zerO_crash

No, most S-5s were mainly delegated to allies after that. Full S-8 rearmament. We are not dealing here in "what ifs". This is a simulator strives for realism, not a game. This sim has gotten this far because of its strong core values. You ask for this, others would ask for small changes on other aircraft, and all of a sudden the realism would be lost as a whole. We don´t deal that way here. Mi8MTV2 never mounted S-5s in Russia, that´s all there is to it. Realism above all.

The Ka50´s are already from the early production line, and nothing would differ between them and the initial batch after the order would be signed. Never was a fantasy-version teased, rather an educated guess. But that already met much criticism and along with new russian laws, it´s not happening for the moment. So instead of derailing and writing your beautiful stories, come back to the real world and stay with Ka50 (BS2). Whatever the future brings, we´ll talk about it in the future. It is also apparent to me that you do not conceive what I wrote to you when stating that Ka50 became test platform for Ka52. Learn to read with understanding. I explained it before, but you fail to read. "That doesn´t mean that Ka50 was a step toward Ka52 initially.", "You also do not understand what Ka52 came out of (no, not Ka50, but a different mindset and requirements).". Re-read. They did survive rolling of the production line, but it wasn´t yet an official order from the army. What part of that do you not understand?! The initial batch was already produced. And no, they were not "abandoned pretty much immediately for improved variants". You must pay attention and read what´s written to your response. You keep introducing crap that doesn´t bear any mark of the situation IRL. I already explained you once that nothing got "abandoned" and "immediately", yet you just keep rolling on the same crap. Do your homework. Su25T isn´t fantasy either, as there are a couple of those operational as we speak. Good that you defined "unicorn" for yourself, Su25T is not dreamed up, it is real. Again, you keep writing crap and confusing even yourself and pretend you got an argument. If Su25T didn´t exist, it would be dreamed up. Again, it had nothing to do with "unachievable", rather change of tactics and monetary constraints. Don´t mix things up. "You don´t understand"-route is quite descriptive of you, since you keep re-writing the same fallacy all the time. Nothing that you mention bears any truth to it, nor was any of it ever a case IRL. You are plain wrong. Guesstimating from your current ability to comprehend, I won´t bother answering to your future posts re-writing whatever you already tried to produce. I won´t bother. You are not fit to understand where you are in wrong, nor have the inclination to seek correct info. Waste of time for me. I already explained it all above.

There were operational ones, that some got scraped later, and almost all now, that doesn´t say anything though. It was a helicopter ready for production. I already told you that the rather short-lived Ka50 is due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and change of tactics. How long a concept lives doesn´t say anything about it being a prototype or not. You are not making a point here. It was a finished product that was already delivering in Chechnya. No prototype enters the warzone in the way Ka50 did. Kamov stated it was ready, RuAF stated it was ready. It was a matter of signing an official order for production. Soviet Union collapsed, no order was signed. Yet the ground forces received a fully functional helicopter with defined purpose (in Chechnya). That some of them ended up as testbeds was because of the change in tactics and requirements. I do not understand what problem you have with understanding that a vehicle or aircraft being accepted or rejected is a matter of tactics and what the military sees fitting for their needs, and not how many are produced or how long it lives. Those two things have nothing to do with a product being ready. Limited production run? What does this even have to do with it?! B-2 is a limited production run, does that make it a prototype. You are not making any sense here. The amount of a given vehicle/aircraft has nothing to say about it being a prototype, this is completely irrelevant. A prototype is an unfinished product, one that is still being refined. Ka50 was ready for production, but the official order was not signed. This alone nullifies your statement. SR-71 was a limited production run, doesn´t make it a prototype. Again you are wrong, nothing was "abandoned", only had it´s designation and use changed. That they later got scrapped means nothing. There was no need for this airframe (because of the changed requirements), but up until that point, it was used actively. Additionally, the helicopter got adjusted to the new requirements, and Ka52 came off it. That doesn´t mean that Ka50 was a step toward Ka52 initially. You also make the mistake by stating that it had "considerable flaws". Where do you even get that?! The helicopter was sufficient for the Soviet Army. Not so for the Russian one. And why? Because again, TACTICS changed. RuAF figured that this helicopter has much upgrade potential, and with a second crew member. It was able to work as a command-post and scouting helicopter being capable of lasing and giving coordinates for aircraft/artillery/ground troops in a unified datalink system. Those were not requirements in the Soviet Union, but they became with the RuAF. Whereas Ka50 was initially meant to operate in groups of 4 Ka50s in total, the Ka52 is supposed to be the group-leader-helicopter for 4 other Mi-28s/Mi-24s. That´s why Ka52 was created, because in those missions the Ka50 could not suffice. But with regards to the old requirements, Ka50 was perfect. The Comanche was not even close to Ka50. It never took part in any combat. It never had it´s systems finished. It never had it´s weapons-systems integration complete, not by a long shot. Much of the software was never finished. Comanche was a product that was stopped before it ever was finished. Ka50 was finished and ready for production. Comanche is what V-80 was to Ka50. "they were unicorn planes, no matter how much people try to dress up those vanishingly low production numbers, and you'll often see other oddball planes being suggested and shot down in spite of them having larger runs. These two simple show that goofy and low production runs aren't really show-stoppers as far as adding things to DCS." - What is this? What is a "unicorn" plane (this is a helicopter btw.)? What are you talking about here? Show-stoppers for what? It occurs to me that you are one of those who have no idea about an aircraft, and you try to use it as if you were supposed to win a war alone, in your Ka50 which you would make better with the addition of RWR, MWS, Anti-Radiation rockets, Aim120/R77, etc...). Most of what you write is wrong with regards to this aircraft, and it seems to me that you do not understand what Ka50 is/was. You also do not understand what Ka52 came out of (no, not Ka50, but a different mindset and requirements).

No, completely wrong. Ka50 bort #25 was a complete and ready-for-production aircraft. If not for Soviet Union collapsing, those would be to stay. However due a change in the political system, as well as military tactics, Ka52 was made. Neither is a prototype, but fully functioning and operative helicopter. It was used in combat as well in Chechnya. The prototype of Ka50 were V-80, starting from bort #10 to #15 (5 prototypes). Those predated Ka50 and were testing everything from aerodynamics to systems onboard the aircraft. That's all there is to it. They were also not immediately "abandoned or scrapped", but went on to the following: - Some went on to test new systems and glass-cockpit for Ka52. - Some went to the police unit. - Some went to MVD. So once again, you are wrong.

Mi-8MTV2 does, it was more or less random what units got it. Few did, and in those cases, the cockpit wasn´t really adjusted for it. They were given to the crew, and that was that.

As we strive for realism, Mi-24 should not have NVG, not the specific version we are getting, for that time. You cannot really argue with Mi-8 having NVG, as these helicopters served a different purpose in general. One is an attack helicopter, and the other is a utility airframe. Therefore, realistically, it´s right that Mi-8MTV2 (which is a later Mi-8 derivative) has it, and Mi-24P (came just after V, it is a relatively early version of Mi-24 compared to what we have today) does not. Just because Apache had helmet mounted sight and HUD, doesn´t mean that OH-58 or UH-60 had one. Things are not that simple IRL. It should also be kept in mind that the Apache version that we are getting is a very late apache model. An Mi-24 model that would correspond to the AH-64D would be a Mi-24PN to give an example. They are from different epochs and as such, have a technological leap. One cannot compare them.

That makes sense. It also explains why we abolished red as cockpit-light, despite working splendid at night to the pure eye. It indeed has a greater wavelength than the UV-spectrum, to which blue is closer. I wonder then if there is any specific preference between blue and green. It would occur that blue should be the best for NVG-operations, but why then do western planes even use green? Besides the obvious that blue damages the eye (slightly over time) and that it might become distorted at night due to the eye not being able to pick up that part of the spectrum too well (this is without NVG).

This has already been discussed before and concluded with a "no". The reason for it is that by the time Mi-8MTV2 came out (the one we have), Soviet Union didn´t use the S-5s anymore. As such, it would be a unrealistic weapon for this specific airframe, which indeed is a Soviet original Mi-8MTV2. S-13 were not used on this airframe either. The option was there as an upgrade, but again, Soviet Union did not use them. Regardless, the S-8´s do their job perfectly.

Colors are easier on the eyes when not looking through NVG at them. As for using NVG, well certain colors contain more energy than others, meaning that they appear brighter through NVG, I guess that has to matter. I am thinking early generation NVG's, yes, not gen. 2 with Microchannel Plate, or even more modern gen. 3. PNV-57E is a good example for gen. 1 goggles. Absolutely, and I mean that cockpit lightining doesn't matter for the sake of looking at the gauges, since as you pointed out, NVGs have focus set for infinity, thus making instruments unreadable. What cockpit lightining matters for is the flash that could enter the goggles when looking outside, from below. If your cockpit is bright, that light will distort the NVG image due to sheer brightness entering the goggles. Also, if the cockpit is much brighter than the picture that you see in the goggles, then it will be uncomfortable to take snap-views at the gauge-cluster as your eyes will need a moment to re-adjust. That's where the proper color and light setting comes into play As far as I've seen, many modules do have pretty good NVG. Check Ka50 or Mi8 for example. The lower quality picture is there, distortion from cockpit light if set improperly, everything inside the cockpit is blurred out regardless, etc... It could be better, but it really isn't bad. I am definately impressed, esp. while using VR. I would however love actual different NVG's that would be of different eras and generations. That would be fantastic

The question of ATGM-guidance is not really a problem during night. The system is capable of guiding the missile by keeping it in the middle of the reticle and that at daylight. That is far easier at night, considering optically, the missile´s thrust is more visible during night, compared to day. Therefore that is not a problem. What poses a problem however is being able to see targets at night through the scope, and guesstimating range for knowing whether you are within the parameters or not. NVG will not help you much here because: a) good luck fitting a NVG onto that sight and b) when the ATGM leaves the rail, your NVG magnifying missile thrust at night will leave you permanently blind, at the very least damage your sight significantly. As for brightness in the cockpit, Harlikwin is mostly right. To correct one thing; HUD could be used with NVG, even old gen, if you lower the HUD-brightness to a bare minimum. Same goes for cockpit lightning. The problem typically posed, is that the brightness doesn´t go down far enough, before you are at minimum adjustment. Also, for night operation, you prefer green/red/blue light, rather than white light. That is because it´s easier on the eyes (blue is also used because we don´t naturally see blue very well, thus it appears weak in strength for us who predominately prefer red/green colors/lights). As such, it could be possible on HIND, but not perfect however (without significant cockpit mods). And since our version of the HIND P is from before those times, it really is not realistic, something that goes against the courtesy of DCS. If you wish to do night operations, feel free to use night flares, that´s the Soviet-style night-combat done on a big scale. It´s a western tactic as well during those times, as NVG was in it´s infancy, and very far from adequate, esp. for moonless nights.

Precisely the case

My bad, was a bit quick there on the trigger

Some of us have been waiting for it 14 years now, since BS1. With Ka50 and Mi24, my life is now complete

God, just watched it after pre-ordering, as in, I didn't even finish reading the newsletter. Just saw the trailer, this is the best trailer of them all. Simply stunning visuals, music and composition. It catches the heroism of this silhouette in the sky. It is an absolute masterpiece! This is hands down 11/10, ED, you are amazing!

Finally! My body is ready Just noticed there is a trailer-video. Well, gotta keep up with the traditions, buy first, then watch the trailer

You got your numbers wrong on Ka50. It takes an absolute maximum of 11.800kg to the air as per spec. That equates to 26.014 pounds. Otherwise it's correct. You also forget to mention that whereas Ka50 uses 100% of it's power for lift, AH-64D does not. You lose roughly 15-20% of that power for tail-rotor. Some helicopters of the conventional design lose as much as 30%. In other words, Ka50 is much more agile and powerfull per hp. It's a whole different beast. You will notice this at higher altitude as stated before

Great to hear! Thanks!

No worries brother, here is one of the many threads (this is the longest one) where the issue is described. Further down page, at least one track file is provided. This has been a problem with BS since BS2. It never got solved: Just to specifiy, it occurs to us with vanilla DCS, not once a mod installed, so definately no file corruption. The issue is that Shkval will sometimes drift on it's own, esp. if used actively in a close encounter. The ranging will instantly drop (from the actual range down to eg. 0,9 km - displayed on Shkval), a cross appears on Shkval indicating inproper solution and then it drifts uncontrollably to either of the sides, typically right for me. - Never had mods. Clean install. - Laser is on and has been used to range (also verified that it's working, not overheated). - All the respective systems and buttons are double-, tripple- and quadrupple-checked, and in accordance to the manual-procedure. - Weapon type selected irrelevant, as is range or any other factor. It just happens, typically once per flight, sometimes more. - Has been in DCS for ages, since BS2. Other posts regarding the same issue:

Let's keep the thread clean. This bug report is about a specific bug, not other ones, or the state of the module. With regards to Shkval moving on it's own, yes, this has been a bug a long time now. It has nothing to do with mods, as I am running aclean installation with no mods, never have ran them, and I get this bug sometimes. It has also been reported multiple times, with tracks having been provided. The question is if this bug has been found, and if so, when we can expect it to be fixed. If it isn't found, more tracks are needed, but it is absolutely overdue a long time now. @BIGNEWY, could you check the status of this issue please? Thanks in advance.

Chizh approximated it, but never stated that it was fantasy. As I already said, a translator does not give you the prerogative. Ignore who you want, truth can be hurtful sometimes, sadly...

Maybe this helps, have a look: Please help - EDTracker Pro twitching all over the place | Frontier Forums Eventually, make sure that there are no activated profiles in open track that could interfere with your scheme. It really looks like a input-interference. Check specifically post #9. Hope you figure it out mate

This request has been made before, and it's really a hope for the devs/mods to take it further to the team and see if it's anywhere in the near-term plans. BS2 is obviously running the old limited keybinding scheme. Most of the bindings only have a single function that works as a toggle, instead of having alternates for us with better hardware where it would be preferred to have on- and off-specific functions. An example here could be the operation of the landing gear, only a single togglable button. Another one could be the selection of cannon, where us who have the Virpil CM2 stick could benefit off the sensors in the pull-down trigger to activate/deactivate the cannon on the Shark. There is much benefit to having the variety and I guess that goes without saying. @BIGNEWY or anyone else? Thanks in advance!

You and Fri13 apparently must live under the same roof. For someone who doesn't speak nor write Russian/Cyryllic (you write English on Russian forums, but guess what, your translator won't translate everything correct), you really ought to start quality checking the crap you sprawl. No-where has ED stated that BS3 is a fantasy, rather an educated guess. And even so, there has been much negativity as Black Shark right now is the heritage of this sim and no one wants it spoiled, just updated. It is tested and quality checked by KAMOV JSC. BS3 would never be. And although there were 12 airframes of Ka50, it doesn't mean that it is "fantasy". The given amount of a certain module IRL has nothing to do with it's authenticity. What has something to do with it, is how closely the module resembles it's real life counterpart. For the specific bort #25, it is a spot on simulation. Therefore, all your requests that you've time and again spammed the Russian forums with with regards to FLIR and all the other stuff is simply out of order and question. As to ED making BS3, what ED proposed was to update the Ka50 to a modern "suspected" standard based on what Ka52 bears now, however with background in all the borts of Ka50. Although not realistic as per specific bort, it would be a sort of collection of all Ka50's put into one. That is still more real than going out and requesting what you and Fri13 have with showing pictures of nada (empty painted boxes hung under the wings or laying next to the helicopter) and requesting it be simulated. That while not taking into account how the systems work, if they ever were implemented, how they are visualized in the cockpit, on the HUD, what military standard they use for data transfer, what computers they are connected to and augmented by, etc... You talk about switches in the cockpit in an aircraft that was of test status, and yes IR rockets were tested on Ka50, but were deemed too dangerous to use due to engine surges, so your point being?! Where is the evidence of anything you ask for, or are you just a professional keyboard warrior that rewrites whatever he feels at the moment, as there is no strength and support to any single one of your statements?! Fri13 writes 13 pages of wall text with nothing specific, as has been proved by us on the RU side, as well as module devs (Gazelle to mention one), and you somehow jump the hype-train and talk KA50N. What do you know about that aircraft? What documentation do you have on it?! Give me ranges (of the optics), the magnification, the optics layout, what screen are the thermals displayed on, how are they displayed, symbology, etc... Furthermore, you must have missed your station with DCS when stating things like: "Lol, wait till the Longbow starts SLAUGHTERING the Ka-50 pilots. Then we'll see if we get Igla's and FLIR, or not." I mean how cute of you to actually mention "balance" with regards to DCS. If anything of the previous doesn't discourage people to even take you seriously, this single statement has to take the cake, and the cake is a lie. Sorry to have to break it to you kid, DCS is a simulator, not a "game about balancing". People seek DCS because of realism and and the difficulties that come with it. Rather, I cannot wait for, you showing up here again, destroyed by a Ka50 with your Apache (what a senseless fight btw., you must be joking) and wondering how something that's older with fewer sensors managed to swat you out of the sky. Guess you'll be requesting 10 other things just to make you relevant in the air again... Part of the reason why there are pilots, mechanics and other IRL-relevant personnel here is mainly due to the realism, not groundless assumptions asking to model a whole system based on a picture of a box in camo-scheme.

This is not a matter of the actual aircraft, be it IRL or in the sim. It's about how the Shkval is simulated. It's using an artificial system that is supposed to mimic the actual contrast-based lock acquisition. Although it works most of the time, there are some obvious issues with it, for example that that it's tied to a specific time of the day. 2100hrs is brighter in summer than in winter. In order to not make it unrealistic, the contrast-lock is then set for during winter time, cause if it was otherwise, you'd be able to lock on targets in total darkness, which would be wrong. Sadly though, since it relative to the winter-season, you end up in missions where you fly 2100hrs during summer, with more than enough sufficient light, and Shkval won't lock on. With said though, Shkval is in general done very very well for the time of the simulation introduction. ED used whatever they had, and it's undeniably good. Most of the quirks can be worked around if you are a little creative or just avoid certain situations, such as real pilots would. The one bug which should be squashed though, is where Shkval all of a sudden starts drifting faster than you can correct it back. That's a glitch that has been long in, ever since BS 2, and is really the only one which can mess up your aiming and approach. In the real helicopter, it wouldn't have this "glitch".

The case as mentioned is with regards to IRL, but expecting a crew error in the heat of the moment. Well, fuel cock and shutoff valves respectively. But ok, so that´s pretty much the only reason for the procedure to exist. Nice!