zerO_crash

Where did you read that about flying low and damaging itself with an S-8 fragment??? It’s wrong for sure. What happened, was not during combat, but during further combat-maneuvre outlining. It was in a safe environment at Torzhok. The pilot went, by accident, into an unexplored flight regime and ended up with a rotor collision. The pilot didn’t have time to react with eject, and this ended up passing away in the accident. The pilot’s name was Maj. Gen. Boris Vorbiev. Here is a video portraying the exact accident, and it was the one and only of Ka50:

The solution to those on the “chill” side of the spectrum is Modern Air Combat that ED is making. However DCS having always been a simulator, should not aim for the less realism oriented crowd. People keep forgetting what a simulator is. It’s not to please and improve on what’s out there IRL, it’s there to simulate. If it is too difficult for you, then turn up the “assist”-slider or go for something without “simulator” in its name. There was no version of a 3-pylon wing, ever on Ka50. Ka52 yes, and even the couple of frames that were rebuilt from Ka50 into Ka52. However those changed their designation to Ka52. Igla was never there as well. As to MWS, there was a version of it, even the sensors are in the airframe. Also the integration of MWS into Abris... There are systems being simulated, which we don’t know enough about. This is not good at all. I am curious as to what ED will explain this “experimental” ED Ka50 with, because I have never heard about any of those systems on a Ka50 IRL.

We are fighting on the Russian side of the forum against this. The moment this gets released, it will be a shame and a blur to ED and their name. At this point, it becomes hard to recommend DCS for anyone serious about flying and willing to experience a real aircraft within the boundaries of a simulator. Just so you know Dimitriov, they have stated the same on the western-side of the forum. The reason why most of the talking is on the Russian-side is that ED is mostly comprised of Russian-speaking devs, including the top notch. Also, it seems like the ones who are mainly against this are Russians. Blackshark is the heritage of this sim, and seeing it get modified to some standard that NEVER existed is a shame. I haven´t invested time into this sim and all my hardware just to see it get ruined now. At the end of the day, it´s ED´s choice, either they respect their old-time customers and tell the new ones that want fancy-shwancy to man up, or they go with with wish of new customers willing for the impossible (modern classified aircraft and non-existing ones) and thus lose the old-dogs. No one is against DCS evolving, but not in this way.

And one more thing. Up until this point, there were relevant and good discussions on the forums with regards to an aircraft, where even IRL personnel could chime in and explain why or how something was like it was. There was a certain level to discussions, not always but most of the time. If there was a request for a change, a document proving one's case had to be presented in an orderly manner, and everything explained properly. A grain of uncertainty, and it was deemed not fit for a change, because "we don't guesstimate here". For all this time one had to prove a point through diagrams, documents or official procedures. Everything is nice and dandy. Now, all of a sudden, Chizh comes in an obliterates this great ED-practice (for realism) by saying this: "Зачем технические комментарии к несуществующему борту? Мы сами его придумали, мы сами и реализуем свою концепцию. Предупреждение о пуске это то чего сильно не хватает этому вертолету не оборудованному СПО. Иглы - хорошее средство для ведения воздушного боя даже с самолетами. Могло бы и этого не быть." Their explanation is as follows; "We know it's not real, it's a predicted estimation of what this aircraft would be like today if it was in active service, it was our choice because it's our software and simulation" Since when is that a valid argument on the forums here, or our interaction (customer - corporate) in ED's history ever!? All the values that were built by this community and devs have been sent into oblivion by this one statement - "...it was our choice because it's our software and simulation". So what was the point of ever having all those argumentations, and going through what constituates a valid proof, if you are now killing that value and practice with your - "it was our choice because it's our software and simulation". It was pointless for all these years, if this is your new tactic of doing business! Is - "I want x and y regardless of realism, because it's my money" the new norm you wish to build on further?

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. If anything, Russians have always been great with electronics and software. When Mig23 was flying, it had it's radar picture integrated in the HUD, that while the rest of the world was running with a dedicated radar screen that you had to look down in the cockpit for. Russians are pioneers of automated systems, and have had, and still have the most advanced (hardware- and software-wise) within a unified air defense umbrella and target interception. Those are just examples, but there are many of them. What you mention with Israel and France is for the export market. Because those countries can deliver westernized electronics for export countries that so desire. Russians don't export their best radars and equipment, thus it might seem underwhelming to a potential customer outside. That's the only case. As for buying up technology from outside, in addition to making your own. Well, every single superpower does that. Regardless of how much technology you have, you still buy foreign technology, mainly to accelerate your own research. Guess what, US buys hardware and software from Sweden (eg. automated turrets with calibers of up to 40mm), UK (eg. Harrier, expertise for F-35), Belgium (eg. FN Scar), Germany (eg. software for analyzing faults and issues with a tank (it's an equivalent to EKRAN that you know, only that it's for maintenance crew, not as sophisticated)), Heckler & Koch, etc...), Norway (Kongsberg defence, automated turrets up to caliber 50 (12.7mm) meant for light scout vehicles), etc... French air force pilots use Google tablets as portable computers (maps and datalink), and German foot soldiers are running around with GPS/Mission computers with Android... We do not live in an isolated system where a country invents everything itself. Everyone cooperates. Superpowers focus mainly on major technology relating Air/Sea/Long range systems, and keep them near and dear for themselves and their allies. All the small things like small arms and less important systems are imported and software recalibrated for indigenous use. Imagine that 8 countries cooperated and supported F-35 with technology. If not for foreign help and pre-sales (funding), this project would never happen. Also, they keep cutting down orders each year. Let's see how the situation develops now with Corona and major cutbacks. There is really one thing that Russian electronics (software included) have always been challenged with. That is weight. They have always been heavy, durable, but heavy. The weight was the concern of Artem Mikoyan and Pavel Sukhoi, and they were right. With that said, times change and technology along with that. Weight was a problem back in the day, however with the digital age progressing, circuit boards are lighter and better than ever. It's not an issue today. As to BS3, we are all complaining that ED went this route and killed their reputation in one go. That just to satisfy the average consumer which read about the existence of DCS between today's sports news and five-minute advertisement. It's a shame that something fictional, completely detached from reality finds it's way to DCS. There will be many asking about the new systems, but no real manual exists on them, nor is their implementation solidified by any technical drawing or document. This is now a game, and not a simulator. For them it's business and income dictates their practices. It's really sad, terribly sad that such a fantastic simulator, is going to feature mutant aircraft because the crowd demands it. Today everything is about fantasy and unfulfilled dreams. RIP DCS. I might as well trash my HOTAS, VR and all there related, as the sole purpose of it was enjoying real, simulated aircraft. I got no joy in flying something that NEVER existed. The fact that such a practice even entered DCS is beyond me. They were doing everything right up until now. What is the point of even making Modern Air Combat, when they are doing imaginary what-ifs here!? "Imagine, you can now take out 24 tanks, and 460 trucks (2A42)" #Sarcasm

But what does the mod with Arduino give you additionally, that the standard DCS-plugin does not? Some people claim that eg. F-14 and WWII aircraft have great FFB with all the forces simulated. This would imply that it's a matter of the module having a good FFB-implementation. EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot to check again the previously linked topic, it covers it all:

What are talking about!? DCS is an "actual" simulator and it simulates a KA50 bort #25 that was built, tested in combat and was a production-ready model. Same with Su25T. Don't repeat random crap that you've read on the forums. People here think that Ka50 is a test-aircraft, but obviously it is not! V80 was a test aircraft that evolved into a finished product (Ka50) and ready for production, until the Soviet Union collapsed!

I already explained before in this thread that the consequences of flying in the wrong period and in the wrong parts of the world are nothing compared to creating fantasy-loadouts on an aircraft. It changes the dynamic of the module, thus you start seeing a lot of weird stuff online. Mostly it’s nice to stay on our own server, but it’s also nice to go out public and meet new fellow aviators and share the fun. Again, in the sense of the whole eco-system, it gives the wrong impression of an aircraft and kills immersion. The effects are far greater than a different skin or wrong map (Although how people even fly modern modules in a WWII scenario with everything pre-historic around is beyond me, but to each their own). The problem again is the credibility of the sim. That is an authority that DCS holds near and dear. However with such practices, it’s going to level-out. Worse yet, I already told you that the effects of introducing such unrealistic features promotes applying more unrealistic features down the road. The effect being that we completely shift from what’s defining this sim. Right now you could go to an airshow and, astonished as one get’s, look up and imagine the ride that the pilot has. You know the systems, you know the general feeling. When stuff get’s made up, all that is lost. You start wondering what is actually real and what is not about the module. In the end, you could put anything on each and every aircraft, however there is the economical part that dictates what aircraft get what equipment. Ultimately, you could mount everything on each and every aircraft, if one wanted and had the money. However it is neither tactically needed, nor economically lucrative. That’s why the argument with “everything could be mounted in the field with some mods” is a fallacy that just takes ridiculous turns each time it’s being brought up. As for the rest of your arguments, they are countered against in my previous posts. My words are not meant to insult, but they are harsh, and properly so. The amount of errors keep getting accumulated and pretty soon you will pay 80-100USD for a fantasy module that is 50% real. Let everyone judge it for themselves, but ultimately that’s not what we pay money for. You can disagree with me Imp, it’s your choice. However ask yourself what keeps you in DCS, what merits keep you here, because I’m sure it has to do with authenticity, flight modelling, systems modelling, and hell, even knowing that you can read a real manual and apply that knowledge here. S-5 is not the biggest of issues, there are worse, but it contributes to lowering the authenticity-value of this sim. That and as a further argument to again make more disconnects from the realm of reality. I respect your point of view, but I disagree with it wholeheartedly. There is something magic about flying “that” specific Mi8, or be it something else.

Before, you needed to think and use tactics to achieve your goal. Today, it’s; “I want to be invincible, and I want it now”. That is not a simulation, that’s just laziness. Everything today turns more and more towards mindless, stupid and easy. So far, DCS still remains as something worth investing time in. Sadly, I don’t think it will last.

I don’t really get the short-sightedness. You have to understand that DCS is a simulator, and an ecosystem. If imaginary units start to become the norm, then yes, it doesn’t fit for me to fly around in the Mi8MTV2 and see a TIE-fighter fly near or above me. Yes, even though I don’t fly it, it ruins the scope, the feel and generally the authenticity of the sim. Just because you don’t use something, doesn’t mean that it will have pretentions and affect everything and everyone around it. That goes for tactics used and even mission designing. DCS right noe is authentic and really the only simulator in its class. That however is on the verge of ruining because the masses are just too empty in their heads to accept the limitations of a given aircraft. Instead we are now making transformers because the crowd (mindless masses, “1984” George Orwell) demand so. Nobody wants to fly something real with strengths and weaknesses. No, in this day and age of egoism, egocentrism and return of illiteracy everyone wants to fly a transformer that is multirole, even if it doesn’t exist. Keyboard warriors going on forums about how they would change the military and air-force and show everyone out there how it should be done. If only every aicraft had “MWS, AMRAAM, R73/77, AIM54, a nuke and of course the RWR” then you’d see how they would change the military for the better... #Sarcasm The prerogative is that “if some modules are permitted, why shouldn’t we allow others...?”, whilst it should be about accepting that such uncalled-for choices were made, but that we are all here because of DCS’s (so far) superb reprojection of a battlefield in a virtual space, and that it is realism that we seek. People come here and comment on modules based on their escapades from Quake-servers or PvP where F-16 is on both sides, because some cannot handle to not have multirole. What is happening is that those who joined in the recent 2-3 years have misunderstood where this sim comes from, and what it’s aspirations are. They want yet another Ace Combat. And all that because; “You don’t have to use it if you don’t want to”, nevermind seeing a flying saucer passing me. What is happening now is idiotic, and so are the arguments for it. With those arguments, future for sure is Apache with AIM120, because “you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to”... From now on, one better check what a module includes or doesn’t, because whereas before, you could buy one and know that this is the most realistic consumer-grade stuff, and that it will have all the quirks, nit-picks and features, now you will get a transformer that has nothing to do with reality. Yet another sim went to shit because of the “masses”. Sweet... Now you can dispose off your manuals in the garbage bin, when they cannot even explain and justify how eg. a Ka50 has wiring and a firing-computer that can handle a 3-pylon wing (which the real one never had). Throw away NATOPS’ manuals, because they too get useless with crap like this. But hey, “you don’t have to if you don’t want to”. That argument is just plain wrong, demagogy. Nero - “Bread and circuses” (Give them the basics, even if an illusion, and they will sit silent and accept everything else)

You have to deselect the gun in addition to target reset. It’s a trigger that’s toggleable, that’s why unlike the other weapons, it has to be toggled back off.

No, far off. It’s an irrelevant response that bears no resemblence of truth. Sebulba gives good questions, and as he mentions, they are directed to the original poster. It has nothing to do with language barrier. It has to do with writing paragraphs of useless, non-concrete assumptions, vs. actually giving a factually straight answer.

Gotcha, so still half the problem remains. This is definately a question of going for Brunner now, or waiting a year or two and maybe getting something more widespread and better supported. Do you regret getting it, or was it worth it in general? Is it worth it for you with only the standard DCS-plugin? Yeah well, the potentiometers in my MSFFB2 broke many years ago. It's trashed a long time ago now. I'm using an all-Virpil setup. I am of course very happy with it. With that said, I am awaiting a good FFB-base which will have the same accuracy, have FFB and support my Virpil-stick to change it out. FFB and out-of-centre trim is simply something conpletely different, realistic. Still wondering whether to for Brunner or wait for something else. It's precisely that review that got me suspicious of Brunner's shortcomming. It just doesn't sound good to have such a cooling issue.

Virpil stick's analgue lever works perfectly for sure. As to VKB, I would be surprised if it still wasn't supported by the software.

Right, seen that thread indeed. So first and foremost, thanks for an elaborate response. I have been using the MSFFB2 stick, and know well what difference FFB makes. I pretty much fly everything, but mostly helicopters. The feel, and out-of-center-trim are my main reasons for wanting to get one of these. Still, I wonder how intrusive the effect to protect the base from overheating is? When you fly a helicopter, or even a jet (non-FBW), it shouldn't be a problem (you trim all the time). However flying certain WWII-planes like I-16, BF109K4 or FW190D9/A8, you cannot trim either wing down. This means that you are fighting FBW the whole time. How does the stick handle this over time, and how intrusive does the overheating-protection get? Also flying any plane in combat and manouevring a lot? That is one of the two things about this stick that keeps me back from buying one. Also, I notice that there is much setup involved and 3rd party programs needed for the lacking support with the standard plugin. Again, I generally don't have much faith in such programs, as one update in DCS or any driver could ruin it, rendering it non-working until updated again. Therefore, considering the standard software: do you happen to know, being registered on the forums at Brunner, if there are any imminent plans of expanding DCS support with potential DirectX? Is there even any more focus nowadays from Brunner on DCS? Or is it left up to the community to fix their lacking software? Really curious about those two matters. It would be great to be back with FFB again. I'll gladly pay good money for quality, but not for a cripple-product. Be it hardware or software. Could you address the above? Thanks on beforehand!

I am considering the Brunner CLS-E for quite some time now. Was hing that with time, many of the issues will get fixed and the DCS-plugin evolves. Can anyone with the base provide any updated feedback? Does it work better now? I am still on the fence due to the motors overheating and forces reducing while it cools down. How well does the DCS-plugin integrate with DCS? Is it mostly plug-and-play, or is there much configuring involved? Thanks in advance

I was a bit quick there on the trigger yesterday night, remembered the designations wrong. WSK Mielec was making LIM-1, -2, -5 and -6. I know they were working at some point with making the tail units for mach 2 capable Mig21s. Not sure how long the workshop was making them though. All of those were going to the Soviet Union for further installment in the final planes.

My position is this, DCS is a mil-sim that strives for realism, therefore no. A specific bort Mi-8 is made, and let´s stick to this. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of S-5, only with Soviet Union not using them anymore, or having in inventory at the time this bort was made. Partly yes, but a Mig21Bis inn LanceR skin does not represent an opponent with the capabilities of a LanceR, rather a Mig21Bis. Again, therefore the confusion as to what this module is supposed to represent. It´s not only KH-66, it´s gunpods, it´s RS-2US, it´s RN-24/-28 atom bombs... But again, leave it be. Hopefully it will fixed at some point.

They made a good choice with regards to LUA´s being locked (my personal opinion). People have to start asking themselves if it is really realism that they want. Sure, a fictional livery should not be permitted, but due to the low amount of aircraft, so be it. That is not intrusive. Custom systems and loudouts, that is however something completely different. But yes, they have diverted from their strict rules and policy recently, something that I am not too fond of, because again, it just creates confusion in the long run. At the same time, one has to remember that hey have a business to run, and if 6 vs 4 mavericks will get them that many more customers, then sadly, that is a decision overruled by the business-model. Sad but true.

It is unfortunate that ED gave into this, based on a couple loud children on the forums that have no idea about practices IRL and what was permitted as valid loadout. Kids posting pictures of test-aircraft from Eglin AFB (tail prefix "ET" and "OT") with 6 mavericks and proving to the experienced how f*** clueless they are. This is what forums become when the sim becomes accessible to the average Joe, as sad as that sounds. More is not always better. The ridiculous threads that start infesting these forums are practically mostly by inexperienced and new members that really have no clue what DCS is and what it strives for. Their whining and stupid suggestions are what´s making the IRL-relevant mechanics, pilots, crew chiefs and others stop bothering to engage in open discussions and rather join their closed enclaves. These SME´s have much valuable info that get´s lost between tons of irrelevant and idiotic posts which bring nothing more than "I want x", regardless of whether it´s realistic or not! Even if that is the case with F-16 and F-18 (Mig21Bis as well), we should strive for realism, not claim those cases as an evidence that ED should expand on the practice and include each and every loadout for each and every aircraft, no matter how unrealistic it is. The idea is only stupid for you if you don´t understand it. This can definitely be corrected with time, and it ought to be said that the module still is in Early Access, therefore, let´s wait until it´s finished before making any final statements. As to Mi-8MTV2, you really don´t understand the significant difference between a fictional paint and actually altering loadout of a given aircraft thus changing, expanding or shrinking it´s combat abilities. It gives a wrong perception of the given aircraft, its doctrine and what role it was meant to fit. No, restricting weapons or systems to what this specific aircraft carried IRL is not stupid, it is realistic. Read what that word means. It has nothing to do with your unfulfilled wishes of flying an aircraft that was run in a different configuration with some different systems in other countries. What it has to do with, is finding manuals and actually confirming that those were the only differences between them. This is precisely what was made wrong with the Mig21Bis as a third party module. Half of the weapons on this module were never used by the PVO Mig21Bis. The weapons were initially added by Leatherneck simulations because they believed that this was the only Mig21-model that would enter DCS for a long time to come, if ever at all. Thus, allow "us" to pretend like we are flying a different Mig21 with different weapons. The amount of confusion it made with weapons that physically cannot be guided by that radar (Saphir RP-22 SMA), or pylons that lack wiring for certain others is criminal. The intention was good, but for a study sim where IRL SME´s and pilots are asking about the color of each wire and how a system interacts with another is just asking for problems down the road. Instead, from the very beginning, a foot should have been put down to create a specific bort Mig21Bis and no imaginary loadouts. Half of what you write are assumptions, not anything specific, besides the comparison with F-16 and F-18. I for one am partly Russian, I speak and write Cyrillic. My grandfather worked at a factory creating Mig15´s and Mig21´s, specifically the tail-units, in Poland under a certificate known as Lim-15 and Lim-21. I have a pretty good idea about what I´m talking about when it comes to Russian/Eastern modules. Whatever I don´t know, I search it or ask relevant people (either online, or F2F) and get my answers, instead of assuming anything. You have to ask yourself if it is DCS at all that you wish to fly, and nothing something else, more arcade where all your wishes for imaginary loadout will be fulfilled. This is a mil-sim, not quasi like Arma. (No one stated anything about what the "V" stands for. In case you don´t know, "M" stands for modernised (in practise, TV3 engines, among some other general improvements) and "T" for transport. That is not the discussion here.)

No! Neither S-5 and S-13 were mounted on this revision of the Mi8-MTV2, in the Russian Armed Forces. It is not just an Mi8, it´s a specific one, and everything is up to spec on this version, also whatever was used in service on it. Realism is about what was mounted on it. Also, you do not just "google-search" content like this. Info relevant to the Mi8-MTV2 can be found in the Russian language. As to skins, in a sense they should. However they are kept in to be able to participate in fictional scenarios. What you don´t distinguish is that there is one thing to have a fictional skin, and it is something completely different to modify the aircraft or put loadout on it which was never used on it! No, ED´s policy is not to allow loadouts that are "physically" possible. Their policy is to allow loadouts that are permitted IRL and were used IRL. The Apache will not get the APKWS, even if it´s the same pod as Hydra 70. The specific block Apache didn´t have it, and thus this won´t have it. The russian Ugroza-system (which came before APKWS, -kor) is also supposedly compatible with standard mounts. However none of the aircraft we have, ever used it, therefore we don´t have it. It´s that simple. There is really nothing more to discuss here. You cannot change the fact that Mi8-MTV2 never used S-5 and S-13 in the Russian Armed Forces IRL. This Mi8 represents a Russian specific one, and therefore it will not come, unless a different variant is made. That´s it!

It´s time-restricted because on the outside, it might seem like the only change to this specific Apache was only the addition of the APKWS any maybe something else, but irrelevant. That while IRL there could be documents and info that is classified and talks about further software updates or more added functionality. In that way, you fly neither one or the other. What really shines with DCS is that what we fly, as closely as possible resembles a specific aircraft with it´s build, capabilities and lacks. Not some imaginary "I´ll take the best from each tranche and show them how it´s supposed to be done"! That is the difference! Making an Apache with all its iterations depending on the year would be rather difficult. If anything, go for a Heatblur variant of a F-14A+ and F-14B+. At least they are specific frames which are realistically time-separated but represent a concrete airframe. If ED decided to make an Apache that represents the one which doesn´t have APKWS, then they did and it shouldn’t have it. Now it´s up to the mission-designer to make a relevant scenario. If they released an Apache AH-64A, some people would prefer that as well, while others want the AH-64E with lasers on them because "in the future, we predict that lasers will be mounted on the same Apache’s". At the point ED goes that way, it loses all its credibility and this becomes a game. It loses its charm and becomes nothing more than Ace Combat on steroids. Arma has went this way and turned out completely arcade, even on the most realistic settings. No one who has been with DCS since its start, wants to see it come to end like that. That´s why the disagreement. The ruling principle of DCS is "REALISM", not "quasi-realism" or "almost realistic, but not quite". Even if we have many other maps, that is something different, because each and every one of these aircraft could be flown in other parts of the world. The air is the same all around. However that not all INS-instruments would work, is indeed a truth, and should be simulated as well! Making a realistic mission-design is up to the mission designer. But restricting loadout on an unrealistic aircraft is not! It´s simply wrong! EDIT: Just for reference, Ugroza (suffix -kor)(Russian APKWS, came before APKWS), is as well a upgrade that doesn´t need any specific changes (at least as far is known), but still we don´t have it on the Russian-side as it´s not realistic. None of the aircraft of the RU-side have it (as per block), and thus it´s not available. Precisely the way it should be.

Your understanding is flawed as always. Just because we have other maps, doesn´t limit one to run it realistically on only NTTR. For us who care about realism, apache should only be used there. When it comes to the systems, that´s something else than even an imaginary scenario where you transported your Apache AH-64D fleet in the back of a C-5 Galaxy to Europe or middle east. Adding systems that were not there at the specific point of the specific tranche is false in every way. If they made AH-64A, "just adding a radar and a couple of MFDs" would be just as wrong to bring it to the “D” standard. Even when pilots do simulator training of a certain aircraft in the military, they will be tested in different scenarios (depending on the education level and point), in different climates. Although their fleets are not there, they still train for it to know the aircraft and fly it well. The aircraft however stays true to its real-life counterpart. Without any imaginary weapons that "should work just like the normal ones". You forget that things like the laser have to be programmed to allow for latching and auto-lasing, something that this apache-version (and specifically block) does not have. Be it a software update or not, this tranche does not have it. That´s all there is to it!

No, that has nothing to do with it. You comparison is just purely wrong. A10CII can have it, as it is an 2008 updated version of A10C. However A10C does not, because back in 2005 it wasn´t used nor certified on the aircraft. It´s not the production year of the actual aircraft, but which batch is being modelled.

Might be, but that myth is even on Russian websites for a long time now. Someone got it wrong once, and since then it´s been repeated like gospel I suppose.