zerO_crash

It was interesting to see you release this mechanic in the AH-64D, and it does point to off-board plans by ED/3rd parties (and/or). I have some questions regarding this, and mind you, no binding answers. It is purely for getting an idea behind the thought: - Are there any further plans that you can share with regard to this mechanic? Are you thinking about making a similar system to the disclosed carrier plans (allow to simulate everything from briefing, "drinking a cup of coffee" and entering the aircraft)? Can you indicate what one will be able to do when disembarked? - Currently, the mechanic is in AH-64D. Is it possible to implement a new mission start state (module specific), which allows to start outside the helicopter? To make a basic implementation; have the pilot start next to a humvee automatically placed behind the helicopter or so. It would allow for some valuable input and testing by the community. (Depending on whether the aircraft is set to multi-crew or single - the AI would still spawn inside the helicopter. In multi-crew, both pilot/CPG would start outside.) Thanks in advance!

All clear, NineLine! Thank you!

Not sure if this was answered, and not that it touches me (whole Afghanistan bought), but do we actually get the whole area in high-quality within the orange square? It's bigger than what the individual Afghanistan modules cover... I'm curious if that is a fault in the drawing, or if we are actually getting that much of Pakistan and even a little of India?

While this has been mentioned before, I am making a specific wish for an expanded set of map tools. I am missing the following: A dedicated new map (not the current AWACS-view). Basically, allow to open the map with only the tools listed below. This map would function as a normal physical map that a pilot has. Everything drawn on it, would only be shown to the pilot of thay given aircraft (individual between crew-members). (The AWACS-view, could be used as a modern "tablet" that crew-members use. Allow the mission commander to draw on it such that it's visible to everyone in that coalition. If a crew-member draws, it only shows for them. Essentially, have a military command structure associated with the AWACS-map.) For the paper map, following tools are needed: - A proper ruler (I wish to find out the range between two points myself, with the given map scale, instead of having the current "automatic" inplementation. - An ability to draw on the map (lines, icons, add comment bubbles (better than whatbis currently implemented - on a white background and able to stay open, unless I specifically close it). - Don't allow to perform any zooming on the map. Only view-zoom. The map should function exactly like a physical one (think of the Mi-24P doppler map - if you want to move the map around, you have to jump between zones, not fine moving). With this system, allow to select was is permissable in the mission setup - paper map/AWACS-view/both. That way, one can adjust the setup to a given historic scenario. Also, have the physical map, preferably show more realistically in the cockpit (laid out on the legs of the pilot, or so). The expanded map tools, are especially a much needed functionality. zerO

Keep the thread clean, thanks! As always, it's a individual choice whether you wish to buy a product or not. Simple as that!

Indirectly, you did: Regardless, I explained where the problem lies. While advanced damage model will do good, updated and properly modelled AI, will do even better. Let's not derail the thread further.

It happens sometimes. Go to main DCS website -> Profile -> Personal Section -> Scroll down to the "My orders"-section. There, you should find your current order labeled as "processing/waiting for payment". Simply click on it, and re-run the process of payment. Will work

Fantastic! Definitely one of the most important, and history-relevant regions on earth! Couldn't be better! Units fitting the theatre, are important too, though. We will need some updates to camouflage and unit relevant for the region. That goes for any map, really.

Ka-50 has a good damage model, although better detailing will come when advanced damage model gets applied to helicopters. Expectations are do form any objective assessment, neither does comparing modules with each other. It is a very simplistic way of looking at things, which doesn't get you anywhere. This discussion has been settled many times, here for one (albeit from the point of view of Ka-50): Very easily put; most people, who do not understand the aspect of objective opinion/evaluation, tend to orbit around their own percieved "truth". When most manufacturers state that an aircraft "can" withstand the "fire" or "fragments" of a 23mm calibre weapon system, those people will assume that it "will" sustain that damage. The building of a helicopter (any vehicle for that matter), is a balancing act. One protects the most vital and probable areas to be hit. Even then, there is a limit to what a design can bear, especially in aeronautics. The aspect of damage, is not linear either. There are too many factors fo list in a forum. I suggest reading throughly up on the topic, before making claims as to what is right or wrong. http://www.skywar.ru/afghanistanen.html http://www.skywar.ru/oldussr.html The main difference between DCS and real life, is that humans possess an instinct of self preservation. A bot does not! There are very few soldiers who would even think about pointing their 7.62mm (NATO - mostly 5.56mm) at a 11+ tonne gunship flying at 300+ km/h (armies don't teach that, as probability of hit (let alone shoot-down) vs. amount of spent bullets, is simply too inefficient). Bots in DCS have too good aim, especially the target lead. Additionally, units which statistically, should almost never see a aircraft flying (the angles from optics are too shallow), do see and fire at you in DCS. APCs, Tanks, SPGs, etc... Those would not, and should not respond as fast, and as accurately as they do. They shouldn't even know that an aircraft is in the air unless relayed from command/troops. Anything else, is purely situational. Those are just examples of what gives a wrong perception on warfare in DCS.

Pleasure

It is the same in SP as well as MP. It is simply different when you have to focus on giving Petrovich commands, while staying formation, or such. Mi-24P is in development. Don't get too used to its damage model, it is very much off, I am afraid. I already pointed to this in another thread. In Afghanistan, Mujaheedins had at most KORDs (very seldom that something like ZU-23 appeared), and that was enough for Soviet pilots to start flying high. This is also the main issue with early access products, people get accustomed to incomplete aircraft, and believe that everything is as it should. Again, Mi-24P will get toned down on the damage modelling. I am suspecting though, that ED wants to implement the advanced damage model with both the Mi-24P and AH-64D, as the first helicopters. That's why it takes so long to get the damage model tuned. Time will show.

It seems like many people don't know, thus sharing FAAs (Federal Aviation Administration) official handbooks for pilots of planes and helicopters. The following, include all the possible topics you could think of within civilian aviation. Much of the knowledge here, is definitely relevant for a military setting as well, such as e.g. principles of flight, weather theory or flying at night. These handbooks are certified, and certainly of good quality. Everyone will find something for themselves here: Handbook for planes - PHAK Front Matter (faa.gov) 1 Handbook for helicopters - Helicopter Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-21B) 2 There are many more interesting documents concerning civilian aviation here: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation Enjoy! 1 Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov) 2 Helicopter Flying Handbook | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov)

My pleasure! Updated the thread. Everything is correct now.

Reposting from Russian side, for those who are interested. Everything is in Russian, but you might get it translated. For the drawings alone, it is worth it. - La-7 Technical description: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/0S8yV5teC71_fQ - Armament: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/p0rz6vKaJ3VSUw - Armament: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/pBAzYvYw78myIQ - PBP-1 and PBP-1B + archival photos and photos of the sight: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/CNN09DP0ClO3uA A basic explanation from Twister1: The B-20S cannon has a lower muzzle velocity, due to the design feature (greater travel of moving parts than that of the ShVAK) and a slightly shorter length of the rifled part of the barrel. PBP-1, 1A, 1B. Letters stand for the model of the sight. A is an improved or bis, B is a new model. The PBP-1B is larger than the PBP-1 sight. Comparison of optical data and dimensions in mm PBP-1B and PBP-1 in parentheses. Focal length: 110 (60) Lens Light Diameter: 50 (40) Removal for Big Ring: 240 (195) Small Ring Removal: 350 (290) Height: 185 (160) Width: 145 (100) The sight was installed on La-5 aircraft from about 1943. Especially the archival photos, are of fantastic quality, and really interesting to see IRL. Thanks goes to @Twister26 Enjoy! 1Ла-7 Техническое описание и вооружение (Б-20С). Прицел ПБП-1Б. ЛТХ, двигатель. - DCS: И-16 - ED Forums

If you turn in a coordinated and smooth matter, you don't need to close the optics, Petrovich will automatically slew Raduga to last position before you turned away (that is when you turn back on the target within 30* left/right of the sight). If you, however, will maneuver abruptly or at a higher rate, then obviously, you wish to close the sight before starting the maneuver. It comes down to practice, and finesse. Due to the complexity of DCS, don't just run a rant thread. Instead, explain the issue, and post a trk.-file. There are too many variables to consider, in order for such a thread to be relevant. EDIT: Correction.

Всё ясно! Очень признателен, брат!

Я предполагал. Спасибо за подтверждение. Высота измеряется как радиолокационным альтиметром, так и барометрическим альтиметром (выше 3-500 метров), или только радиолокационным альтиметром? (Вопрос о данных, обрабатываемых комплексом K-041) Интересно. При создании цели через канал данных ей назначается высота. Высота всегда соответствует уровню земли. Если вы направляете лазер (Шквал) на вертолет/БПЛА/объект в воздухе, канал данных все равно помещает маркер на земле. Почему так происходит? Он знает только высоту автомобиля, а также угол и дальность обстрела лазером... Он не знает, направлен ли лазер на поднятый уровень земли или на объект, парящий в воздухе. Из-за этого у меня возникло понимание, что K-041 должен использовать одну из карт, чтобы всегда знать, где находится земля.

На Ка-50, при использовании Шквала, на КАБРИСе отображается жёлтая линия (направление и дальность) и маркер. Две вопроса: - Какие именно системы обеспечивают наклонный дальности для отрисовки маркера, когда Шквал используется "без" лазерного дальномера? - Как Шквал определяет на какой высоте находится земля (при использовании даталинка)? Использует ли он картографическую информацию из ПВИ-800 или КАБРИСа?

Как чисто ориентированный на идеалы, моделировать BS3 было неправильно. С другой стороны, как было сказано выше, это не чистая выдумка. Основание в реальности существует. В конечном итоге, Ка-52 показывает, что, скорее всего, стал бы Ка-50, если бы продолжил свое существование. Нет, я не часто использую русский язык и живу за границей. Поэтому слова или синтаксис могут быть неправильными. У меня частичное русское наследие. Руководство приводится для работы с лазерным дальномером. Это ясно, и обсуждение было о том, что производит наклонный диапазон на КАБРИС, когда лазерный дальномер не используется. Читайте внимательно. Ка-50 оснащен радиовысотомером A-036A (https://domavia.ru/library_ati/detail/223698) Я использую как английские, так и русские руководства. В английском указано, что используется радар, в русском - радио. Я исправлюсь и укажу радиовысотомер. ДИСС-32-28 не используется для измерения высоты по радару. Хотя в руководстве не упоминается о использовании ИТ-23 без лазерной дальномерной (наблюдательной) системы, я предполагаю, что данная система аналогична системам Ми-24 и другим авиационным системам. Если лазерный дальномер недоступен, для получения наклонного диапазона, отображаемого на КАБРИС, используется комбинация радиолокационной и барометрической высоты.Я был бы благодарен комментарию от сотрудника ED, обладающего знаниями по данной теме (руководство не содержит достаточно деталей), чтобы прокомментировать этот случай.

I see. I'm asking specifically about a reference, because it's interesting to me through which channels such orders are passed on in the US Army. I haven't heard of the ISAQ, but that makes it even more interesting. I would imagine that one would want an interim document to gather batches of updates and test the proposed solutions, before passing it to the operator's manual. Good stuff!

- Авиация и Космонавтика. С.В. Михеев. Ка-50: концепция, боевые возможности - Михаил Жуков. Иллюстрированный каталог авиации мира. Ка-50 - Вестник воздушного флота. В.Сокольников. Боевые вертолёты Ка-50 и Ми-28 Полагаю, что это было в одном из вышеперечисленных, если я помню. Многое изменилось за последние годы (законы), вы должны знать. В то время как BS2 был специфическим bort, BS3 представляет собой смесь и предсказывает (например, Ка-52). Считайте, что он современный. Если речь идет о серьезном обсуждении, будьте конкретны. Системы ИТ-23 и К-041 достаточно совершенны. Проецируемая линия на КАБРИС (без лазера) поступает от гироскопа (ориентация автомобиля и Шквал) и радиолокатора высот (высота под транспортным средством), которые генерируют наклонную дальность. По этой же причине оценка менее точна с высотой. Это основы, но все гораздо сложнее. Есть разные режимы в зависимости от того, в каком состоянии вы находитесь.

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.