M1Combat

Then read a few posts ago and you'll understand frame time :)

Damn... I can't even imagine how destructive a 24 Vikhr, 4 Igla and full cannon KA50-ED could be...

Yes

"Especially since the Apache and the Cobra can both carry Sidewinder." that has absolutely ZERO to do with the KA-50ED... AND... that's another statement that makes me understand your POV... and IMO it's a bad one for DCS.

Yep. I'm all for well thought out "additions to reality" like we seem to be gettting with the KA-50ED :)... but yeah... We don't need three engined F32's with Aim240's on the canopy... AKA... KA-50 with R73. The problem with the suggestion isn't exactly simple... The problem is that when someone says "I think someone important said maybe they'd put an R73 on a KA-50... Prove me wrong, and we should do the same because they were considering it"... is that then it sets the ball in the wrong place. There shouldn't need to be complete and utter proof that something certainly existed for sure, that they've actually done something, to decide that it's reasonably likely that it was indeed the ACTUAL plan that could have REALLY happened. Of course the general wanted an R73 on the KA50. Everyone in the RU Mil did. Duh. But that doesn't mean it was likely or feasible. It's called a "pie in the sky". We don't want pies in the DCS skies. We want well thought out fighting weapons to go blow stuff up in. ED absolutely MUST walk that line VERY carefully because if they don't they need to start advertising to the War Thunder crowd. KA-50's with R73's are for the War thunder crowd. KA-50ED's are for the DCS crowd that's willing to accept that the RU Gov didn't complete a project but that it had a very likely goal, and we'd like to see the product that they would have had. VERY different things.

Yeah... thanks for the vote of confidence but I feel like you've said that you'd like to see FLIR and R73's on the thing so... I'm not sure I'm close to your point of view or not. Key part of the point being "close to reality". Seems to me your point of view would be that maybe we should put 120's on the Hog... I mean... they existed at the same time right? Likely someone in the US Mil at some point thought "Hey that'd be cool" so from your earlier comments I feel that you think we should have that in DCS...

I suppose I'm just missing the point... I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that a KA-50 in "ED" configuration actually existed. Plenty are arguing that it did NOT exist for sure, and that's understandable. It didn't. But... That's not the point that the people who are arguing that there should be a KA-50ED in game are making. They're making the point that a KA-50 in the "ED" configuration was likely a primary goal of the KA-50 project, but it never quite came to fruition and was in large part turned into the KA-52. Or at least the KA-52 was designed HEAVILY based on what was learned in the KA-50 project. So... There are a lot of straw men here. Just because some are happy that the KA-50ED will be made in DCS doesn't mean those same people should or can prove that there ever was a KA-50 configured in this way. Again... There wasn't. The discussion should simply be about whether or not the KA-50ED was likely the design goal of the project. Me... I feel like it's very likely that it was. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support that claim. There is also a complete lack of evidence that they ever made one that met the goals of the project... BUT THAT'S OK. It's not like it's an F32 with Aim240's and lasers. :) It's just an attack chopper that was VERY PROBABLY what the Russians would have wanted in an attack chopper should they have been able to finish the project. I really don't see why people are so opposed to that... as long as ED don't make other leaps that are larger :)

I think someone did an exhaustive comparo a while back... Have you searched?

Also... I read through the RU threads and I think your point is super well made and I love what ED is planning. It's all correct choices IMO :)

I like your enthusiasm, heart, direction and way of thinking Fri13.

"We cant get the facts on the internet, but im pretty positive ED can with their other ventures and contracts" Oh... so you think that ED have access to classified russian docs that confirm the KA-50ED (Why would the Russians call it the ED??? How odd...) and... THEY DECIDED TO MAKE A SIMULATED SECRET RUSSIAN WEAPON???? Good Bye ED. It was nice. LOL... Seems Legit.

On the KA-50... The Iglas and the third pylons... They were never provably done that way. The likely PLAN was to do so, and then the supposed plans got "down sized"... so it never happened. But ED have decided (rightfully so IMO) to make a KA-50ED that is built the way that the manufacturer and the RU Gov likely would have gone had they not suffered some money issues.

"What annoys me is all the contorted words from people trying to pretend to themselves that what never happened happened" I'll agree with that :). Also... Just to throw it out there... It's also super annoying when people jump on a high horse about realism when they don't even know what that means. I'm not referencing you Weta... just in general. Like when people say they'll "never use the G-Override" but they have no idea whether the missile they just fired has the "exact" performance characteristics of the real one, and all the while they're using the "realism" argument to poke jabs at the folks who are OK with a specific variety of realism license. It's high-horsery :).

Once in combat I almost never hover. It's a sure fire way to get killed by a tank. I almost always trim to some level of strafe and then attack from that strafe situation. I pretty much only use auto-hover if I know I'm close but I'm not quite sure the best route to get closer. Once I'm made though... I stay moving and low. It's a lot easier and more effective in VR.

Alright... I'll edit the post but I meant on a general scale. Yes, they're pretty close in many areas but as a whole package... yes I'll stand behind my statement :).

" It's not F-ing LEGO we are talking about." That's pretty funny :)... and yeah... it wouldn't be easy but it would be possible and was likely the end game plan :). "However, if both the Apache and the AH-1 can carry Sidearm and Sidewinder, why wouldn't the Ka-50 be able to carry the R-73?" Because this isn't call of duty... If you can show that it's likely that the R73 was part of the end game of the manufacturer or the RU Gov then maybe I'll jump on your band wagon but just saying because one military carries some sort of something means that this one should carry something is pure call of duty BS. And I don't mean Blackshark. That kind of comment is why people take such a hard stance against allowing any sort of "fantasy" at all... because then people make dumb assed comments like that. Seriously... That's as bad as the unicorn argument.

"but there are still no proof, no anectdotes, no photos, nothing - that this has ever been done." But why do we have to stop there? We know why the Russians had to stop there unfortunately... but why do WE have to? So... Lets just say for a moment that the argument that it hadn't been done wasn't going to be used... What's another argument? I mean like I said above I can certainly see why we don't have F32's with Aim240 sharks on the canopy but... Nobody ever planned to do that and then had their funding cut. The KA-50ED was basically planned based on what appears to be a good deal of anecdotal evidence. I know... It's not hard evidence but none of the people who are looking forward to the KA-50ED are trying to say there was actually a produced KA-50 of this configuration. It does seem like something VERY SIMILAR to the KA-50ED was the goal of the project. So... The fact that they never had a chance to finish it doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable reason why ED shouldn't. It just doesn't make sense. Yes... Adding R73, Heat seeking bullets and Laser AMS with tactical nuke options is likely a bit much... but when the manufacturer pitched the idea of the end goal of the KA-50 to the RU gov it was not the same KA-50 that we have. We have a prototype that was produced while striving to get to what the KA-50ED would have been... Aside from "It was never finished"... What else do you have? Because as long as the goal was realistic... I don't see how that's a valid argument against having it in a SIM... As long as ED try to faithfully re-create what the manufacturer was actually capable of and would have done given a completed contract...

Try it after de-mapping the pitch axis... Just to be sure :)

There's a lot of high-horsery going on in this thread.

OK... but what about it? If the goal of the KA-50 project was, at some point, to have the KA50ED that was a perfectly realistic goal, but then they were like "Hey wait... it would be nice to have a two seater for C&C and stuff, but damn it would have been great if we could have done this with a 1 seater..." then why not do it in a sim environment? I know... your unicorn theory states "Why don't we have 3 engined F16's with Aim 240's on the canopy..." but that's obviously unrealistic. There was never a chance of that. The KA50-ED, however... Likely would have happened (or something SUPER similar) if economic issues hadn't put a huge freeze on development right in the middle of the program. Also... With the Apache and Cobra inbound at some point... We're going to need the KA50-ED :). Like I said... I'm against the F32 with Aim240 Sharks on it's head... but the KA50-ED isn't that beast.

Ehh... Martinistripes... Have you ever seen a soft cuddly unicorn? I mean... we have seen Iglas mounted on helicopters at least. Maybe not quite the right one but one that's "pretty similar"... but... cows are not similar to unicorns. So... Your comment is pretty useless. Don't get me wrong... I'm sympathetic to your point of view... just please use sound reasoning to make it if you don't mind :).

I suppose it's important to point out something to both sides of the debate... To those who are pushing hard for a 100% "as realistic as we can prove" simulation of a real existing KA-50, and to those pushing for a little bit of fuzzy grey area that will give us a better, more useful KA-50... As I understand there will be a switch in the ME that will allow or dis-allow either version... or at least the "ED" version. I totally understand the sim purist point of view... For sure... but I also see why people would want something that's an upgrade. Real or not. It's something new to play with and something more powerful to go blow stuff up with. What's not to like? If you're into the sim side of it... Use the old shark and/or don't load Igla's or the third pylon... everyone wins. I mean... I get that "choosing" not to load something up is different from it being a restriction, but seriously... You're not flying a helicopter. There are already quite a number of concessions you're making towards reality to just get in a sim and take off. I say let us have our cake and eat it too :).

"* 3.6Ghz is 3.6Ghz, no matter the CPU, unless this is faster than your old one, zero impact on FPS * 32GB ram - unless it’s significantly faster speed than your old ram, zero impact on FPS * new motherboard? - zero impact on FPS * SSD’s have zero impact on FPS" That would be true... If it was true. But it's not.

Please re-read my post and the post I was replying to. You can still hit things that move. Not Air targets... but seriously... That's not really what we're going after anyway. Either way... My point was that someone mentioned that there's no point in a KA-50/52 combo at night when the 50 doesn't have any night/thermal/etc vision. That's not true. It has a data link. The KA52 can target and then D/L... then the KA-50 can destroy.

Of course not... but the comment was about whether or not you can shoot stuff at night with a KA50... Where did the A2A come from? and yeah... I've tried it too... It doesn't work great but it's completely beside my point. I mean... I specifically said "As long as the target doesn't move". I was talking about a KA-52 data linking a target to a KA-50 at night, the KA-50 pointing at that target and killing it without ever actually seeing it.