zerO_crash

I see your point without a doubt. With a very specific airframe, you really only get to simulate very specific scenarios, and few at that, as any other scenario falling outside of the time-perimiter of the given module, yields inaccurate results (weapons available, etc...). The question is really; "What should be prioritised, airframe-realism, or broad scenario-realism". If you go with a specific airframe, you can always stay true to its nature, by limiting what scenarios you set it up in. If you go for a broader scenario realism, sure, you can limit weapons in a given scenario, however the airframe spec will still have some inaccuracy as to the specific conflict/time-frame. The first one, gives you a chance at 100% realism, the second, will never give you that. There are way more factors at play I´m afraid; economy (DCS being niche already, means that the more adaptive a module is, the more customers will buy it. People want selective-realism, sad fact...), development (time, available info, SME´s, etc...), and more. As such, it´s a balance I guess. If everything was purely realistic, fewer people would fly, thus ED would have less money for development, meaning that the sim would not be where it is atm. (technically). Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides, if the sim is to survive in the long run. Still, let´s hope that they prioritise modules´ authenticity, as that´s really what you sit in most of the time. I don´t mind not being able to replay Vietnam with a Russian helicopter or so, but at least the modules we have, somewhat replicate the real ones.

Being a simulator, this statement makes no sense. Realism is key here. Turn it around and state; "If you want something not realistic, mod it!". That seems to be way more logical, than adding sharks with lasers and having those wishing for a proper simulation disable it. Look at Mig-21, there are multiple fantasy weapons on that specific version (KH-66 Grom, GSh-23MM pods, +++). If you want to simulate the module, you have to remember half of the weapons not being actual loadouts on it. Now have every single module come with such exceptions. It makes no sense, and rather, fills the simulator with too much "bloat". Mod whatever you want outside of realistic loadouts.

Russians didn´t run out of rocket pods, rather, transitioned to the new standard (S-8). S-5´s proved to have too small of a explosive charge in Afghanistan, thus, a bigger rocket (S-8) was promoted during the later years and in the aftermath. The army aviation simply did not want them anymore, after the reports stemming from Afghanistan. Even though it could technically carry it (the wiring is the same as for S-8), I still stand by the fact that modules should be representative of a specific airframe (even though much of the info surrounding a module is often gathered from multiple aircraft, think of it as a puzzle game). There have been other modules that have taken certain liberties, however those, have either been reverted, or often heavily criticized by us purists (NVG in Mi-24 (this version), Mi-8 not so much as a few early ones have been testing NVG-use before proper cockpit lightning adjusted for NVG). Again, I get the wish, especially since everything is already there, however it makes more sense that the simulator remains true to its nature. Hopefully projects like Ka-50 BS3 remain reserved for "testbeds" at most. 3-wing pylon was tested on Ka-50, however with different firing-system that accepted a third pylon. Same with President-S (only DIRCM for us), whereas the system is partly there, it being displayed on Abris is fantasy (could be done IRL I´m sure, but nothing proves it ever was). Igla-V on Ka50 is in itself pure fantasy, the only thing ever being considered IRL was an R-60 missile, much in the same manner as on Mi-24. Again, the explanation was that Ka-50 was a testbed (which saw very limited service), and as such, multiple Ka-50´s in different configurations were baked into one, plus some "minor" liberties. Let´s hope ED doesn´t go that way any further, as such "liberties" often result in more confusion than not. The pride of this simulator is really the authenticity of it, besides physics, system depth, etc... In absolutely most of the scenarios where the Mi-8 (our version) was used, the S-8 was as well. The very early ones, while having S-5, also had weaker engines, different blades, etc. Even if you had the proper weaponry for the scenario, you would have an improper Mi-8 (more capable one) than the original airframe. As such, it would always be unrealistic in one way or the other.

This topic has been raised again and again, and as always, the answer is no. If to stay true to the version that ED is replicating here, USSR, there were no S-5´s mounted on this version. By that time, S-5´s were used up/sold to foreign countries, as such, S-8 were the new standard on the block. For some, it might seem like a "small" addition, however as to reality-factor, it's plain wrong. Realism of the module first (never mind the different skins, those are just "artistic"), then everything else.

Same problem, HP G2, Intel i7-8770k, 64GB 3200MHz RAM, SSD 1TB (Samsung 980 pro evo), Nvidia 1080ti. After the recent few updates, I´m at 20-28 fps, regardless of settings. Running SteamVR for convenience and better tracking than OpenXR. This has to get fixed ASAP, completely unplayable right now...

Well, semantics-wise, I never used the term "more realistic", rather "enhance realism", and again, at the discretion of the mission and period. I still stand by that, and while this is not merely a request asking for; "I found something cool, let's have at it.", it's more pointed at the realistic scenario of for example the war in Ukraine, Syria, and recent wars before that, where such solutions are/were used. While the aircraft are older, they still get used in modern conflicts. There are some aircraft, that cannot fit the size of the NS430 (eg. Mi-24P), which would benefit from such a GPS. This is not an item that would change anything physically about the modules, rather, as in real life, allow you to bring another piece of equipment with you for a mission (given the setting of the mission, that's to say period, allowed it). It enhances realism in a pre tablet-period, as F-10 map-like GPS's were not there. The interface was less than ideal, the functionality, etc... that was the common denominator of the period. For WWII, I already told you, it has very limited use (flying WWII in modern period), however it's primarily for Cold War+ modules that you can really use it in 2022. If there is a type of aircraft where the use would be somewhat limited, it's rather for high performance jets, where 9G+ could rip it off and have a brick (x9 its own weight) flying in the cockpit). Beyond that, I really see no issues, provided you use it with respect to mission period. EDIT: Apparently, even high performance jets aren't a problem... There are many examples out there.

Literally what I wrote before: "While not unrealistic today (tablets), using the map alone for pre-modern scenarios gives a level of detail far above what pilots had to deal with, back in the day. Flying with the kneeboard-map is indeed the most realistic you can do. The problem is however that you cannot chose what part of the map you wish to have with you on each flight individually. I'm sure a new kneeboard is in the making along with a system to chose your own maps, however for modern scenarios, this bears no greater impact." If we get a tablet (modern scenarios), it makes sense that the interface is easy to use. However, prior to the new millenium, flying with a tablet, was not the case. The best available equipment, was a cumbersome GPS. The request is for a GPS system, just as we have the NS430, however on that which will allow mounting in potentially any cockpit. That, such as to simulate a time scenario between physical pen and paper (map), and modern tablets. I have made requests before for a tablet, and in a separate thread for better kneeboard with the option to chose your own maps. Again, this is for simulating tools used for navigation, that are proper for the time. The same is the case with the F-10. While being usable by any aircraft, regardless of the time stamp you put on the scenario, in some cases (WWII & early Cold War) becomes too informative, whereas in other (modern scenario), it too feature-less and imprecise. Count VR into this, the tools that you use within a module, should be exactly in it, not an external 2D screen. A system has to be built where you, at your own discretion (and mission settings), chose whether you have access to only a kneeboard, a GPS (mobile or physical in the module) or a tablet. The point is, the F-10 map, is more of a tool for a mission maker (I create many for myself and clan), than an actual instrument for using during flight. It becomes especially noticeable in VR, where it quite honestly detracts from being in the air.

It definately adds realism. Obviously, flying with a GPS, or any non-WWII aircraft on the Normandy and Channel maps, is an offense. The core idea here is "time". Though many of our aircraft don't have originally GPS', they are flown nowadays with hand-held ones. The implementation of NS430 is good, for an average GPS-unit that should fit most cockpits, however it doesn't fit everywhere, especially in the crowded ones (Mi-24P for example). Thus, having a mobile GPS, which can be placed anywhere in the cockpit, is indeed a nice thing, and realistic (there are many older aircraft being flown with mobile GPS-units as an addition to their doppler radars, radio-navigation, etc... This is especially true for VR. "F-10" map is great, but it is not entirely realistic either. Having the scope, and detail that it has, being able to zoom in and out with the levels that the map allows... While not unrealistic today (tablets), using the map alone for pre-modern scenarios gives a level of detail far above what pilots had to deal with, back in the day. Flying with the kneeboard-map is indeed the most realistic you can do. The problem is however that you cannot chose what part of the map you wish to have with you on each flight individually. I'm sure a new kneeboard is in the making along with a system to chose your own maps, however for modern scenarios, this bears no greater impact. GPS units, along with aforementioned doppler radars and radar navigation, plus good old dead reckoning is the way. Again, depending on the time-aspect of the mission, it adds much realism. "F-10" map is too quick to use, vs having to click through a physical GPS-system. The 2D NS430 is neither appealing in VR, nor realistic in aircraft it cannot physically be mounted in (unless some other instrument is removed). I doubt however that I would put a GPS into a WWII-aircraft, considering how small their cockpits are, and the pure nature of flying WWII-aircraft (leisure =/= work). "Every single cockpit" refers to the usability of such a device, as in, it's applicable in every cockpit. Which cockpit's get it, is another discussion. With that said, while WWII-aircraft are not an obvious choice (when simulating WWII), flying an airshow or performing a long-distance flight in a modern time-aspect, wouldn't exclude a GPS from a WWII cockpit either.

Hi, Considering that there are numerous videos online showing Mi-24, Mi-8, L-39, etc... (american aircraft too) flying with portable GPS systems such as for example Garmin GPSMAP 66i, would it be possible to add something along the lines of a portable Garmin to DCS? I ask specifically for this, as the NS430 that we have in DCS is a mountable piece, one that simply does not fit each and every cockpit. A mobile GPS could however be used to further realism, as well as add a physical GPS (as opposed to the 2D - not a great option for realism or VR) for all modules. zerO

First and foremost, IT-23 (Shkval) doesn't have IR view, it is a black/white optical system. As to your issue, it's stated at the bottom of the latest patch release notes, that IT-23 in Ka-50 (BSIII) will show colored image. This is a known issue.

Hi, I know that there are multiple threads asking about these, however it would be nice to get a definite answer whether these are planned and in development or not planned? 1. Selectable amount of vikhrs per launcher (1-6). This would be both realistic, and useful in many scenarios. 2. Separate empty racks (just liked Hind on the outer wing-tip pylons)? Aesthetic and also somewhat useful factor. @Chizh@BIGNEWY Appreciate the answer!

We are not "talking", we are chatting, just to clear that off. Also, flying at 6-minute power limit can break your engines within one session in DCS. There are plenty of posts asking "why the engine quit all of a sudden". That typical DCS-pilot doesn't care about limits, it due to the nature of a simulator. You make out of it what you want, and most sadly treat it as a "game with good physics- and systems-modelling". I don't care about those, I care about people that actually fly somewhat realistic within the realm of the simulator (there is plenty of personell with IRL experience here). Regardless of your impressions, as stated before, no dev will take such a "report" seriously. They are more than enough "bug" being reported, which stem from lack of knowledge and interest in reading the manual. Without any subsequent testing, this currently falls within the parameters of that.

First and foremost, apparently, you seem to be the only one having the issue, thus, it seems that my recent memory is still more accurate than your mixed conclusions based on a multitude of metric-extracts, where nothing is neither sorted nor presented cleanly. Goes to show your competence. I stated once already, that me not having flown in the recent year, has nothing to do with your lack of analysis and concrete metrics. Furthermore, you draw conclusions on flawed logic and comparisons, which are at this point demeaning. Why you even post the pictures of inside cockpit (when what you extract is clearly from a different source), is beyond me... Additionally, 70m altitude difference will not make immediate impact, but adding multiple factors together can change it. In professional analysis, one of the first rules that you learn, is to investigate any potential faults and/or components that can result in a skewed outcome, and preferably discard them by analyzing their impact on the subject. Additionally, all of a sudden, you start pulling in speeds that have been obtained in different conditions, without even stating so. At this moment, the topic is incredibly messy on all levels, and at the bottom of it all, lies your "feeling" that Ka-50 is not attaining your desired outcome. When I get the chance, I'll see for myself, though I haven't heard anyone claim that the performance regime is in any way altered. At this point, you haven't presented anything that reliably states anything other than my personal experience with the Ka-50 nor any significant deviation from the original product. Out!

I am fully aware of what you are going at. In most cases, PTIT and engine RPM will not be the limiting factors, EPR is typically the first one to limit one's operation. However, as stated, it seems to me that your EPR is below that of the maximum for 60 min. limit. Even so, EPR will vary with atmospheric pressure, termperature - generally weather. Flown in different types of weather, you will find out that EPR is not always the first to limit out of the three. Aditionally, you are running then 3-pylon Ka-50 (I haven't tested it yet), but that does not matter at all. A reduction in performance is to be expected from a larger wing with an extra pylon and more equipment onboard (helicopters). Try the original Ka-50 with 2-pylon wings and you'll see the performance is better. Let me put you apart right here. First, I am not mixing up anything. You failed to detail what type of speeds you have checked in your inital post. I am clearing that up. While IAS will be close to TAS at ground level, you are not at ground level. In the Ka-50, you are at approx. 200m QNH and in the Mi-8 you are at 270m QNH, all extracted from your altimeters (assuming that your barometric pressure is set correct?!). When claiming differences of "15 km/h" between two helicopters, then that falls into the realm of error for the inaccurate measurement you have done. 70m of altitude difference, plus inaccurate IAS readout (you cannot tell +-1 on the IAS-gauges) will give you that margin for error, and more. Thirdly, you claimed speeds of 290 km/h which, a couple of posts later, you are specifying to be TAS, yet you haven't shown one single readout which confirms this. Furthermore, as backup to your supposedely TAS readout, you post cockpit pictures of one helicopter that can readout GS, and the other which only gives you IAS (with margin for error, might I add). Your test it utterly flawed. I haven't tested Ka-50 BSIII yet, but comparing two helicopters together has nothing to do with that. If you want to post any metrics, use DCS-metrics from within a replay and editor, not inside the modules. Lastly, in your "test", you load all aircraft to the same weight, without taking into account their; a) different roles and b) different designs. A Ka-50 at 10.8 tonnes will start to feel somewhat sluggish (compared to it's empty configuration, still more responsive than Mi-8), whilst the Mi-8 still has almost 2 tonnes of payload before reaching it's maximum weight. It's rotor-, control-system and all there-around is designed for such a load! Comparatively, you are testing two planes against each other, you load a cessna to it's maximum and test it's performance against a small jet aircraft... The difference isn's as big, but the proof of concept still stands. You are making pointless comparisions. The only thing these helicopters have in common, are the engines (and some of the sub-systems), the whole design is simply different. If you want to compare anything, at least make sure you extract your metrics out reliably, then we can discuss whether Mi-8 should be the attack helicopter with Vikhrs and Ka-50 a utility one...

You are flying the Ka-50 below it's maximum 60 minute limit! Check the values! Your PTIT is 860*C (955*C PTIT is maximum for 60 min.), your engine RPM is 95% (97.5% is the maximum for 60 min.). Your EPR, is also below the 60 min. threshold. You are looking at the gauge from the pilot's angle. If you look at it from above (lean in), then you'll notice that your are actually below the "M" (60 min.) readout. Due to perspective, you are actually below the readout. When you are on point with EPR, the indicators should indicate values above the destined, from pilot's perspective. Check that again! Also, are you flying the Ka-50 3-pylon version, or 2 in this case? With the 2-pylon version, I have made 300 km/h+ (indicated - not HUD (GS)) maintained on 60 min. power rating, though without loadout. Go to 6 min. contingency, and you are well above. I have been at 345 km/h+ in the Ka-50 in contingency-setting, for very short durations (couple seconds), but could maintain that for at least 6 min. if I didn't bother with the limitations. Finally, there is one thing that you can do, to both increase fuel economy as well as fly very much faster in the Ka-50 (aiming for engine maximums aside). Control selector for re-adjustment of the free-turbine (rotors) RPM governor. Set that from "Nominal" (default) to "Low". It is primarily used for when you dive down at very high speeds so as not to stress the rotor. However, it can also be used for economic flight. In simple terms, it will gear down your engines, relative to the blade AOA. The thing you have to monitor here, is not letting the rotor RPM drop too much (not below 83% during maneuvers as per manual #13-3). Just to specify, the Mi-8 and Mi-24 have very similar functionality, but they have it purely for trimming the engines manually to their optimal setting, prior to take-off (it is not used as dynamically as in Ka-50). In Ka-50, it works a bit different, and is used both for deep diving and improved fuel economy. For reference, you won't do more than 280 km/h (indicated airspeed) maintained in level flight with the Mi-8, as stated earlier. You see the proof in your own picture of the Mi-8.

I didn't check the tracks because the original complaint is based on invalid testing, plain and simple. I would expect you to understand that without me specifiying. The heat dissipators are of different construction, thus different air throughput levels. Ka-50 engine running cooler can be explained by different tuning of the engine ("can", not "definitely"). I haven't flown DCS for a while now, which doesn't change the fact that I know how they behave (I doubt you have as much time as me in DCS or any of these modules, but that is besides the point). You claiming Ka-50 is a "dog", is your impression, not a fact. My experience is very much the opposite. Furthermore, I can back it up with specifications within the manuals. Mi-8 is sporty for a machine of that size, but it is nowhere near a Ka-50 in terms of dynamics. I suggest you learn to fly the Ka-50 properly (within limits), and you'll see what a nonsense it is to compare the two. I further suggest you learn to read, because as far as I see, you claim to adhere to engine-limitations, yet you exceed the permissable speed limits in the Mi-8. Selectively chosing what limitations to follow, only proves your ignorance and incompetence. Flying a Mi-8 constantly at 280 km/h+ , induces for example vibrations, which the airframe is not built to tolerate long-term. A single sortie within DCS might accept this, but let me inform you very clearly, that you are indeed reducing the service life of the airframe at an accelerated rate. Want to talk logic, then accept the fact that Mi-8 is permitted circa 250 km/h as top cruising speed, and anything above for prolonged time, is you showing incompetence. IRL, you would not be a pilot for long! Ka-50 and Mi-24 were built with those speeds in mind, maintained, mind you! Hopefully, I'm not exceeding your word count capacity! No dev will respond to your testing, because it simply is flawed and bears very little in common with objective and relevant analytics. You want to test something, then use a testbed engine, or at least design a test which makes sense. Even the values you state, have firmly been confirmed before to have been components of e.g. engine tuning (Higher pressure in the compressor - higher torque for improved maintaining of rotor RPM. After all, EPR/EPI gives you an idea of how much pressure is exerted within the engine (example)). What I am saying here is, there might be a fault, or not, with the system (Ka-50 is a old module, newly revised), but your testing doesn't cut it. It appears as very little more than a few values (far too few and irrelevant), and a rant at most. Mi-8 will not do much more than 280 km/h (we are talking here about indicated airspeed) in level flight due to aerodynamic drag. In dive, sure, but not level maintained. I have tested it a couple of times (in short intervals). Ka-50 and Mi-24 alike, will easily do above 300 km/h within the realm of 60-minute power limit. I will remind you that the manuals for all three aircraft show engine limitations of test-bench setup, not aircraft-mounted configuration (I have posted the engine limitations for all TV3-117VM/A engines that we have, as installed on the aircraft, in this forum). Also, top speeds are momentary, not prolonged. Not sure where you get it from that a helicopter is supposed to maintain it's top speed prolonged...

You cannot compare the performance of helicopters like that. There are far too many factors to account for in order to get a relative idea of performance difference (performance in what part of the flight envelope?). Ka-50 and Mi-24 have rotor blade-airfoils designed for high speeds, whereas Mi-8 has one optimized for lift/hovering. Furthermore, total area of rotor blades matter, as well as rpm. Whilst it might seem logical at first to set a definite load (9.9 tonnes in this case), you have to compare that to maximum weight of the airframe. Ka50 is the lightest, its blades are desgined for its own purpose. Same goes for the RPM, PTIT and EPI-values that you are seeing. They depend on a multitude of factors; build of the helicopter, tuning of the engines, etc... Don't forget that for example both Ka-50 and Mi-24 have wings for armament. Those wings reduce thrust produced by the main rotor/rotors in hover due to it acting as an obstruction to the airflow. On the other hand, in forward speed, they reduce the power needed. Mi-8 has hardpoints, but they are not nearly as obstructing as the wings on Ka-50 or Mi-24. Don't forget such factors as for example engine heat dissipators, which by default are installed on Ka-50, and completely optional on Mi-8 and Mi-24. Those heat dissipators, do in fact reduce airflow of the engine (due to obstructive elements at the rear, whether you engage it or not), thus making it run hotter and less efficiently, but at the gain of reduced IR-signature. You have to keep in mind things like onboard computers and systems which will need electricity to run, and that increases engine RPM and thus PTIT, without any gains to the physical performance of the aircraft. Again, there are many, many factors to count. That's why, you simply cannot compare completely different aircraft like that. Using your logic, you could ask; how come that the Mi-8, while having the weakest engines, also happens to have the highest maximum load of them all? Purpose and design. With that said, don't attempt doing any of the maneuvers you can with either Ka-50 or Mi-24, otherwise you'll see the end of the flight-envelope for that helicopter. For reference, Mi-8's top speed is 250 km/h, +- a couple of km/h in straight flight, a Ka-50 or Mi-24 will gladly do 300 km/h, and more in level flight. I'm not even mentioning the 3.5G that Ka-50 will do...

EDIT: Seems like INU heating does not work afterall. This is then a bug report purely for the aesthetics of the manual, and knowledge of proper procedures.

Hi, I have noticed a mistake in the manual for BS3. First, look at the section 6-95. Specifically, points #6 and #7: 6. - “ИКВ – ОТКЛ” (INU – OFF) switch. Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) power. INU starts alignment procedure automatically upon power on [RCtrl + RAlt + I]." 7. - “ОБОГРЕВ ИКВ – ОТКЛ” (INU heater – OFF) switch. This switch is turned on prior to Inertial Navigation Unit (INU) alignment and must be enabled during INU operation. No function." Point #6, specifically states that INU starts alignment as soon as this switch is flipped to "INU"-position. Point #7, states further that "INU Heating" must be turned on prior to starting INU-alignment (#6). So far so good, and this is pretty much correct as per book. However, correlating this with the new section on INU-alignment (9-5 and onwards), you both describe and show pictures of INU-power switch being turned on, before "INU Heater"-switch. This section contradicts then the aforementioned procedure (6-95). Again, seeing how INU Heater is not working, it's anecdotal, however, it's still wrong as per procedure. zerO

@Chuls After some time off DCS, I finally got back again. What I notice is that I currently have two issues. Having installed Brunner DX from scratch (latest build), while it connects and works flawlessly, it seems to state that there is an update available, providing links to "DOWNLOAD" as well as "CHANGELOG". I have went to the provided link, downloaded and run the "msi."-installer. Running it, only lets me either "repair" or "remove" the Brunner DX, therefore I chose "repair". After running a successfull repair, as well as Brunner DX connecting successfully to CLS2SIM, it still claims that there is an update available, and links me to the same update. Any ideas on fixing this? Also, while every single module works great, I notice that the stick is "limp" (bad pun intended) when flying the Mirage F1. Obviously, it works with every other module, so the question is as follows: Is this possibly a lack of FFB-implementation on the developer's side, or does Brunner DX require updates for every new module released for it to work? *EDIT: Scratch the last paragraph, it’s apparently an issue on the developer’s side, as expected. The missing spring-effect is described as a bug here:

In general, there seems to be some inefficient ways recommended here as to deployment of unguided rockets in a lofting-type attack. If you want to use this technique, which I do quite often myself, do the following: - Either on pre-brief or during active mission (by scouting from long range 15km+), add a NAV TGT. That way, you will have an accurate range-estimate and more importantly, direction to the target-area in your HUD. - With the NAV TGT selected, fly to the exact range from the target, and proceed with the attack. - Upon attacking, select the appropriate stations (with S-8) and proceed to attack. (You can keep the "Automatic Tracking"-switch in "AT", as well as leaving the Shkval caged). This way, you only select rockets, monitor the distance to the target and perform the pull-up and release weapons once within the parameters. Finally, enjoy a successful attack. I typically go for a lobbing-attack with S-8OFP2 due to their explosive-effect. It's simply the best area-effect weapon. The ranges that I generally perform such attacks at are typically two, 7.5km (S-8OFP2 - 15-20 degrees pitch up) and 11.5km (S-8OFP2 - 40-45 degrees pitch up). There are more profiles, but these suit the lobbing-strategy well considering the type of target that you wish to engage, and their range (SAM, etc...). Keep in mind one more thing, before engaging, make sure that upon creating a NAV TGT, you check the elevation of the target (ASL) on Abris. You want to start your attack (before pulling up) at roughly the same altitude as the target-area that you are engaging. If your altitude differs, you'll have to adjust accordingly (if you're higher - aim lower, if you're lower - aim higher). The rest is practice and getting a feeling for it.

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? 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=-

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=-

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=-

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".