Foka1

I don't think it is enough to just slap it on screen and call the day. You need actual documentation on what is each symbology is connected to. You can do reasonable assumption, but it everyone just follow reasonable assumptions it can lead to uncertain results and errors..

I didn't see it as "not admitting fault". Obviously pictures from those videos are there. What I see ED is saying is that they have information for different version and they have modeled different version of it. Where is their fault in that? Is not like elaborate documents for everything are just there for a grabbing, ED has to carefully choose their sources and not because their proud and stubbornness but I would say mostly because of legal things over all. They need to know that they are using open source and OP being right in finding some inconsistency with videos doesn't give ED open source docs for the symbology he provided in those videos. OP being right doesn't automatically make ED "at fault" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PS as I was saying people just instantly throwing grudge instead of taking a little patience and try to understand problem here..

Lightening interface only does not decide on everything else in the aircraft though... I mean its certainly a part of it but not whole plane. To call this change of name you would need to go through all from engines to cockpit. I would be constructive here and try to understand both sides, instead of instantly throwing grudge.

I assume all EU guys missed one hour today?

Oh that is some strong entrance, mind me bowing down? I believe OP can answer for himself. I'm not saying you are not right though. If I would fall in that group I wouldn't mention Kh-25. I'm interested only in what was technically designed and built and can be used for aircraft. We are talking about KA-50 here.. Yes I did turn to wider picture but for other purpose. Besides.. Things change as you can see. We have MLWS for Mirage, Kh-66 for MiG-21. Oh GAU-8 gun changing a bit ;) Hence I've asked OP what he didn't like missing so KA-50 changes did put him off.. Well I've actually already did mention that to relevant party, but verbally. Why would you ask me if you need to create it or not? How I can help you with that? Or it is passive-aggressive statement? English is not my first language as you may have noticed.. All joking aside: Hit me up in PM, I would like to hear stories from days of KA-50 beta testing. If you don't mind sharing some.

This thread though made me realize, that I can't find anything about Kh-25 being used on KA-50 IRL

What I feel from OP. It is just complete guess, just don't want to lie about my vision on whole thing. OP doesn't really care about whole "fantasy" thing. If fantasy would happen with some L-39 which he won't encounter in MP, he wouldn't flinch. OP don't really fly KA-50 in DCS OP hate to see probably these new features in future being used by other people in MP. Because he won't fly red aircraft, but those pesky reds will use them. And no one gives other things for aircraft he flies. I know it may sound harsh but I just won't lie about what I feel about whole discussion and zealousness of OP here. Now I can be wrong, I understand that. And I aplogize if I'm wrong, but since I'm being honest, OP can try to be honest too. Now about whole thing. As engineer, not an aircraft engineer though, but just from electronics etc. point of view I don't see much problems in mounting MWS. Especially when its advertised and sold as modular system for mounting on different helicopters like president-S: Heck here is even photos: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3930795&postcount=6 This missile MLWS and defense system was ordered by minisrty of defense in 2011. in 2015 it was tested, modules were mounted in testbed Mi-8 and 20 Igla missiles were shot in it, none hit. https://www.arms-expo.ru/articles/armed-forces/nepreodolimyy-vitebsk/ Л-370 Витебск MLWS and defense system was done in different modifications for different helicopters: БКО – Л-370В52 (для Ка-52), Л-370Э8 (для Ми-8МТ), Л-370Э26Л (для Ми-26), Л-370Э50 (для Ка-50). SO OP definition of fantasy here about coming MLWS is hinges only on his desire to not see it used by others and finding really nitpicking argument, not even technical one. At the moment I can't really chip in some info about Igla on Ka-50. But looks like S.E.Bulba did some research about whole topic here.. To summarize... OP let's be honest here, because at this point it really feels like point of your inquiry was described in details, but you still going which makes me think you just building base for another case you want to present later. At this point using all your logic you will be better off debating existence of KA-50 in DCS at all, despite KA-50 being just first fully clickable module ED produced, on which they've tried their new ways and it was perfect for that and despite 10 serial (not testbed machines!) were built, and despite service KA-50 participating in real operation in Chechnya. What is it that did upset you for real? You didn't get weapons you wanted for one of the aircraft you fly in DCS? You want AMRAAMs for F-14? Or any other weapon for other aircraft? Also new KA-50 features will be differentiated in mission editor and it will be possible to turn them on or off for particular slot, as I see it. About fantasy I always fascinated also how people gladly dismiss anything they are not using and don't want to be used by others but they won't see wide enough picture, they want to see only their benefit. Why these talks about fantasy in MP when we don't have proper costs and resources in MP to start with? When people spend an AMRAAMs stock capacity of one European country in 3 hours in MP server, or that 5 mig-21s cost like one F-15 and its not reflected in MP servers in any way, same with weapons costs. This doesn't concern these people. Or when death of a pilot does not include any penalty at all in all MP servers, yes Blue Flag included because amount of lives there and their replenishment rate making it really not really worrisome to lose pilot. Not even mentioning logistics.. So within all that fantasy OP swimming freely but wait there is KA-50 existing which somehow doesn't fit despite making little difference to overall MP process outcome compared to things described above.

Seal transmitting data Giving a helping hand to a 104th_Tiger. In attach there is excel file in archive. With current roster. F86_MiG15_Rumble_May9.zip

[Vodka]LazzySeal MiG-15bis

You judge too fast. I didn't research it to that deep yet. But I've thrown it here as food for thoughts..

So this source says that only R-60M new seeker Комар-М allowed missiles to be used "at aspects of 2/4 or even 1/4": http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-101.html Aspects table for reference: This implies that before that regular R-60 missile had less capabilities I guess..

In your case you was 90 degrees to the launch platform, which is 3/4 IIRC. And presumably limited all aspect would be possible to see you in some cases. To have constructive discussion here, we need to determine what limited all aspect means, and how it applies to R-60.

None of these graphs tell us anything about front aspect capability. First two are for missile performance for rear aspect non maneuvering target. And third is adjustments for maneuvering target.

its not ED thing ED doesn't have R-60 missile, only R-60M

How I feel when I fly MiG-21: How I really look like when I'm flying MiG-21:

Проблема с этим в том, что потом нет гарантии что эти модели создатели будут поддерживать. Да ещё плюс к этому нужно несколько видов а не просто одна 3Д модель, нужна ещё и та же самая ну "уничтоженная" и разной степени повреждений.. и LODы

Can you elaborate what is the difference between convenient and inconvenient?

Overall I think each vehicle should be checked and studied separately in DCS. Maybe some of them has less accurate reaction to blast. From what I remember from previous debates approximate number that you would need to knock tank out is around 500 PSI. And if 250Kg bomb will detonate few meters away from modern sealed tank crew won't be much affected by 1/2 PSI generated by that. Whole park of vehicles and bombs in DCS needs to undergo testing one by one to pinpoint if there is too much deviation from approximate numbers..

I've seen debates about bombs and tanks rise up more and more in past year. take a look at this answer from vietnam pilot: https://www.quora.com/How-do-fighter-jets-k-kill-blow-up-a-main-battle-tank-efficiently?fbclid=IwAR2SDD3aEdw_-GQ331OkkSNMtj_74LezhzmjsQppTDWO7R9iW8KYr7_GqKo Tanks are called TANKs not just like that, also sealed tank protect crew from outside sudden pressure change to some degree. You need to actually know numbers of pressure change from explosions which would hurt the crew before stating that crew would be affected. For Mk-82 bomb to hurt the modern tank it would need practically hit it or land 2-3 meters close to it. Also I've seen people are talking about WW2 sometimes, WW2 are nothing compared to modern tanks armor. Of course DCS is not fully modeling effects of bombs landed near vehicles because fragmentation damage is not modeled in DCS yet. DCS units although lose some of their abilities corresponding to their health bar. For instance if you land a bomb near tank and it health bar went near certain percentage it looses ability to use main gun or its speed slowed severely, so that is modeled to some degree. You can check less armored SAMs, if you land bomb near SA-15 and it health bar goes red it will lose ability to use its radar at all and will be practically useless. Also remember that GBU-12 and other precision weapons were invented for some reason, the reason is TANK being TANK. Attrition IRL is possible because vehicles IRL have different smallish parts that can be affected by near explosions, but in DCS vehicles are not that detailed. Tanks doesn't have separate damage points for aiming sites, tracks, or other external sensors. But that will arrive at some point. Overall I get OP concerns, but this topic is actually really sophisticated and I've seen people go into it without doing much research and basically want stuff which is not corresponding to real life characteristics. OP is right to some degree, but also wrong to some degree. Reporting this issue needs a lot of research and actual calculations and require probably specific education to make a good point.

I've glanced through comments and I think people here doesn't even get to the point of "realism". I think what a lot see here as "realism" I call just role playing for sake of just reconstruction of specific action which was caused only by desire to reconstruct and wasn't forced on player by war theater situation. I think realism it is not dick measuring of who can take off refuel drop bombs and target whoever and then return and call it real like Maverick said. And it is not about which missile better. Although as Mav pointed out similar aircraft will get player base spread out equally. I think the huge overlook by everyone in this thread is that realism it is logistics, realism it is cost of ammunition and fuel, realism it is PILOT ACTUALLY CARING FOR HIS LIFE! Until those requirements are not met or at least tried to be met, you can measure -stats me all you want and do objectives based on nothing all you want, but it will not yield a result which will get experience closer to things real pilots consider in their sorties and planning (unless you are specifically role playing). Balance can be made by game/mission/campaign mechanics I think (don't have red planes? tie things to red SAMs or adjust resources etc.). But what important is to make pilots actually care and that can be done only by punishing them for "unrealistic" behavior like going all guns blazing, just to get those couple "frags". Its an old truth and mechanic used in many games, it is the only way to make people actually care. Blue Flag has implemented lives for instance, the pace of lives restoration is too fast, I just can't possibly spend all my lives before they are getting reset. Hence why should I care? Servers like Blue Flag and DDCS are trying to involve people more into actually planning their actions and base their missions not just on agenda that was written in briefing but on dynamic situation around them. If resources and lives systems will be implemented and properly tuned I think we all will see the difference.

Can you switch me to available MiG-21?

[Vodka]LazzySeal MiG-28 or MiG-21

[Vodka]LazzySeal - Ka-50

Did you try that missile with other planes?

Also check this thread : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3862821 Deleting Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config folder helped me