Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, Would it be possible to move the crosshair-options for Petrovich from "mission-settings" to "special options" (specific-module options), such that the user can chose if he wants to have the extended crosshair (bearing, vertical angle, etc...) or not, and additionally have a possibility for the mission to restrict it to minimum information additionally? What I am trying to achieve is: give the user a possibility to restrict the crosshair to absolute minimum-information, regardless of mission setting. That way, the missions can enforce only more strict crosshair, however if flying on a training server with free-restrictions, the user-setting will still only show the stripped crosshair giving the user realism in all scenarios. Otherwise, if someone wants to use the crosshair with the additional information, and the mission permits it, the user can chose in the "special options" - "extended crosshair" and have it show all info. This change would make it work correct. -=zerO=-
  2. Yes, I remember that, however there is also a discrepancy in that a loadout-mechanic available on the AH-64D, would be considered as "time consuming" for the Mi-24. This request is meant as a consideration to implement it, as opposed to what was initially stated. It makes absolutely no sense having such options for some aircraft but not others, and raises more questions rather than to have a uniform system across the board, especially since Mi24P and AH-64D are both early access, meaning features can change underway. Again, it´s those small details which really add to the overall experience. -=zerO=-
  3. Hi, First and foremost, congratulations on yet another milestone in DCS, the AH-64D. Everything from the trailers, tutorials and towards the release - it´s yet another astounding product in your line-up! Again, congratulations to the whole ED-team! Can´t wait to try it when I get my new Monstertech SIM-setup Now, to the main questions and requests. In the AH-64D, I see many new technologies which are absolute immersion changers; fluid visual rotor dynamics (blurred out, but still fluent rotor movement), sun reflection off the rotor when the sun inclines at low angles and cockpit-elements shaking due to vibrations of the helicopter. There are many more, for example on the loadout-side; chose the amount of ATGM´s on each rack, as well as completely empty ATGM-racks. I have been waiting for these functions a long time, primarily for Russian helicopters (Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24P and KA50). My question is therefore, are there any plans to add these technologies/functions (variable ATGM-load on each rack, incl. empty racks) in the imminent future? I assume with KA50 it will come with BS3, but in the near term, Mi-8MTV2 and Mi-24P? All those additions would be greatly appreciated! -=zerO=-
  4. Actually, depending on the weather, altitude, etc... the range is "medium" with 10km+ range (missiles). Besides optical guidance, radar acquisition and smokeless missiles, the missiles travel at mach 3+ speed at sea level. When you get a MWS-warning, you have 3-4 seconds to react at max range (10km+), before you get a highly manoeuvrable missile served splash-close. It´s a AAA/SAM that has to be respect highly, if you are to survive, however it´s doable. Good tactics and methodology in spotting are essential! This assumes absolute master-control of your aircraft. It´s definitely no arena to be "fighting the AP".
  5. Don´t worry, we are good Consider the unchallenged flight-envelope of Ka50 by basically any other helicopter in DCS. Also, what it lacks in night-capability, it more than makes up for with the performance and range of Vikhr for example, or the automation with the AP. It really is an amazing helicopter. Truly a masterpiece!
  6. There were issues with this helicopter regarding the weight distribution. It was producing undesirable effects in the flight-dynamics due to the rather heavy FLIR equipment mounted at the front. This was a testbed and nothing more. It would never go into production, as opposed to the limited run of Ka50. Stop trying to tailor the aircraft to your wishes, and rather adjust the mission to the aircraft. I´m sure those who fly the AJS-37 would love a TGP on it, but it never had one, and thus they won´t get it. It´s principally the same situation.
  7. Negative, I have never used curves, as it makes the control non-linear. It does not replicate real controls. With that said, this is a specific issue with Ka50 trimming. It has been reported before, and is scheduled for fixing with BS3.
  8. Harlikwin is giving good arguments based om how NVG works. Don't you have anything better to do other than being rude and detaching from a perfectly backed-up point of view? I'd rather see someome here with IRL experience with this equipment, explain everything around it, including why it won't work on our Hind, than your rude remarks. Especially given that he has IRL experience with it and you have not.
  9. Because this is how close one will come to ever flying these aircraft, except of actually being a military pilot. Therefore, yes, we want it to be as realistic as possible. That mindset actually demands progress. With the mindset you present, "it's just a game", you are lowering it, aspiring to less realistic features, less study-sim, less everything that actually defined DCS to begin with. No one says that you cannot have fun with DCS, after all, this is a hobby of many those who are here. The problem however is, when the sim is supposed to start making things gamey because "let's just screw realism, it's already tiring enouh to live as is, so let DCS be the couch game that you can play with a controller and totally not give a **** about anything". It's as mindless as it get's, and this mindset won't get you anywhere. I state again, there is one DCS, however lots of other flight combat games, what's the reason to polute this sim with nonsense? Why not be patient and wait for MAC? What makes you all aspire to ruin the one combat aviation sim that actually tries to SIMULATE? This whole whining about non-existent systems, "backed-up" by non-existent sources, or ones that are completely irrelevant is just getting repetitive. And yet, when no actual argument is made, you default to "let this be a game". When one does not have an argument, it's better to listen and learn. The "I want" does not mean that everyone else wants. A big part of this community is neither on forums, nor online. I bet that they didn't find DCS by accident or searching in google: "Fun air combat games"... This discussion is getting pointless, we are going in circles every 4 pages... EDIT: Also, just because DCS doesn't simulate NVG's well yet, doesn't meant that it won't in the future. Having that defeatist attitude that; "Just because something isn't good today, permits to give up on it completely", is just wrong and won't bring the sim any further. I am more than sure, that somewhere in the cards, everything will get an update, NVG too. However don't put your deadlines on ED. There are other more pressing issues. And in all of this rush and whine, start to respect what we have already achieved as a community, mainly ED though. You wonder what? Search on YT how Lock-on Modern Air Combat looked like back in the day.
  10. Not everything is stated on the product page. I told you what stand ED had on the Mi-24P, and what era it is from. If you need a source, ask for it. It does however state that the model was introduced in 1972, doesn't it? If you continue to refuse acknowledging what's written to you, you will go to ignore-bucket. Suit yourself. Mi-24P is not classified. Information is readily available. What is classified is IFF and a few smaller irrelevant functions (not simulated). I have information yes, where from? For sure not from videos. I got a couple Russian manuals, but I doubt you read Cyrrylic. There are also Ukrainian, Polish (only Mi-24W) and Czech manuals to name a few. If I need any help, advocate, in realising what this sim can and cannot be, I'll tell you. What you link, is a feature meant for people with bad eyesight or other issues with vision. There are quite a few older people flying DCS, so obviously it's meant to help them enjoy the product. It still doesn't provide any more capability to the aircraft, like flying at night. Irrelevant point. And HARM-amount on F-16 was fixed, although western modules are not of my interest, I don't really follow those threads. Yet again, calm yourself down friend, everyone else here is already. EDIT: To the ignore-bucket, you little rebel.
  11. Don't ruin their faith, not everyone received education enough to understand the difference between primary-, secondary-, tertiary-, etc... -source. As is with the quality a "source" presents. It's pointless to explain @Harlikwin.
  12. Pleasing the crowd has its advantages you see.
  13. *you, *your, *crusade. I am not performing any crusade, last I checked. I still see nothing relevant pro-NVG on a Cold War Mi-24P.
  14. I am condescending because you are rude in being non-receptive to what is being written to you. Your whole post is about "wanting". You present nothing factual, except an article from 2020!, that is talking about "testing" the NVGs on the helicopter. 2020! I refuse to believe that you work with what you state, because even when "switching off", one doesn´t go completely "off". Your grammar makes me doubt it even more, but that is neither of my interest nor on topic. The Mi-24P that we have, is not from this millennium, I hope that you can comprehend that. Thus, that is not an argument at all. More so that I stated explicitly the following: "ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs." - Coming back in 2021 and talking about tests being done with NVG in 2020!... (actually, NVG has been used before already on these helicopters, but newer versions, the article talks about adapting NVG to Mi-24P, but it´s again, 2020! some 42 years later than our simulated Mi-24P). You haven´t proved anything, only that you are oblivious to what is being told to you. You are flat out refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Mi-24P that we have, being simulated from a specific period, never had the capability for NVG. Your stubbornness is that of a masochist. You have presented nothing but a whole wall of text written in the format of "I want". There is no proof in that. It´s you who is rude, to even make a statement that you have decided for yourself and nothing is going to change that. What are you doing here with that attitude?! "Do i even read whats written? What?!?" - Read above, your link of a webpage regarding tests being done in 2020 does not happen to show any relevance to a helicopter simulated from the period of 1979´s. Do you understand what is being written to you, or are you flat out "shutting off"? You are not arguing with anyone, you have nothing to argue with, because you haven´t presented anything relevant so far. There is not one source showing that the Mi-24P in 1979-1980s was using NVG as standard. Having repeated myself 4 times in the single response, I hope something gets through. "Moreover, the "WZL 1" has "modified" the following helicopters to enable them performing a broad variety of missions" What does this have to do with our Russian version of the Mi-24P from 1979-80s? No one is arguing that one couldn´t install lasers, but we are talking about representing a helicopter from a specific period. Why post something on Polish helicopter modifications, and from way later? What is your argument?
  15. b) A dream is an aspiration, an ambition, not a measure of whether it is a success or not. Currently, there are things waiting to get fixed in DCS from long ago, before one can as a whole say that it is a quality product. Furthermore, if english was your native language, you´d understand that it´s a dream because it´s a constantly evolving product. It never get´s finished, thus it`s a dream for the future of this software, to stay as realistic as technology and information permits it to be. c) Does it not seem like I am relaxed?! If I wasn`t, you`d be receiving a whole different tone. I suppose with what MAC wants to represent, it suits you more than me. It´s simpler and less realistic, which is what you are looking for. Your whole response made no sense whatsoever, think, then write, not the other way around. I do however see why writing is such an issue when you delegate most of your time to videos, instead of practicing the skill of reading and writing. Then what are you doing in a Hind-thread arguing for something that you haven´t tried?! Your prerogative is complete nonsense. ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs. Done, discussion closed. I can find it and link, if you have trouble believing what you just read, if you read at all (it would be easier to communicate with you through video). You just proved how limited one can be, when discussions get nowhere because that individual has taken a stand and nothing will change his/hers mind. Why are you even in the forums other than to spread misconception and demagoguery? Obviously you will never learn anything, because you chose a side and no amount of logical arguments will change your POV. That´s when you know that you found someone "on level", when the discussion bears impact on both sides. You have presented nothing but BS all the way, only your points of view, there is nothing factual nor specific in what you write. "If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it.." - No, it´s not capable, because the lightning in the cockpit is not correct for NVG, something that would result in shimmering, over-saturation and over-exposure, therefore "let´s not have it". Yet again a BS statement. Do you even read what´s written, or did you come to troll for the lack of meaningful activities in your life?
  • Create New...