zerO_crash

@Plexus Might come in handy, though I expect your team to already have access to whatever you need! @Polish sukhoi Would you mind taking some good pictures of the airframe from multiple angles around, with close-ups of "important" components, and also the engine (as per the above picture) and upload them for download? Thanks in advance! zerO

Pre-ordered! Whilst I've always been a red pilot, this will definitely complement all the other DCS-modules perfectly! Curious what she's capable of! @IronMike One thing that caught my attention; In the pre-purchase trailer, there is a short glimpse of the cockpit, during which I notice that the seat harness-lock has German writing on it. As I understand it, we are getting the US Air Force F-4E variant, with a possible follow-on NAVY F-4 at some point as a separate module. Care to explain the German then? Interior changes based on country selected for the F-4? Greetings to all of Heatblur, surely a fantastic job and yet another first in the realm of DCS and such a complex project!

I'm currently AFK., but I'll come back on this point. You are practically correct, with the exception of smaller pieces of information missing - that is on the point of bombing with the V/VP. Some parts of the manual are non-readable due to m text being compressed (error during scanning). Beyond that, according to the manual on Mi-24V/P, there are three ways to perform a bomb dropping procedure: a manual deployment by the operator, a automatic deployment by the operator and a manual deployment by the pilot. Yes, it is described in the manual that the pilot can deploy the bombs all by himself. The wording completely excludes the operator with his tools (auto/manual). As such, there should be a table or a method to utilize the pilot sight and the watch to time it properly. Again, I'll be AFK. for some time now (professional reasons), as such, I won't have the chance to look at it for some time. I'll raise this issue at a later point.

Indeed, typing on a phone isn't optimal. Was going to correct those, but neither time nor place permitted.

Adding more IRL content on the Ka-50: Pictures of Ka-50 Bort #25: https://www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/kamov-ka-50-hokum-walkaround/ Pictures of Ka-50 Bort #23 (blue cockpit): https://ionovmike.livejournal.com/3756.html For refernce, there were until not long ago, still six Ka-50´s at Torzhok: - Ka-50 Bort #20 - Does not fly anymore. - Ka-50 Bort #23 - Maintained cockpit and basic equipment, might be able to fly, but isn´t flown. - Ka-50 Bort #24 - Is supposedly now moved to Voronezh (no confirmation) for studies within the aerodynamics. - Ka-50 Bort #26 - Does fly actively. Around 100 hrs per year. - Ka-50 Bort #27 - Does fly actively. Around 50-100 hrs per year. Apparently, these helicopters aren´t only used for testing equipment. The army still believes in the concept of a single-seat attack helicopter. Thus, these helicopters are flown in the manner of a study for potential future applications within tactics and strategy. I´ll also add pictures of the Ka-52 (Bort #92): https://ionovmike.livejournal.com/3492.html At the time of the pictures being made official, there were four Ka-52s on the Torzhok airfield. - Ka-52 Bort #92 - Flown actively. - Ka-52 Bort #93 - Flown actively. - Ka-52 Bort #94 - Flown actively. - Ka-52 Bort #95 - Flown actively. Enjoy!

Yefim Gordon is pretty much the only author writing in English, with any depth (albeit with faults), about the russian aviation hardware. That, outside of actual sources within different military circles in the West (military intelligence) which is non-public access. You use him, because you really don´t have anyone else to default to. Translating documents isn´t good either however, as often, prerogative and context is lost. There are more writers and information in Russian language, for those of us who know the language (I do). At least you get unique pictures in Yefim´s books of the embryonic stages of the design, which already are rare to come by on the western-side of the globe. It´s not about generalizing either, but rather puts more demand on you to discern right from wrong, when studying his works. As to pilots, they are human as well, as such, even SMEs have to be carefully selected, and their information defaulted to a common, as each pilot will "remember" events differently. From psychology, that is one of the main issues within the field of "Memory & Cognition". For the record, consider SR-71 pilots that are still alive. These pilots were truly hand-picked - ultimate form of CRM. Yet, when you listen carefully to them talking about their experiences, how they percieved the jet, the mission, the psychological/physical stress, etc.., you will find discrepancies. That can be a "feel"-factor, but it can also be due to numerous other causes; e.g. pilots having flown different SR-71 models, which all of them behaved slightly differently. As such, there were "better" and "worse" SR-71s, within the lineup, considering their quirks. The same can be said about pilots talking about their experiences in e.g. F-16s or MiG-29s. The disparity is major within an airframe that has been built in multiple blocks, interations, factories. It all comes down to what information you are seeking from the individual. If you ask a pilot what he did two years ago on a specific day, chances are that he won´t remember (unless it was something very specific - stood out.). If you ask a pilot about how the systems on board his plane worked, chances are, he will remember, at least to certain level. I didn´t read the whole thread, only referred to your mentioned comment. I see now that you were refering to KPS-53AV (not KSP-53AV, guess a typo on your side.) earlier, and that is indeed right. I was commenting on Raduga-Sh earlier, but that doesn´t need any further explanation. In essence, KPS-53AV will have settings for bombing in the same way that you have them for the PKV, or more correctly, for the actual drop timing (the PKV is adjusted manually as per tables in the manual). The reason why there´s more to set-up with KPS-53AV, is because it´s movable. * Ballistics is indeed a specific trajectory over distance and time, so yeah, the tables actually contain that info at ground, even if you only use the timer with regards to altitude and speed. I have pretty much all manuals that you can get on everything Russian from Russian side of the internet; the whole Kamov, Mil, MiG and Sukhoi line-ups (much has been taken down since Ukraine 2022). I know these manuals, and btw. you have the Book #2 of that manual ("Kniga II"). Real manuals are the only legitimate source for info to be honest. The official manuals lack way too much info., as well as presenting certain information simpler than it is IRL. I could show you a fair deal of manuals and documentation which you won´t find online for some time now, however let´s not tease #1.16 and ED´s concession to do business. If times change, I might share them. Some of them are specialized manuals on maneuvering, in and out of combat, and one specifically addresses demonstration flights and limitations. The last one is incidentally a manual which would tell you what barriers you "could" break in combat, hypothetically, if it saved your day. That without breaking the airframe, risking rotor collision, or any other catastrophic failiure. One interesting thing about bombing. While helicopters in general aren´t the best carriers for bombs (tactically), it seems that they re-emerged in Syria. Bombs on helicopters, are used per definition in conflicts of low technological level, meaning insurgency. They appear to be much cheaper than even unguided rockets, and with good ballistics algorythms, hit what you aim for. Maybe you can translate this for yourself: https://topwar.ru/150737-rossijskie-vertolety-adaptiruju-pod-primenenie-fugasnyh-bomb.html

With regards to the thread, it´s really lucky that we even got the Mi-24P, to be honest. If ED would seek the permission to develop it in these days, I´m pretty sure they would get a "no-go". There are Mi-24Ps being used in Ukraine right now, albeit most, with more updated avionics (not all though). I am fairly sure that we won´t see anything newer, or even a different model from the same era (Mi-24V). The Russian laws have been tightened so much so, that I don´t even see older models being permitted (Mi-24A/D).

Do not trust Yefim Gordon´s books. While they are decent leisure read, they certainly contain a fair deal of faults and mistakes. His books on everything from Mi-8 to MiG-21, -25, etc.., have a fair deal of misinformation. I´m afraid it´s also more than "only sometimes". It´s not material that you can in any way consider indicative of, or presumably, source-grade material. Flight/Maintenance manuals are the way to go. 1. There are a good couple of videos of Mi-24s (and their derivatives) dropping bombs, yet none where you will see the optic/gun offset so as to indicate it being used as an aid for bomb delivery. While technically, it would be possible, I´ve never come across any document giving any proper solution for that or even indicating such a use. One would need to work out the ballistic settings for each bomb type (they are similar, but not the same). Additionally, you are using the sight in a way it wasn´t meant to be used. In order to get any kind of effect, you´d have to operate the sight near it´s maximum boundary. One swift move (sudden avoidance maneuver when spotting incoming fire), and you need to restart the whole sight. Potentially, even repair it. It really isn´t built for this task.

There certainly are more modules, as you outline, but again, having this as a core-functionality, would really help a lot. Fewer "Wishlist"-topics to be made - better environment to fly in. The lack of sun visors can especially be noticed if you use a screen with HDR-support, and primarily, VR. Being able to dampen the environmental lights, certainly does a lot both for the immersion, as well as general usability of a given module. Again, the request is for it to become a mainstream, not necessarily a "special" item that sometimes gets added, however most often, not.

Good things take time. Patience, they´ll get there. Considering how the Gazelle turned out after the update, it´s better that Polychop takes their time, yet deliver in the quality department! I certainly can state that they have redeemed themselves! Good times ahead!

Hi, As great as DCS is, I still miss a somewhat basic, yet low production feature, namely the sun visors that pilots/co-pilots/crew use in different aircraft. The idea came first with the MiG-21Bis, however, I haven´t seen it make it as a new standard. This, considering that it´s a very simple, yet useful feature to have. I´d like to ask for this feature, to be added to the core-functionality of current, and upcoming modules. If even to be implemented as a simple "layer" that get´s toggled over the screen. It would definitely be a useful feature to have (notice MiG-21Bis and Sa342 Gazelle), especially considering how simple it should be to implement (I presume) and basic of a tool it is for a pilot. Thanks in advance, and I stress again, absolutely fantastic what you do with DCS! It truly becomes better day by day! Greetings to the whole ED-team! -=zerO=-

With regards to the upcoming pilot body for the first-person view inside Ka-50, is there a possibility to add a pilot´s sun visor? The visor is obviously an integral part of a pilot´s helmet, and makes much sense to use when flying in bright environments. Definitely a sought after option, especially for VR!

Not everything is correct on that site, in some cases, the wording allows for misunderstanding. What you are refering to, is the following: "Interestingly, in Modern English, there are some word groups which are considered ‘feminine’, at least in a poetic or quaint sense. These include ships, countries and churches, for example." That's exactly what I stated above. The words themselves aren't gender-unique, however they get prescribed human perks, thus the article correcting itself, after making a wrong statement (one could argue that it's inaccurate) - ".., at least in a poetic or quaint sense.". Don't worry brother, we're good. You write well overall, so take that as a thumbs up . Out of respect for forum-etiquette, let's not derail this thread any further. If you wish to discuss this more, feel free to pass me a PM.

I've been off for a while, but as I stated above, words are gender-neutral in English. You don't have genders associated with words. Whoever taught you that even "some" words are prescribed a specific gender, was simply at wrong. The only words you could call "feminine", are those referring to the actual gender - lady, baroness, effete, woman, mother, aunt, girl, etc... I am multilingual (six to be exact - English is one of my of three natives), it is my business to know. Personally, I'm a perfectionist. As to others, well that's their own business. Considering these forums as an example; some users don't have the time to write proper English, some have poor knowledge of grammar, others have one form or another of dyslexia, and lastly, some simply do not care. You yourself have a couple of typos and mistakes written in the post I'm referring to alone, but don't worry, you're still well above the average online (leisure purposes, not professionally of course). Back in the day, when we used to write letters by hand with a quill, there was a whole different ride with corrective writing. One misspell, and you were off to -enth attempt. Nowadays, anyone can seem semi-competent with autocorrect-features digitally. Regardless, that's the case in English. EDIT: Corrections.

Considering DCS and the realism aspect, there really is no aircraft which would grant you an "instant win". Even if you fly with a e.g. a FW-190D9, which is technically superior in every way to I-16 (other than low speed handling, turn rate, etc...), you still need to be experienced, skilled and careful, otherwise you'll be down pretty quick. With the La-7, you should have a serious edge, however definitely something you have to be skilled to exploit. What is interesting with regards to speed, is that it should beat the Bf-109 at higher altitudes in pure top speed (7km +). I''m not really sure if La-7 has any maximum time permittance with highest engine setting (akin to MW-50 (3x10 minutes) on e.g. Bf-109), or if it basically has unlimited operation timewise in that mode. Regardless of that, the main attribute of the La-7, as compared to Bf-109, is that it should have much more authority on its control surfaces (they are bigger, relatively). Whilst at low altitude, the La-7 is 20-30km/h slower than a Bf-109, it should have no problem maneuvering, as opposed to Bf-109, which simply flies straight at that point. Little control surface authority, especially in roll. Otherwise, they seem to have very similar wing loading, thrust to weight ratio (both engines are rated at 1850hp, and both aircraft are within 3300kg - 3400kg fully loaded). The La-7 has better armament for the A-A role (2x 20mm with 170 rnds. per gun) than the Bf-109 (1x 30mm with 54 rnds. (slow bullet speed - high drop), and 2x13mm guns, albeit with relatively low speed due to high weight (much explosive)). Aerodynamics-wise, I'm not quite sure how they compare, as both have good aerodynamics. Again, much unknow tbh., especially when comparing it to other aircraft. What is sure though, is that it should more than level the playfield. What will however make the La-7 a low-level fighter, are the engine quirks at higher altitude, which potentially allow for the explosion of the engine, overheating the torque disc in the supercharger, and so on. Unless you BnZ with the La-7, high altitude will require certain flying patterns to be maintained.

Actually, that´s wrong. "Plane", is a gender-neutral word, just like most words in modern English. Where "she" (gender association) really stems from, is old English, in which most words as well as inanimate objects were asssigned a gender by default. Now, aviation really got the norm from navy, specifically the word "ship", which in Latin is "navis" (a feminine word). Thus, aviation borrowing this custom, accepts ship/plane/aeroplane/etc... as a "female". A further understanding even suggests that with inanimate objects, crews typically associate a love/hate relationship, which suits the object having associated a sex with it and human properties ("She´s fast!", "She´s sexy!", "She´s got it all!", etc...). I guess however, that WarbossPetross was trying to voice through a male (offensive/aggressive in nature) quality about the aircraft. We're good! She´ll be quite a ride to handle, especially for Bf-109, which won´t have the upperhand, like with Spitfire (it cannot outturn it, but commands the engagement as it is faster). La-7 should both be faster than Bf-109, and outturn it quite easily. If the I-16 already creates a headache for Germany with it´s slow and highly maneuverable properties, the La-7 will really force the Germans into BnZ-arena, as it´s a force to be reckoned with!

A sharp tipped ICBM or Shvetsov powered Lavochkin, the sentiment is the same - she (yes) will tip over the balance. At the end, everything will be situational, however this plane beats out many of the late war german aircraft. The devil's chariot!

ED has to provide that animation, it's not up to any third-party to animate it. As to when that will come, there is currently no known estimate. I'm sure it's on the list though.

Fantastic stuff! It's going to be great to see what she's capable of!

Enjoy!

Added last three videos as a complement to those previously posted. Those are pretty much all that are available on Ka-50. Anything else, would be privately owned, however I have not come across any. Enjoy!

Splendid-looking skin! Just another example why ED should add them to the default line-up of the module. Ka-50 is such a module that can both be used by the west, as well as east. It adds diversity, and again, if simulating a fictional future conflict, then it adds to the plausability of such a theatre. Again, fantastic work on that skin! @BIGNEWY @WAGS - Any chance on pushing this forward?

My pleasure!

Considering the nuances of modern scenarios, and the fact that the Ka-50 is fully applicable in those: Is there any chance of integrating more Ka-50 skins into the core DCS, in order to allow for more credibility? I´m thinking about Ka-52 skins adapted to Ka-50. It would be great to either have ED-created or by a competition process within the community. I appreciate an answer on this, as I don´t see "modded" skins as a reliable way of going about this request, especially considering that it can corrupt the installation. zerO

I'll add some extra links (in russian, but you might be able to translate them) with info around Ka-50s (registry, equipment, general specifications, photos, etc...): Камов Ка-50 Черная Акула (airwar.ru) Реестр: Камов Ка-50 ✈ russianplanes.net ✈ наша авиация Камов Ка-50 Черная акула (aviadejavu.ru) Фотография вертолёта · Камов · Ка-50 · 024 (зав.н. 3538053201003) · КБ Камова ✈ russianplanes.net ✈ наша авиация