. There is small factor in difficulty level where there are couple second random delay between units but all know exactly where to shoot. That is one of the problems in DCS, we don't have ground foliage (to hide ground units, to hide low level flying helicopters). The LOS is required to be straight there as ground vehicles fight that way. You have units inside forest of opposite side and unit will shoot each others through the thick forest if the trunks don't block the view. We need bushes, we need dozen of different kind trees, small and thin and not just wide and tall. We need more bushes than just couple kinds. We need variation around the forests etc. Inside a forest they can be so that there are just few bushes or none. But outter edges should be heavily different kinds. The hit boxes are pretty good around the trees. But the AI spotting capability needs to be changed. If the vehicle crew is not buttoned up then they will have wide view zones to look around. And if they don't have engine running then they can hear you from long distance. But when they are buttoned up and engine is running, they should be pretty much blind to outsides. Have a few view zones and simulate the radar scan zone behavior here each unit needs to scan their corresponding areas to find an enemy. If one unit spots an enemy, there should be a delay depending how that unit can transmit that information to platoon leader and from there to everyone. It would require still that everyone participating the task would try to find the location where to look first. That takes time. And if someone gets suddenly blown up, it means panic. No information of the enemy and friend just blowed up. It means quickly to get in the cover etc. That is again something that would require first knowing something where the fire is coming from so what direction the cover or concealment needs to be. If that can't be done, it is panic to just get out of there to somewhere that gives concealment everywhere. These would mean that AI units would need to scan the treelines, scan the expected enemy direction, listen the environment and even have someone looking for the sky once the air warning has been issued from air defense network or someone has spotted air threats. All these would slow down the AI units capability to spot and react to helicopters and airplanes and different ways open opportunities to fly and move and engage them without being constantly tracked once inside the unit maximum detection range. And this process doesn't need to be done than on units that are close to the enemy units, to save CPU cycles, as not all the time is there hundreds or even tens of units engaging such a way.

Just the opposite. Mi-24 was made as "Flying IFV" to be multipurpose helicopter for various tasks. And it does it very well. It has the Anti-Tank capabilities better than smaller dedicated ones. It has AT rockets and in P variant the 30 mm cannon to take out most of the tanks, why it will have ATGM to destroy better protected MBT's and long range targets where it can't reach with those two. The weapons it has are for offence purposes, not for defense. It is a primary attack helicopter for army aviation to get troops on the ground in front line and continue supporting them and other landing troops from Mi-8 as common air assault mission is. And directly operating in a Anti-Air threaten environments with MANPADS, AAA and short range SAM systems, hence it received flares, IR jammer and even RWR. It is not a SEAD or DEAD helicopter, and not meant for a scouting either like KA-50 is made to. Need to point that while it can transport infantry effectively, it was not its primary tasking as it is more useful as attack helicopter than "Taxi to combat" that Mi-8 does under protection of the Mi-24.

The KA-50 was selected as successor to Mi-24 in first place. It was meant to be built in hundreds, each flight to be lead by a single KA-52. And then transport cargo, troops and vehicles with the Mi-8 as already done almost exclusively. So the Mi-24 cargo space was to be abandoned and idea of "Flying IFV" to be left behind. And, Mi-28 did that all. By every means the KA-50 is superior to Mi-24 except acting as "Flying IFV". That is where the primary difference should come that we can carry own squad inside and drop them somewhere and support them, or have them support us with MANPADS. Or we can carry extra load of rockets and missiles in the cargo for one (or two) rearming. Like think about flying to safe spot and rearm all 8 ATGM once or twice and get back to fight. But does ED model this is a another question (doubt it). So many ways the Mi-24 is more of a experience and just fitting helicopter for many places.

Last time I read about it, the plan was WW2 -> Ground Vehicles -> Modern aircraft (inc. helicopters). The ground vehicles are 70-80% of the game. It would be unwise to leave it last one. As any aircraft that does any kind ground attack, is affected by it. Be it a WW2 bomber or fighter-bomber or just fighter using its cannons and HMG to engage ground units, or a multirole fighter using rockets and smart bombs, they are all very dependent for the proper ground units damages. What comes to damage modeling, the WW2 aircraft is critical because there is no missiles. The fight is based to HMG or cannons. So the experience to shoot down someone is critical to be properly done in small details as there are still plenty of wires and pipes or construction parts but not too many. The ground units has different case, as there it can be done more easily as not all possible pipes and wires need to be modeled at same level. And there is a lot more vehicles to be modeled so they can be kept fairly simple. The other critical part for the ground units is the AI logic and damage+moral system. All about how to move, defend, attack, react etc is about it. Even if someone would place a unit on ground in editor, it shouldn't be just moving position by 50 meters for 600 seconds (default) after first damage received, and then just be there. There should be a lot of more logic and intelligence to begin with. And that is the major single work to be done. Compared to it the damage modeling should be easier, and needs to be done first so that AI can be programmed to change their behavior based damages.

Hovering in Harrier is super easy. It is easier than doing it in KA-50, and a lot easier than any conventional helicopter. The AV-8B is not a F-35B, but close to it stability and control authority. It is fun action and totally the main thing in it. There are some here who has flown real Harrier simulator, so they could say a thing or two about that as well.

Strawman argument. Yes... Maybe you should get around little more about what is accurately and correctly modeled vs what is just fun. I had today lot of fun to find a small one developer made game for cold war era. Just a three planes and very simple controls and all. But lot of fun. But regardless that it was lots of fun, the MiG-21Bis in it was like 0.1% of what the DCS: MiG-21Bis is about. If fun would be used as measurement for when development can be stopped when simulating reality, then developers would have super easy time to produce new modules in weeks rather than years if so many would be happy that simulation is not even half correctly done. Do You want to answer the question then behalf of Him by knowing His definition? You can make strawman arguments or attack to person, but it doesn't count as valid argument at all. Please tell what was now this "view of the world" and "Don't agree with"? Go on.. now as you have made such claims... Turned around in which way? Do you think that Harrier and M2K are done? It is mine as well from all fighters, but maybe there are some of users here who know more about how it should work and behave than it currently does in DCS, and they want it just to be fixed and added the features and produce what was promised before they get very happy with it?

The current dust effects are need for a facelift. At least all those firing dust clouds would be nice to get one day reflect the terrain they are fired on. Especially on the desert/sand maps (now three) would benefit a lot from it to see the units firing from longer distances. And of course see vehicles leaving tracks/trails and raise dust that would move by the weather as well and be visible much further distances as their lifetime should be much longer than "dragging couple bags behind".

I believe that Kiowa Warrior will be no brainer deal for anyone who fly Apache, or who want to fly a with a friend who flies Apache but doesn't want to / can't fly Apache because it will have challenging controls. Like you will likely be able fly Kiowa Warrior alone where Apache requires far more the co-pilot. And Kiowa Warrior acting as a flying JTAC for A-10C II, F/A-18C, F-16CM, AV-8B N/A.... It will be amazing thing for any fighter pilot who want to have good eyes on the ground. Apache is not going to offer those as much (depends the datalink connection between Apache and A-10C). And if Kiowa Warrior comes 90% completed with avionics, weapons, and flight modeling, then it will be pretty great alternative for Apache alone. But I totally will be expecting that we can land in Kiowa Warrior and jump out with a MANPADS to shoot down those pesky fighters!