Amarok_73

Falcon, rule of thumb is that You're flying with three to four augumentations always turned on. Four if You need altitude to be keept depending of BR/RD switch otherwise three. Then, all maneuvering You do with trimmer button depressed, what cause temporary disabling of stabilisation modes until You'll get postion which You want to stabilize. Otherwise, with stabilization enabled, but trimmer released, all Your inputs are partially suppressed, so You're fighting against helicopter trying to point him where You want him to point. Of course, there might be scenarios, where it can be reasonable to disable other stabilisators, like heading one, when You re trying to run around in circles, but most of time pitch, bank and heading stabilisation modes should be enabled.

In very general - sure, but knowing from the other side how it works (I have few friends from old times working on Military University of Technology in Warsaw) I can assure You, that any solution You can imagine, that will increase survaviblity of unit on battle field has been already invented and - depending of cost/profit calculation - somewhere implemented. For instance, I can easily imagine that RWR can not only show that markings on dedicated small, green screen, but also by triangulation and signal measurement it's position and range can be pretty precisely approximated, then - as it is for instance in some real airplanes - put to TAD where You can decide by filtering if You want or not see this information, as it can cause cluttering the screen in some dense situations. And if I'm not wrong it was recently said by some real A-10 pilot, that indeed such solution is implemented. So turning back to our beloved Ka-50, basicaly what we're about is the question IF such thing as MWS is reasonable for helicopter from that era, and - again, talking about reality - I can't imagine, that someone decisive would waste money by sending "blind" helicopter worth plenty of money on battlefield. And the best confirmation of my guesses is that there are indeed models 25+ then KA-52, where such advanced solutions are applied. So, returning to our good known "realism", current Ka-50 is good as training platform just for flying and basic weapon training, but with lack of MWS it can be at most sent to supermarket for rolls and bananas, because involvment in battlefield almost for sure mens just waste of a significant money. Anyway, I am really glad, that developers are considering upgrade for Ka-50, and since I love this heli - as declared in previous post - I'll gladly spend my money for revised model. And still it makes me sad, that contrary to what I declared in my primary post where I dug out this thread, I failed to avoid same pointless arguments as in other discussions I've read before decided to refresh it here.

But how can it be??? Such change "will be so inaccurate and will destroy whole realism of this simulator!" :megalol: Well, did I said something about "product" and "money"? THIS is realism, and accuracy in regards to real world. Schmidtfire, thank You for this finding, for me it offers some hope both - about increase of KA-50 community, as well as pointless, and full of empty argumentations discussions. :-)

:lol: Ok, I give up. When eventually it _will_ become as serious as some of You want to see it, please call me from Elite Dangerous servers, or other BMS, where in meanwhile other not so "serious" players migrate. Cheers.

Fri13, I am quite sure that such changes we can't expect, as it would make this platform too desirable, so it can cause drop in sales of other "not-so-attack chopters" :D But if this what You described would be implemented as... let's say another variant of Ka-50, I'd not hesitate to buy it for few of my friends, because I'd feel safe that they'll not turn away from this module and money will not be wasted. But -sadly- observing current trends in sales strategy, I doubt that we can expect any good will from developers to have it implemented so completely as You described it.

Come on, guys, reading all that (somehow interresting) statements and more or less camouflaged cynic-ironic expressions, I have feeling, that most of You who negate my idea of returning MWS to use, didn't spent even 10 seconds trying to fully understand what lays behind what I wrote. Instead You just spotted another oportunity to highlight how advanced elitary club of ProKA-50Pilots You represent. And all this effort while there are so many servers where You can show off all what You can do with KA-50 without being the same time offensive to some. Anyways, what I am "working" with now is bunch of newbies, who would gladly buy KA-50 and enjoy it for sure, but for them it's just a bit too tough. This bit i is the fact, they must focus on so many things around, so many switches and procedures for spotting, targeting, navigation and enagaging enemies so scanning constantly windows for smoke from missile flying towards them is just too much. I have that comfort, that having more than 1200 hours in KA-50, most of time, flying this machine is just boring for me (and still fun), but I am in minority for sure, so what I am asking is just simple functionality that was already implemented in older versions of this platform, that for these "youngsters" will offer a chance to participate in enjoyment instead of frustration. And that's why I've asked to make it as optional, so all who call themself "pro" will be able to force on their servers this "cheat" to be turned off. I'd really preffer to see squadrons/wings of KA-50 running on enemies and "dancing" in the sky in effort to avoid missiles and spot shooters before they'll reload and shoot down them in enviroment packed with MANPADS, instead of seeing just few of them (at most) crawling in constant fear then eventually going down in frustration just because they "missed the smoke. And YES - I KNOW IT'S HOW IT LOOKS IN REALITY, but first of all, scenario can be prepared that way, so all these processes will be employed having requiring more diversity in regards to behaviour and procedures. Then, some of us just differently defines enjoyment, so that's where I think it's good idea to implement MWS with parameter that will add scalability. And to precisely specify what kind of system I'm talking about is - as Weta43 mentioned above - minimal version as it was available in standalone version of simulator, where vocal alert was sounded when missile was in the air. The same mechanism as is in Su-26T functioning now. No additional switches needed, no specific sounds as the ones currently available can be used, no changes in cockpit design. Just "pакета впереди выше" and others for other directions.

Well, another day of flying without Steam Client working in the background, and still no error occured... :-)

Well, another day of flying, this time with Steam Client inactive (not started) and no more such problems. My guess that Steam can cause (directly or not) these D3D comes from fact, that majority of this problem occurences was happening the same time, when Steam was showing me this pop-up saying that someone started playing some game. But I'll observe it if this error happens also when no Steam is working.

Intel Q6600, 6 GB RAM, GF 560 Ti. I've noticed that DCS errors related to D3D mostly occurs when Steam client is active and running in background.

After update to newest drivers, it happened again. :-/ DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED CTD.zip

Happened in random moment, nothing special was happening. DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED CTD.zip

The only tactic I use for rockets is "get between them with speed and fury, and KILL'EM ALL, motherfathers!!!" And surprisingly, usually I end-up with only some minor damage... ;-)

So here I am, bumping this thread, and asking if we will eventually have back MWS available in KA-50? I remember times, when it was available, and that was lot of fun flying Ka-50 and avoiding missiles in panic whenever warning about missile in the air was sounded, but then someone - by purpose or not - caused that now it's unavailable, and since I have learned to fly without MWS, it's hard to instill in future generations of passion for KA-50, when it causes more frustration than joy. Just to avoid any potential shitstorm about this functionality, that already can be found on SimHQ (as example of few of them), i'd suggest that it would be more than welcome to have it parametrizable and possible to force enabled or disabled as one of mission parameters.

Here are logs. Generally, after flying some time, without any specyfic and obvious reason it occurs. AsyncNet_CTD.zip

+1

Weee, my favourite friday in last three weeks :D

It would be damn good, to have at least corrected that annoying looping sound, after the heli is crashed... And most uncool thing in friday is midnight that day, when You loose all hope for the patch and welcome perspective of living with that hope for whole next week. :-)

I have in plan to make some switch box controller based on Arduino, so I'll have these switches there as well. Just waiting till my friend will buy eventually 3d printer :-)

Since it's like third week without patch, I'd like to know, what are the chances that today there will be eventually patch published that will correct Gazelle's issues?

Narrowed symptoms, and seems, that mapping Mode Up/Mode Down works as wanted, while direct selectors of mode are indeed "spring operated", so after key/button release, switch returns to center position. As long as there's Mode Up/Mode Down option, it's no more issue to me.

I am not sure, so before I'll report it as a bug, I'd ask if current way the switch works is how it is meant to, or it's indeed bug? Specifically, I have assigned keyboard shortcut to that function (altitude hold), but it doesn't last in upward position and as soon as key or button is released, it goes back to center. I can imagine that it was primarily meant to be assigned to one of three-position switches like are in Thrustmaster Warthog, but... G940 user here, and I am not so lucky to have this type of switches.

I wait with longing... :-)

There's no entry in controls mapping for button "5". In table, there's label assigned "UHF 5 button", but in fact it controls key "4" on radio panel.

I've encountered it few times last time flying with friend. Every time I've gone to hover and slaved yaw to weapon officer, soon the boom was ripped off. My altitude controlling in meanwhile was soft and subtle - no harsh moves.

I couldn't as well set it in any way to make it manageable.