zerO_crash

Sweet stuff! Well made too!

I have done it many times, as said, between 3-5 sorties, is what the laser lasts for me. I've been flying since LOMAC. Trust me, I know my stuff! You have to understand that there are many factors to consider (range to target (flight time), how many times you range at all, how efficient you are in the process of cancelling remaining laser time, etc...). Again, that is not the problem, rather predicting the exact time when it will fail.

Well, not always. If you turn the laser completely off, when not using it, it will last longer. The time is further extended, if you press the "stop lase"-button. I haven't counted (it varies), but it will be more than two complete 12-Vikhr loadouts. Still though, this is a much needed feature.

Не художественное произведение, а предсказанное будущее: Вертолёт настолько же "плох", насколько "плох" сам пилот. Если хорошо летать, то и вертолет будет летать. Ка-50 работает так, как задумано. ИТ-23 входит в состав К-041, который предоставляет разные номера. Одним из них является радиолокационная высотность (доплеровская). Предлагаю ознакомиться с 8-12 (бручную). Машина хороша, вне зависимости от дизайнерских решений. Это недостаток культуры для того, чтобы ввести иностранный язык на форум. С западной стороны к российским комментариям придираются. Интересно, почему английским комментаторам здесь не напоминают...

To correct this: That is wrong, and completely opposite of what it actually is. There is a reason why every moden attack/combat helicopter has engines spaced on both sides of the fuselage (as far as doable - performance/mission dictate design). Whilst by default, both configurations shield the engines in a similar way, notice how, from below, the engines typically are placed such that wings are obstructing them. Primarily though, the reason for going away from the engine-by-engine arrangement, is that both configurations are susceptible to losing at least one engine upon direct impacts. Where the difference lies, is that with engines close together (even with armored plate between), the chances of losing both engines is far higher, than when you have a fuselage between them (more space (shielding from pressure), more material that can stop a bullet/part/shrapnel, and higher chance that the bullet/part/shrapnel will miss the other engine (the further apart two objects are, the less space they occupy of the their arc in a crossection). There are positives though, with engines high up on the fuselage and well ahead, for example; the Mi-24 is not prone to dynamic gas ingestion, even when firing rockets as big as the S-25. Another positive, is that due to being mounted higher up, they are less susceptible to dust/particles, than otherwise helicopters with engines mounted down low. Ultimately, the Mi-24, has the engines placed in such a way, so as to permit a troop/cargo compartment in the middle. That is the reason for such an arrangement. As Mil learned themselves from Afghanistan though, when one engine got hit in combat, often, both went out. (One engine experiencing a malfunction, sends turbine blades and other pieces flying in all directions. With the kind of forces a turboshaft engine exerts, the armored barrier sitting between gets easily pierced.) Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, however survivability, is prescribed to the separated configuration, out of the two.

I have read and seen all the posts in the thread, and that is precisely why I pull out the points that I do. While the discussion is somewhat irrelevant in the long-term aspect (new damage model will come to more than just WWII aircraft), in the near term, I give you the examples for why your testing is flawed at hand. Initially when Mi-8MTV-2 released, it was getting shot down by a couple of AK shots. It would literally take 2-3 AI soldier with common personal weapons, to pop one/two of your engines, and that was the end of the mission (mostly). The problem back then, was that the AI would explicitly aim for your engines, and had superior accuracy, when aiming for the Mi-8MTV-2 specifically. To that extent, it felt like all the other helicopters would take a fair amount of beating, where Mi-8MTV-2 had no place in combat closer than 3km to a target. Certain changes were made there, most of all, the AI's accuracy was toned with regards to hitting the engines, and that issue got solved. The point being, it's not always the damage model which is to blame. First and foremost, this is not a contest, thus doing a comparison in the form of "X should be tougher than Y, because X is a combat helicopter, and Y is a utility one.", is pointless. It is an improper way to tackle the issue, and while your testing might seem interesting, it does actually point to more issues at hand. Namely, if you watch closely your attempts with the Huey, it seems durable, because the bullets are hitting mainly the middle of the helicopter. If those hits were anything close to real life, then both pilots would be shot to pieces either by the first bullets, or by the shattered glass in the cockpit (most bullets are going through front windshields). For some reason however, the bullets (look at the incoming tracers), go mainly towards the middle of the airframe - neither killing the crew, nor damaging any vital components. This then, gives a flawed perception of what the Huey is capable of handling. There is a reason why Huey Cobra was introduced (other requirements aside). Notice how Cobra, introduced a slim design as its main attribute to present a smaller signature. Furthermore, you are comparing two aircraft which are in a state of development. There are videos showing Mi-24P being nearly impervious to 7.62mm bullets, which while it is considered a tank in the sky, it is not. If you hit some of the vital components (engine intake, sides of the bubble canopies, certain parts of the rotors (bearings, shafts, etc...), it will get damaged. Both the Mi-24P, and especially the AH-64D (the glass will not take that damage it took on your video IRL!), are all individual aircraft, and in making. There is no comparison here. You are further making claims as to what "feels" realistic or not. That is neither an argument, nor a qualified opinion to have. The closest we will come to judging what damage will be handled by an airframe, is refering to either credible sources that have performed such tests, having detailed information from former shootdowns and action in conflicts or having pilots/manufacturers provide their insight (which still has to be confirmed is many ways, as e.g. memory is neither consistent nor credible). In terms of manufacturers, it has to be pointed out that there is PR in play, and one has to consider very carefully the wording. Semantics-wise, there is absolutely no instance in which a manufacturer will claim that an airframe "will" (with certainty) handle damage from any given calibre. Instead, they use "can". The reason is that the whole topic on damage, is a very complex one. There are far too many metrics to consider, in order to qualitatively give a specific promise. An example here, is that Mil (Rosobornexport) claims that Mi-24 (and its derivatives), "can" handle up to 23mm "splinters", whilst Boeing claims that AH-64 "can" handle up to 23mm "fire". The the word "fire", does not imply the bullet, but rather the whole system, meaning for example fragments from the bullets. Simply put, ED has to investigate this, and see what they come up with (based on individual modules). I would recommend writing a bug report on the UH-1H in the appropriate forums as well, with that video. It proves that AI have a point-specific shooting pattern for the UH-1H. Theory: http://www.ppgaerospace.com/getmedia/9a556385-c535-491c-bbce-e332a8ca63bf/boeing_apache_-AH64-12021Final.pdf?ext=.pdf Practice:

Actually, it does matter. While DCS doesn't simulate it, per real-life procedures, INU heating is to be turned on prior to starting the alignment of the INU. This matters all-year around, however primarily, during winter. The reason being; any gyro will have ball and roller bearings which are lubricated with some form of oil (low viscosity). Not heating up the bearings properly, will increase the alignment time, and might actually introduce a certain (miniscule) error into the alignment. Again, DCS does not model this until now, however for a purist (IRL operations), this is essential to know. Same answer as above. As to official youtube procedures, there are the ones from made by Wags for the first iteration of Ka-50. Regardless of that, the manual will be the proper place to look for an exact procedure, as private one often do not respect the order of systems turned on (little respect is paid to what systems are allowed to be turned on in which sequence). If realism is to be simulated, then manuals are the way to go (otherwise - pilots who have experience with the type). Eventually, intimate knowledge of the different systems, and what minimums for voltage they tollerate. For anything less than realism, you can basically do your own startup, and test what works and what doesn't.

Hi, I have asked about this before, and I am requesting this again, seeing how more modules get released, and the issue thus gets propagated. My request is for ED to design a specific tab/menu/etc... which will solidify the settings from different modules in one specific, easy to read, place. Currently, modules have settings regarding their intricacies split in two places; the "special options" tab, and under loadout in the mission editor. The problem with this system, is that as more and more modules get released, it gets increasingly harder to effectively design bigger mission (single/multi-player), while keeping all respective settings as desired. This, further goes for hosting mission on multiplayer. My suggestion for an elegant solution, is as follows: Keep in mind, a user might want to host a mission with different module-specific settings, than what their own global settings are. Therefore, let there be two places to setup these special options. GLOBAL SETTINGS - Same as the DCS settings tab today, albeit with all the addtional settings from mission editor, moved in here. In essence, this will be the user default configuration. It allows to setup the module from one specific places. When a user runs singleplayer/mission editor (new mission), those settings are the default setup. MISSION SETTINGS - A completely new tab in the mission editor (preferably on the top pane - general), where a user can open one single tab, and have an overview over all the special options for all flyable modules (even those that the user does not own himself). The idea here, is to allow the user, to alter his/hers special settings in the realm of a single mission, without the need for altering their own preference (Global settings). Here, all special settings which are relevant for hosting a mission (i.e. not types of trim/cockpit shake/cockpit texture/etc...) would be located. The point being, it would allow for a better overview (one place, instead of reviewing each individual aircraft placed in the mission) for the mission maker. Also, this special settings tab, could then be replicated in the server list/briefing, where users could see what specific settings each server is running. With this system in place, you could also feature a drop-down menu in the Global/Mission tabs, basic predefined profiles (concerning all modules): realism, normal, easy, etc... Point being, for those users who simply have not read into these module-specific settings, it would give them a way to have all settings organized based on their preference in simulating DCS. zerO

Precisely! This is a limitation of the, until now, current menu design. I have requested the system to be revitalized and solidified, and I'm sure that it will come. As more modules gets released, the need for a easy-2-use system, will simply be more pronounced. There are more important issues at hand, which is why I imagine that this request hasn't materialized yet. With such a complex simulation, things take time to implement.

Я не могу подтвердить (поездку). Напишите отчет в ED («Белсимтек» входит в их состав). Было бы неплохо иметь возможность ручного управления счетчиками.

Ka-50s excuse for what exactly? You are introducing a subjective perception, that is not a valid evalutation. Also, what kind of metric do you use to define that "... all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL"? Obviously this is not true. The manufacturers use different methods of testing, and militaries have different thresholds for what constituates an acceptable level of protection. This is a very delicate discussion in that there is no guarantee of anything. A KPV (14.5mm, or even 23mm fragments) can score a few hits on the airframes, but not take it down, yet a lucky shot of lesser calibre can. Realistically, when you look at how these aircraft are built, then the overall consensus is that vital parts are the most protected (a armored part on the outer side of the airframe, will still be pierced faster, than one burried deep inside the airframe). Still, however, there are big changes in design, which all yield different results all around. The Mi-24, while being massively armored, is still limited in design by the weight a combat-/assault-helicopter can lift. Why do you think Soviets started flying high in Afghanistan (helicopters) in the early-mid stages of the war? About the biggest cannons that Afghani resistance had, were KORDs (few instances of captured ZU-23 platform). RPGs were also fired at helicopters, albeit with practically no documented success. On the design-aspect, Hind and Ka-50 have a all-around armor, with main focus on pilot. While Hind "only" has armor on the front windshields (the bubble canopy is a type of plexiglass), the Ka-50 has armored windows all around. Comparison-wise, the AH-64 has mainly armored bottom (below the pilot and gunner), and the plexiglass all around the cockpit. Still, armored glass, is not titanium. Obviously, the glass-cockpit will never provide the same level of defense as a built-around, titanium monocoque. AH-64 pilots are taught to use the bottom of their helicopter to their advantage, if close air-support is provided (flying at higher altitudes and using the deflection of the cannon). Otherwise, there is one example of a AH-64 downed by a bolt-action rifle. Another difference lies in the spacing of engines, where the Hind, while having a armored plate between them, will still have a higher probability of getting both engines shut by shrapnel, than the Ka-50 and AH-64 (engines separated by fuselage). Finally, with the tail of a helicopter being potent to damage (thinner part of the airframe), that as well as the tail rotor, are an immensly sensitive point. A proper hit, and if the helicopter manages to maintain straight flight (only the tail rotor failed, and at speed), then it will have a problem at landing, even with roll-out. Most commonly though, the tail breakes off, and the helicopter is gone. A Ka-50 is incredibly survivable here, where the tail might be shot at, or off, and still fly well. With that said, use a little common sense in terms of the speed at which this happens, trim setting, change of CG, and other factores involved. Obviously, of this happens at very high-speed, and low altitude, chances are you will go down. Overall, the point is that these helicopters are very different in design, each and every one of them. Claiming what they should or shouldn't, based on qualitative judgment, just doesn't cut it. You don't even know what steel/composite is being used in the different airframes. A metallurgist, and synthetic materials-engineer, would also like to have a word on this topic. They are very different, but as different conflicts have proved, a Hind might survive landing in a minefield with 2XX shrapnel holes, and still fly well, but it might also get downed by a lucky hit through the bubble canopy, killing the pilot. Still, no aircraft is meant to withstand bullets of high-calibre (above 12.7mm) for a prolonged saturation. What you claim, is a pure fantasy. Also, DCS would be a simulator, not a game per se (even if the actual word is used by devs in the few marketing instances).

DCS .trk-files are have their own issues as well. Typically, the longer the session is, the more inaccurate the .trk becomes. Which of ACMI/TRK however, are more accurate, is a technical question irrelevant of this thread. The point is, ED uses TRK for all their intents and purposes. I suppose this has to do with having an accurate reproduction of mission events and user experienced bug/glitch in the same space of time. Another thing that I can think of, is that as far as I know, ACMI only records metrics and units, not actual events taking place in the mission (triggers, module systems info (switches, etc...).That's why ED specifically asks for TRK, not ACMI. Beyond that, a ED dev would better be able to explain why exactly the distinction.

The original body from BS-2 was asked by me a couple of years ago (after they removed it), and it hasn't been implemented. I imagine that the body is more integral to a module, than just placing an object in the cockpit. Otherwise, I would see absolutely no reason at all to remove it completely, before designing a new one.

No fault in that. It's definitely the ones in the progress which are incorrect so far. Hind tolerates too much. As to AH-64, it's not supposed to be as durable as those two, no doubt there. The one additional issue, which seems to alter the impression of flying assault with helicopters, is the AI awareness/accuracy. For anyone who has ever been inside a tank/armored vehicle, knows just how little awareness you have to events outside your limited field of view. That goes for modern tanks as well. In DCS, this is how it was modelled back in the day. Nowadays, the system proves incorrectness, and it is being worked on as we speak. Additionally, the AI's accuracy with non-articulated armament (radar, optics (contrasting), systems for calculating predictive movement, etc...) such as tanks, IFVs, APCs, some basic triple-A, and more, is simply too accurate. This is also being worked on as we speak. All in all, these two points are some of the most major ones. This is specifically noticed with Huey/Gazelle and Bo-105PAH1A1/OH-58D (when they release). Small size, coupled with dynamic movement, is what has made these airframes survive assault and harass-style of combat without too many losses. I'll also add, that for a complete simulation of this specific type of warfare, the AI needs to have simulated (even on basic level) two more things: getting stunned/shocked from attacks nearby (incapacity), as well as regard for their own "life". All in all, that would yield a more respective battlefield environment, alas that of IRL.

It is pointless to compare damage models on modules that are not complete. Both Hind and Apache are in early stages of development. It is confirmed that Hind handles too much damage, and this will get fixed. Apache is definitely the weakest helicopter, with most glass and least armor in the airframe. Regardless, as said, these modules are in their early infancy. Issues or lacks in modelling, are to be expected. It is also important to understand that just as a small FPV-drone or molotov-cocktail can take out a 50-70 tonne tank, a solid hit to any vital component (armored or not), can potentially result in a loss of the airframe. It ought to be said that it is poor form of airmanship, to rely on armor in ones employment of aircraft. While the risk will vary with mission, one is to fly so as to avoid getting hit. In other words, consider the armor a bonus, but don't fly with the mentality of it forming a part of your tactics.

I did indeed, was multitasking while making the post. I corrected the post now. It is "ЗАХОД", literally meaning "APPROACH". Possibly, an automated landing mode, or approach/landing tailored handling-mode. It's pure speculation on my end though. Good stuff!

Definitely, sadly, as you mention yourself, we won't see even the most basic iterations of that airframe for decades to come. It is a beautiful aircraft though. The cockpit looks incredibly ergonomic as well, with good all-around visibility. For a conventional helicopter design, it is a well designed machine Enjoy it!

My pleasure! Please, do enjoy! As a bonus, while not 100% related though as a means of comparison, I'm posting pictures of the Mi-28N: https://ionovmike.livejournal.com/2825.html I will also draw attention one of the most interesting panels in the cockpit of a Ka-52 (Mi-28N has a very similar one, with one option less, and generally different functions (based on nomenclature of the buttons)) - check attached picture. This is the autopilot panel inside a Ka-52. While many functions are not understood, some of the more interesting ones are: - "ТРОС" - "CABLE". It would indicate a specific AP-mode for flying with cargo on a winch. (Pure speculation - I imagine it could be a reduced sensitivity of the cyclic/collective, so as to permit fine control.) - "МАРШ" - "MARCH". It would indicate a specific combat mode. - "ЗАХОД" - "APPROACH". Possibly some sort of AP mode used for approaching landing. Could be an automated landing (speculation). The most interesting one though, is this: - "АВТ ТРИММ" - "AUT. TRIM". It would be, that Ka-52/Mi-28 (Mi-28N has this function on its AP-panel as well), are the first helicopters in known existance, to have a automatic trimmer. How this works specifically, is of course not something that we'll know for many years to come. It is nevertheless an incredible functionality to have, if comfort and pilot workload is to count. While trimming is as natural as operating a manual car, one does somewhat notice the difference in comparison to an automatic/electric vehicle.

Until just before release. You have time

No. The concept of coaxial rotor allows to retain all power focused on vertical lift. Ka-50 being an attack helicopter however, has blades which are optimized for speed, not for lift (it's not always the case with attack helicopters, Ah-64 is a good example - blades optimized for lift). While it can lift an incredible amount (co-axial concept proving its worth), the airfoil does make it a secondary function in this helicopter, behind all combat tasks. Furthermore, with it being a very expensive piece of equipment, it's a functionality that it has, but practically never gets used. About the most a Ka-50/52 ever transports, are the transport containers sometimes used (mounted on pylons). Having less functionality on a specific module, means that when changes are made to a certain mechanic/equipment, that module does not need an update. If new cargo/physics/etc... get introduced/changed, then each and every module which supports the mechanic/system, needs to be adjusted for that. It's that simple.

If you backtrack the discussion, you'll notice that I'm not the one who mentioned the SLAM/-ER to begin with. However, since it was mentioned, I'm making arguments as to why these weapons are simply not comparable at all. A SLAM/-ER is an irrelevant comparison mainly due to it not being needed on such a scale, neither in technical aspect, nor in the amount required for operation. I have however been comparing drones to armed scout helicopters (E.g. FARA as the latest acquisition program in US. Also, not to be confused with assault/combat helicopters.), and that is a very credible comparison. These units are fully interchangeable, and as electronics/sensors/software/tactics have evloved, so has the viability of using drones. Apparently, these are the conclusions the US military and industry have arrived at too. There really is no defined specification for what an AI architecture will look like. If anything, we'll use our knowledge of current trends and systems in the broader fields, and model an AI by those standards. With time however, boundaries will be extended, and new concepts will arise. While looking far into the future is somewhat abstract in this context (many possibilities and what-ifs), the near-term aspect of the matter is much more predictable. What I deduce, is based on what is currently/near-future available technology-wise, as well as taking into consideration the aspects of economic viability, strategical-/tactical-necessity and historically conventional contenders. Let me first mention, that in modern world, the cost of design and procurement of software, is among the biggest factors that have to be taken into account. Consider how the single most expensive and cost-driving factor of the F-35 program, is in fact the software. That is also the part of the program, that is furthest behind the schedule. Taking a note from this example, it is reasonable to deduce that in the near future, we will not want to have individual F-35 equivalent programs, that all have their issues, mostly with software. Consider that creating a system based on commonality, is not only a solid concept with regards to financial matters, but most importantly time and manpower. With todays unrest world, time and manpower are among the most imporant resources, rest assured. This is also the basis for why I believe that AI, will be the next big (and expensive) venture alas that of the invention of the wheel, only more major in its effect. While a wheel has many applications, imagine now how many AI will have. What I stipulate for a modular AI, is the following structure: CORE: Basic logic based on learning, reasoning, decision making, problem solving and perceptions. This is really what an AI is in the public domain. Here, the AI is capable of acquiring knowledge through deep learning algorithms, and expanding its library (experience if you will) through interaction with a verified remote library. At this point, the AI can be a venture between the military and public sector, without any threat of intrusion into classified material. There would certainly have to be a high level of encryption, in order not to give away the construct. MODULES: What you'd expect to find here, are further extensions in the form of "libraries" available for the AI to use. We are assuming that at this point, the military-use AI is shared with public (obviously). The modules make use of either one common AI mainframe, or most likely, individual unit AI (early stages). The libraries, are handcrafted and specialized libraries that contain information on different types of units (aircraft, vehicles, drones, etc...), with information such as movement metrics, armament (and the respective specifications regarding that armament - definition of use, blast power, range, TOF of projectile, etc...). You'd have such libraries (modules) categorized by different subjects; what unit they will serve on, whether the AI is to have a strategic/tactical subset of laws, rules of engagement, basic/advanced laws of calculating risk, theatre related topics relevant for employment (weather conditions, description of civilians/hostiles, with more) and so on. Think of the core as the operating system, and the modules corresponding to an "app store" which allows the military to tailor the AI with regards to what unit it will be used on. What that unit must know, what it should know, what it could know, and what it shouldn't know. Based on these extensions, you are directing the power capability of the CORE (can be stripped off only-public use knowledge) along with the libraries into what is effectively an AI which has effective means of dealing with a situation/threat, based on what it was taught. I want to point out, that we are still far off such a level of autonomy with regards to artifical intelligence. Even the next big thing in the field (military and AI), the Loyal Wingman, is a primitive iteration, which will be submissive to basic commands from a human platform (lead aircraft/HQ). The initial uses of AI, will really be in closed systems, mostly as articulation to the given operator (allow to control the functions of a vehicle/aircraft based on input from driver/pilot), wargaming scenarios meant to find even more efficient ways of organizing strategy/tactics based on provided intel and factors, aspects of logistics and other non-harmful means of support, etc... It will take some time, before we "put a weapon into the hands of a intelligence capable of its own reasoning and conclusions". With that said, I do believe that we'll see it in our lifetime. Finally, the subject is far more expansive, than we are giving it credit for. That also relates to the initial discussion of strategy/tactics surrounding drones alone (no AI). What limits us, is really the means of communication (writing). There is for example the notion of connectivity (internet/NET/SAT), which reamins untouched. That is to keep it as short, and on point as possible.

Ever since BS1, it has been an inconvenience that the laser module gets repaired when it is considered 100% used up/damaged. Consider the following situation: I operate 50-100km away from my FARP/Airfield. I perform 3-4 sorties (sometimes more, sometimes less) before I know that the laser is practically used up. Now, requesting a repair, will not repair the laser module, as it is not considered 100% used up/damaged. Therefore, I take off, and perform my 5th sortie (or so), knowing that the laser will last me only a couple of ranging/designation bursts, before I have to RTB due to it not being operational any more (different armament not considered). If the last sortie then specifically demands precision strike (laser guidence), then flying towards the AO, expecting a short mission due to laser being expended, gives poor room for planning. Wanting to keep realism intact (service life frequency), I have three suggestions with regards to how to solve this: a) Allow for a laser repair at any laser lifetime value lower than x < 100%. This would allow to automatically repair the laser as soon as it has been used, at the discrection of the pilot. b) Allow for laser repair at any laser lifetime value lower than x < 50%. The idea is the same as in point (a), however here, you consider the logistics-side of the equation. Namely, the life-cycle requirements, before a component can be switched out. c) In the radio menu, make a separate "request laser repair"-function, which will allow for swapping out the laser module, which has a short life-cycle, instead of repairing the whole airframe. Of course, here you'd need to allow for a repair with 99% laser life, or less. It seems to coincide better with your upcoming mechanic for accruing airframe stress across separate missions.

Much correct has already been posted here. The thing about DCS is; its modules are so realistic, that the bottleneck is not software, but rather the hardware that you use. In order for many of the flight-systems (trimming, AP, etc...) to make natural sense, you'd have to have a FFB setup with stick and pedals (I am using Brunner's stick base and pedals). With proper FFB, you would have to learn, and use, the trimmer correctly - either with the click-method, or click-and-hold. That way, you would naturally remove any unwanted jolting/movement/imprecision. Because your hardware isn't sufficient to replicate the actual behaviour of these complex machines, you are bound to making up for it with creativity. Now, while there are differences between the trim systems of Mi-8, Mi-24 and Ka-50 (pretty major differences as well), the trimmers are actually used in the same manner and, with the same techniques (even western helicopters trim in this way, with certain nuances depending on the specific airframe). You mention Ka-50. It has the FD-mode purely as an option to disable AP while retaining the dampening functions. If you are to practice hand-craft, you can use this mode, however in all practical applications (especially combat), there is a very good reason for why the Ka-50/52 have the most powerfull AP in the world. If you have taught yourself to fly Ka-50 only with FD-mode on, then you are doing it wrong. There is much misinformation on this matter online, which I imagine could have misguided you. People have a tendency to chose the easy/simple way out (most don't understand trimming & AP with helicopters), which is a mentality that tends to bite later on. Here you are "later", and having issues, because you never learned how to fly the Ka-50 properly, and according to its strengths. Even with your hardware, you should first read about the trimming in these helicopters, then practice flying in accordance with what manuals command as well as what pilots perform IRL. Let me run it down for you: In order to remove the unwanted behaviour (mentioned above), with your hardware and its limitations, you want to click-and-hold trim button. That means - click and hold the trimmer, move the stick to the desired position and release the trimmer (quickly recenter your stick after letting go of the trim button, as the virtual position of the stick will magnify quickly (you have 0.5 seconds to recenter stick without any interference)). Since you know a little Ka-50, start by using the trimmer more actively. You have to trim every time you change the attitude of the helicopter. If you learn to fly like that (realistically and according to SOP), you will notice that the helicopter is a joy to fly, and that it does whatever you command it to, giving you room to focus more on the task at hand. Once you become accustomed to flying this way in the Ka-50, you'll transition to Mi-24 naturally, with your issues eliminated.

Gotcha!

I infer you are a current/former army pilot, Coota0? Was the readjustment in MTOW affirmed by a document (SOP/squadron policy/updated manual), or purely a norm based on experience gathered in the field?