zerO_crash

Полезное зависит от ситуации. Хорошо иметь выбор, Ка50 с вихрем или Ми8 с менее способным S8. Некоторые модули имеют контейнеры. Не все требует грузоподъемности 4Т. Это не может быть трудно моделировать )

Транспортировка грузов и боеприпасов на линию фронта. А также то, что пишут @Glimmer и @CyberAlex. Сделать возможность загрузки 100кг, 200кг... -> 500 кг? Обычная нагрузка в наши дни, было бы неплохо смоделировать. : Pilotfly:

How fast it is, what aspects it´s coming at, how big it is, and so on. Fully doable, but even if you don´t get a lock, you still guide the missile manually. With proximity fuse, you get vikhr in the vicinity of it, and down it goes. Vikhr is a strong missile, does high damage. But you don´t meet planes very often on such low altitudes, people mostly fly their aircraft relative to the weapons they have. Most use guided weapons, so they don´t go low or close too often. Typically the aspect becomes the issue, they come at a 90 deg angle to you or are too high. It´s still doable, but then Vikhr loses it´s range on manoeuvring. However, don´t focus too much on shooting down planes, rather, you shouldn´t be there if there are many of them. Or atleast hide. If you know where they land, go to their airfield, from 8-9km, you take them down when they land or are just about to. That´s how you teach them respect. What however is doomed, are helicopters. Out to 10km, if I see you (and I spy, I see more than your radar), you are down. And if you are not within my range, I will make sure you get. Helicopters are slow, easy to guide the Vikhr on, either manually or if you get a valid lock on. Be it a Kiowa, Gazelle, Apache, Cobra, you name it. With Vikhr´s Mach 1.8 (+ helicopter´s speed), a single one will annihilate you. They do their job, I guarantee ;) There will be no Ka50N or Ka50Sh (Rus forum), learn to use what you got. You people are basically complaining about anything that is not there. Ka50 lacks FLIR, A10C is too slow, F16 doesn´t pull enough AoA, F18C is rather slow on acceleration, a potential Ah-64A/D would have too little engine power (couldn´t take as many weapons as any of the Russian choppers we got, esp. high altitude, high temperature), a Cobra would be too weakly armored to arms fire, and so on... Learn your aircraft and know your aircraft. Every machine has it´s limitations, you have to learn what they are and find ways to overcome them. It´s that simple. There is no single ultimate airplane or helicopter. Ever noticed how many helicopters there are in the military? or planes? It´s not because, just add FLIR, this and that and it will be perfect. You start adding stuff, and the performance lacks. It´s mostly a matter of doctrine though. That´s why we don´t have transformers that to everything at once.

Talk for yourself, if you struggle with Vikhr, that´s your problem. Don´t overwrite your struggles and incompetence on others. No, helicopter´s without IR-missiles are not suicide, it´s simply a matter of tactics and scenario. Pretty much any AT missile can be used for A-A purposes. Also, IR rockets are shorter range, and as I stated before, who sees first usually wins. If you got yourself in a position where you have to dogfight with a helicopter, and that happened unexpected (you didn´t want to go close purposefully), then you are the "idiot". And if you ended up in a helicopter dogfight because you planned for it, then you are an even bigger "idiot", as you have missiles that can be easily guided (with training) allowing you to shoot down the enemy aircraft from further away, often without alerting them of your presence. That without running into something on the ground that you didn´t notice while closing in on him, or leaving good cover and running into the open where a hostile aircraft could pick you up. In general, putting yourself at even with your opponent is shitty tactics. If anything, IR rockets should be used as a situational weapon, not something you fly to employ actively. A pilot doesn´t chose his own payload, it´s chosen during mission planning, and what´s available and when. You need to get out of your bubble and understand how it works IRL. These weapons cost much money, and it´s much paperwork involved in deciding what weapon to go out with. It´s that simple. Also, you seem to think that in the real world everyone flies in their own entity, in a disconnected flight. IRL, you would always have air coverage in such territories, and that would be a minimum. Mostly, the air would be clear by the time a helicopter moved in. If you judge the efficiency of an aircraft based on your lonely escapades in the multiplayer, then you might as well quit right now. Knowing how to fly and shoot is one thing, adding tactics to that is something else. And ultimately cooperating, sharing info and receiving, and making tactical decisions based on intel is yet another thing. Most people here fly in the hopes of killing as much as possible within one mission, although that is the target, it doesn´t happen at the rate it does here, because IRL you got one life and an expensive airframe to lose. So no, multiplayer is nothing to go by, unless it´s a clan flight where everything from briefing to debriefing is done properly! It´s good that you would never fly a combat helicopter IRL, because you never will. As to IRL, you have superiors to answer to, and everything has to be cleared, everything from aircraft type, through mission, through flight plan, through RoE, loadout, etc... No one would ask you what you would want to do or not. Neither Apache´s, nor Cobras have IR-missiles, regardless of what the internet says. Mi24 had R-60 and R-60M, but seldomly flew with them. It´s only recently that Mi28 and Ka52 have started to fly with them by default. But if anything, it´s much more for drones than anything, as they are small and rather difficult to hit, and typically fly in a environments that are at the frontline and thus easy to pick out for helicopters.

You totally understood this community. Because everyone here is complaining when they die, or when life is unfair and the module they fly is at a disadvantage to others... You just showed intellect in that post of yours... For a record, say hi to my grandma from me, if you meet her in heaven, because you won´t even see the Vikhr coming at you from 10km. That was that. First sees, first wins, but guess you already knew that, judging from your post! Keep that kind of thinking for warthunder babe, it´s wrong community to be making such statements. There are people like me, who take to the skies here with nothing but a MiG21Bis in a modern scenario, and you can guess how much it crushes your little ego when you in your F15 get shot down by a R-60M or even my personal favourite, R-55 (1,5-2km range, IR). Tells you that it´s not the plane, but the guy in it... Nuff´ said @zhukov032186 Absolutely! And even though "glitches" happen IRL, where a fighter pilot might get too eager (make a mistake) and come close to receive an IR up his nozzle, it still would be 1 out of 100, if not less. In a tactical and practical sense, no one would send helicopters to fight planes. IR´s on helicopters are there to mostly combat other helicopters, because the best way to take out an enemy helicopter, is with another helicopter.

@Chizh, мы можем получить транспортные контейнеры? всегда хотел! :)

Yes, but the systems are relatively similar, and use the same IR sensors and DIRCM. For any practical purpose, it could be a good estimate for the efficiency of Vitebsk.

Don´t mean to be rude, and I know there are many people here who don´t participate but still read and skim the forums (just as I did once). I was more referring to those who argued. A good discussion is welcome, but this turned out to a thread of opinions rather than facts. We can discuss much with different points of view, but in this case, it´s a question of whether we know and what was IRL. There´s no room for opinions here. No offence meant :) I am not sure if this video has been posted here, but it shows President-S complex in very rough workings: It´s in Russian, but should be understandable. What we don´t know is just how effective the system is. We have a guy over at the RU side who knows much about this system; how far it can detect, what ranges are indicated by the circles on the system screen, what the default position of the IR jammers are, how much they can turn, how fast, etc... He knows many of the intricacies of the system, but he´s not allowed to talk. As mentioned earlier, we don´t know how efficient the system is. @Chizh mentioned they might go ahead with 1/4 missiles will be deflected, but it´s pure guessing, stated by himself. On the video it can be seen that the system deflects multiple missiles, seems to have very high efficiency, but we will never know.

I was about to answer, but you put it so nice. @Fri13: As to evidence, I was wondering whether I should pull out documents proving everything that has been stated by me, but I though that no, I don´t have time for that. I also had a simpler idea, link you 2 comments where @Chizh and @Wags both state that this is a imagined ED Ka50 version. That would basically answer you everything in the shortest way. As to forming a coherent answer to your "belief" of what is "real" or not, @Weta43 pretty much conveyed the sentiment of it. We are different, I hope you enjoy your new Ka50.

Я не могу не согласиться с вами, к чёрту всё. Они никогда не поймут. :thumbup:

His opinion IS more valid because he is better informed than you. Simple as that. I suggest you talk to the people that actually have a bit of idea about this, many of them on the Russian forum. Some good ones here too, though fewer with info on eastern machinery ;)

You have a problem understanding what a prototype is. A prototype is a envisioned product that is in the state of development (beta). Therefore, only because a button is labeled A-A (hat switch) does not mean the helicopter will use A-A equipment, it´s there for testing the cockpit layout or so. Still, A-A missiles were not tested ONCE on Ka50, maybe the doctrine or priorities changed along the way. Point is it´s there, but it was never used as far as we know. You have a problem with evidence and how to find it properly. When you are asked for evidence of it ever being fired, or to show how the HUD looks like when it´s fired, you turn the question upside down just to try to confuse everyone around you by saying: "where is the evidence against it?". One cannot talk sense with you, when lack of evidence, is evidence for you that something exists! Once again, you keep showing Ka52, what do you know about Ka52, or anyone else for that matter? Have you seen the HUD modes, do you know how the systems work? In these helicopters everything is cooperating with each other, there are very few systems, if any, that are completely isolated. You cannot remove them as if they were constants, they are part of a formula which is the whole helicopter. Many of these systems, including the ones we got, rely on a newer avionics suite we know NOTHING about. That´s evidence that BS3 is a bad idea for DCS that advertises itself as a realistic simulator. And we are here for realism. You show me pictures that are available online, but without telling me how the systems work, show me documents first! You can start by explaining me how the weapons system is capable of selecting single pylons (since each pylon has a different weapon on the #7th picture you posted) and at the same time, explain to me how it´s capable of handling 2 extra weapon stations. Because as far as I have researched, our pilotage and weapons suite is K-041, and that only handles 4 stations. You would need to know something I don´t about the Ka52`s K-806 which can handle 6 stations. Good luck searching. Hey look, I got a nut cracker for you, have a look at this car: It´s an Audi, because it bears the emblem. This means that the car exists, because I showed you a picture, tell me where can I buy it? I want to buy it, show me where. You will not find it in any catalogue because it´s a prototype, but I don´t care, I showed you a photo, and I want to buy it. Find it for me. (Bear in mind, I showed you a photo, which is evidence that it exists, most of what you state is in the format: "prove to me it doesn´t exist"). And when you find me my car so that I can buy it, I am also pretty sure that there are invisible alien saucers flying around. My evidence is that you have to prove me with evidence against it, otherwise it exists. Good luck finding me my car that I wish to buy and the invisible saucers that no one has seen, smelled or touched. But they exist, because you cannot disprove me, or can you? Your logic, have fun. (Point of the matter is, we don´t disprove of your pictures, but rather implementing something that is not known enough about. Implementing systems that are insufficiently described.)

No, we cannot agree on any of that, because nothing is realistic there. Neither do we know enough about the systems, nor was it all ever on a particular Ka50. So, we don´t agree there. As @Sebulba asked you earlier, do you know any of the systems? To that you say no, because you´r not an engineer. Well, some of us are, some are not, but access to documents is something everyone has, provided they are available online. And none of these are, besides some knowledgable brothers on our Russian side. But they cannot share too much either, thus "guesstimation". We really don´t know enough about these systems to have them implemented, at least if ED is open with us about what they know. @Chizh for a fact, has stated on multiple occasions that this is an envisioned Ka50(ED), not something real, and that is not only because of the weapons or systems fusion. So no, we don´t know enough about them, and guess what, Ka50 BS1/2 is actually Kamov JSC certified, licensed. Yes, you read it right, and that is because the module so closely resembles Ka50 #25 in performance, flight dynamics, systems, weapons. Pretty much the whole aircraft simulation. Ka50(ED) BS3 will not receive that certificate because it doesn´t represent anything real and physical in this world and entity we live in. @3WA: Yes they did promise us something, the very code of existence for ED and DCS, being; "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible." So far, with minor differences here and there (some weapons being added for "fun" like KH25ML on Ka50, or a whole array of weapons for MiG21bis (explanation here was that another MiG21 version will not come for decades, so you might as well pretend you fly a different MiG21 version, which we kinda accepted)), all modules have been based on real aircraft, and represent their real counterparts in a very good and precise way. Although as previously mentioned, some extra weapon was added here and there, if you fly realistic, those could always be restricted. But now we get a Ka50 with weapons and systems fused that NEVER existed out there. That is not just a matter of restricting the mission, that is something more. That´s why the fuss about it. I notice you don´t care much about realism, but remember that this sim exists because of people like us who ask the difficult questions, and by that show that we are a demanding community that will read real manuals and go as far as to contact military pilots for evaluation of our product. If people were asked here for a FC3-version of F22 (SFM or PFM/SSM) or a full out PFM/ASM Mi2 or Su9, most would chose the latter. It´s because we want modules that can be replicated with such accuracy that we are all here, why we enjoy this sim. The reason you are here is because of that, not because you want to fly imaginary aircraft, and if that´s what you want, then you ended up in a wrong place I am afraid. We don´t settle down for dumbed down, or imaginary stuff, we prefer the difficult realistic stuff. So no, this sim exists for the sole purpose of realism. As to you´r argument of $$, I already told you that if they wanted to become rich, they could have created Super Mario or what, and cash in money on a phone game. There are two points: 1 - ED has admitted themselves that they do DCS for fun, the real money lie in military contracts, we are nothing compared to them. We give them in total what you tip once to a waitress in a restaurant. Yup, DCS is just because they want, but we probably barely account for their energy bills over at ED´s HQ in Moscow. 2 - If you were here since the start, or basically even the time where we had only FC, Ka50 and even when A10C came out, these modules were the only modules for years. Only in the recent time, did we start pumping out 1-2 modules every year, which btw. is crazy, considering how much work it is to create a single module (because realism, finding reliable info and creating it in a virtual airspace). Notice how many subcontractors have gone in cooperation with ED, before there was only ED, after that ED and Belsimtek, for a long time. Now we have 7-8 subcontractors. But all this thanks to the sims renowned reputation. If they screw it now, that might be a blow to their most loyal community who paid for Ka50 twice, just to support them, and show gratitude with a great module. (3) - I get that ED wants to get paid for their cockpit upgrade, but rather release that as a cheaper update that you can buy, maybe with some smaller fixes here and there and I will gladly buy it. But at least we got a realistic helicopter that exists. Not that they run an imagined version just to collect 60$ on something that isn´t even out there... Rather a 20$ cockpit upgrade and save themselves a lot of time. The negative development with this is that @Chizh confirmed that there will be BS2 and BS3 as two separate modules, but in 2.5. As to 2.6, it´s unknown what will happen. Potentially we are talking about losing a realistic Ka50 #25 that will not be supported in the future because it´s a lot of work to maintain them both from update to update, and so, only the most recent version will survive. Ka50 #25 that we have right now is the HERITAGE of this sim. It is authorised by Kamov with their licence for a Quality Product. Ka50 and A10C are the longstanding trademarks of this sim. And all of sudden, we talk about losing what is the pillar of this sim. Sure you will be able to use it, but with update 2.5 and nothing newer, forget multiplayer, forget support (new OS systems?), forget all the updates with regards to weather, climate, maps, whatever... That´s why we fight for it now!

Our Ka50 #25 (#15) is originally from April 1990, and yes she was upgraded afterwards. Also, our Ka50 existed in a serial production variant, but since it was decided that Ka50 would be made a two seater, our Ka50 #25 went along to be testbed for systems that would later be implemented on Ka52, such as for example Vitebsk, BKO, and many other ones. There were also a lot of current systems testing as well as basic tests on newer cockpit layouts. To know these things, you have to read Cyrillic and read Russian documents, there is basically zero to none info in English about Ka50. On our Russian side, we have much info on it and it´s progress. You are wrong about the Ka50 with glass cockpit, the only and only Ka50 to receive glass cockpit was Ka50 #18, and that was in early 1990´s. The glass cockpit was very much a test primarily for what would later be Ka52. A proposed new generations avionics suite and system. There were no other Ka50´s that had a glass cockpit. Also, Ka52 production was solidified before 1996, the first helicopter was already rolled out that year. At this point it was known that Ka50 was to be a testbed for systems for Ka52, and not a operational weapons system, not in the army (not airforce) anyways. Serial production of Ka52 started in 2008, so where you got the info from that there was a Ka50 with glass cockpit back then, I don´t know, but it´s false. Also, I might as well mention that counter to what many people in the west believe, there is a misunderstanding as to why Ka52 was chosen as the final attack helicopter from Kamov, and why the Ka50 venture didn´t go any longer. There are many false beliefs, e.g. that it was because there was too much workload for a single pilot to cope with the current systems it had onboard that the Ka50 became a two seater. It´s wrong. The reason why Ka50 didn´t progress any further was because of future systems and upgrade capabilities, along with changing tactics within the army. As with any military project, one looks at the potential of an airframe and considers possible upgrades in the future. Kamov proved with Ka50 that the automatization was at the point where it could relieve the "gunner" of duty. It all could be handled by the pilot, and indeed the psychological stress-tests proved that the pilot of a Ka50 had no higher stress-level than a frontline fighter/bomber aircraft pilot. However, with regards to future upgrade potential of the airframe (it was known that more systems would come), as well as changing tactics, it was considered practical to change the helicopter to a two seater such that the aircraft could adapt to now an evident change in military doctrine, and upcoming systems-upgrades to Ka52. It´s a side note, but an important one, as it seems that many believe the demagogy spread by the internet. ;) As to discount, we have neither been told or given any estimates on the Russian forum, nor here, thus unknown. All we know is; "Heavily discounted price", whatever that means.

I am aware of that, and participate there as well. But no, it´s not about my dissatisfaction heard. Choice has been made by ED, but time will show where this all goes. I for sure hope they don´t make this a trend. :thumbup:

This is not a online game, no we don´t talk about "balance" here, or fair unfair. This is a matter of realism and nothing else. Also, when it´s about creating fantasy-modules, if it´s once accepted, it can become a trend. Now you only need a company that will create the TIE fighter and Han´s Millennium Falcon. No, that takes us first and foremost the wrong way, and second of all, it attracts the wrong kind of people, those who seek something between Ace Combat and DCS. At this point, ED shouldn´t be lenient to what people think or want, rather create something real. It´s maybe not the most lucrative business model, but if money is all they cared about, then they should have made CSGO 2.0, or Battlefield 6. The market for such realistic sims is niche, and typically has been unavailable to the average people, because who bothers to read 6-700+ pages of manual before jumping into a plane and failing again and again until they learn. The more average minded people come, the more requests there are for modern modules that are made to the PFM-standard but with simple systems-modelling. That or asking for types of modules that never existed (like BS3, and although all of the systems that it probably will have, have been tested on our Ka50 #25, they were never there at the same time, making BS3 land in a grey zone. It had all the systems in it at some point, but not all of them at the same time). And this is basically dumbing down of the simulators aspirations as to being "as realistic as we can get it". So no, I am totally against this. I haven´t participated in the forums before BS2, and I was here since before even DCS, when it was just FC and LOMAC, that´s even before BS1. I see many new people join here that barely bought one module, and are getting pissed at it not flying like their Ace Combat plane, and wanting to change everything. Wanting better weapons, modern cockpits and everything, because they cannot destroy everything after 5 min of owning the module. They want to have Lightening II tgp, ugroza, and many other systems "just because it could have been done IRL if Kamov wanted to". With that logic, we should be asking driving sims like Assetto Corsa to have flying cars, just because we have flying cars, and we could make them if we really wanted to IRL... Yeah stupid logic... It´s great to welcome new people, but try to better understand the community before you recommend your awesome changes, cause we are here from long before and for a reason ;) The point of the matter is, I wouldn´t mind to pay for an updated cockpit like from BS1 to BS2 (and some other things, but still). I love the updated Ka50 cockpit, but that keeps it still realistic and we have pictures of Ka50 #25 depicting the exact Ka50 model we have. Although some systems are classified, we at least don´t have anything that was NOT there. Matter of the fact is, BS2 is the best helicopter in the world (Ka50/52), but the variant we have does have it´s weaknesses in ultra-modern battlefield (post 2010), so sit down and learn what you can and cannot do. But atleast we fly the #25 and not something that never was there to begin with. It´s a demagogy.

We have the Ka50 #25 (Former #15). Here are the pictures of the the real Ka50 that our Black Shark is modelled on: https://walkarounds.ru/index.php?/category/aviation-ru-kamov-ka-50 Our Ka50 is from April 1990, is the 5th Ka50 built and was named #15 (Bort number, later renamed #25). It would become the standard for mass production. The Ka50 that we will get, BS3, is a semi-fantasy venture (no single Ka50 had all the equipment at the same time) into a 2003 version of Ka50. ;) Also, one could hope they will keep the two variants alive, esp. for us who are purists (realism 100%). It would be best to have the two variants separate, but it also means 2x updating. We will see what the final decision will be.

This is not a thread about what Kamov could have or should have done, so throw that logic away. This is a flight sim that focuses on realism, as far as it is achievable. We receive airframes that are truthfully represented based on their actual counterparts, because enough info is available on them. And this is the problem with this new BS3. It´s that such a version has never existed. We let the fantasy get in the way of realism. With the reasoning being presented here, and rather weak arguments, we should have AH-64 because educated guesses, even though much info is confidential on it and it´s systems... This is not Ace Combat, here we hopefully have a more mature community that understands that the aircraft we receive are based on reality with all the capabilities and limitations of their real life counterparts (and that because authenticity drives us all to this sim, not possible projections). In this case, all the Ka50´s were pretty much test-beds with 4 units that were production-ready concepts. But they varied in systems, and not one had IRL all the systems we are getting now baked in one single Ka50 airframe. Go and ask Belsimtek for Igla and AtakaV on Mi8 because other variants of Mi8 have it. I mean if one really wanted, it could have been made to work IRL. No, no and no! Wrong simulation to make such crap in. We as a community are interested in authenticity of our aircraft, not projections of what if we take this and that and mold it into something. Fri13, your arguments are rather weak here, and tbh, until we see pictures of the very same cockpit containing all these systems, this is pretty much a fantasy venture. Otherwise, with this logic, go and propose the US army and upgrade to their Apache: Aim120C with wiring for all the pylons. This because Aim120C exists, Ah-64D exists, and it has a radar, so it could be made to work with the aiming and guidance for Aim120C, if one wanted to... Or propose R77 to Russian army with our Mi28 or Ka52. Imagine, it could do BVR combat... I am totally against such crap! We fly older aircraft here in the community and enjoy the difficulty (MiG21bis on MP servers against F15/F16/F18´s), but as I am a B**** for realism, I just cannot agree with a non-existent Ka50 with systems that we know very little about. Least of all, that we merge multiple versions into one. There is a reason our Mirage 2000C is an Interceptor and not a merge of the capabilities of D (ground attacker) and N (Nuclear Strike), just to mention an example. About the only good argument for this, is the fact that they were almost all testbeds and prototypes, and not fully complete production-ready aircraft. But even with this argument, it´s just not what this community values. Screw flying sharks with lasers strapped to their heads, it´s the realism! We have a fantastic Ka50 modelled after #25 with the same capabilities. It´s awesome to know what it would be like IRL on a battlefield, whether you stick to the opponents of the era, or run a ultra-modern scenario with it. Every aircraft has it´s positives and negatives, although Ka50 has practically on positives. What we take pride in here in DCS is that we FLY the #25, and not a mix of what ifs.

We need pilot bodies everywhere, esp. with VR.

Shark is nobody´s B, it´s the Devil himself. The point is, from the design of any helicopter, plane or land unit for that matter, typically, the higher you go, the more power you have. And so, any helicopter, although it thrives in a contested area, it requires that you fly tactically, and hide, pop-up, and hide. Also, in such scenarios, you would have friendly airforce coverage, or at the very least, be within something like S-300/SA2/SA3 or there around. That is, you are under the umbrella of air-air defences, while being able to take out what no one else can on such battlefield (make no mistake, that would be no area for even such formidable CAS aircraft as Su25/A10 to be in). So if you want a realistic scenario, you need to be realistic about how you make it, also, know that SU27 doesn´t need to find you with it´s radar, we got something called datalink. If awacs, or any other enemy aircraft spots you, they all know about you. Ka50 is unbeatable, if you know how to fly her, and make correct tactical decisions. It´s good that you know how to fly and employ her in a basic way, now you need to add the element of tactics and decision-making based on your intel. If you know there are enemy aircraft in the area, then wait for them to be taken out first. Otherwise, if you go into such an area, it´s fully possible, but then you need to keep looking outside all the time. And since you got no RWR, it means you pretty much could be fired at outside the visual range, and still not know about the missile. The keywords here, mountains/obstacles/mud-diving ;)

Russia first and foremost is not in Europe, that as a country. But part of our country is within the Europe. The border of Europe as a continent ends by the Ural mountains in the east, meaning that Moscow is within the European continent. In any case, US did first help Pakistan with a improved design of the chinese J7 (copy of MiG21 pf/pfm), but due to sanctions by late 1980´s the project for the first upgrade, Sabre II stopped. Then a private venture between Grumman and China (Chengdu) was initiated to create the Super 7. Very shortly after the start, Grumman left the project by sanctions, this time put on China. From here on China and Pakistan (ought to be said that the pakistani technology is not that far, so this is primarily a project where China/Russia and US teaches Pakistan how to build a plane, and Chinese serv them their electronics and digital suite) worked together to create the JF17 until MiG was asked to join in with their expertise, support as well asked about the unused plans of MiG23. The effect is a pretty much a multinational light fighter project which uses something from everyone. Every nation that participated has left some work on the airframe. As to UK being in there, that is not something confirmed by any sources I have read. UK isn´t mentioned at all, so no, they didn´t take part in the project. As to the specifics of who made what for the plane, besides the obvious: Airframe generally has something from everyone, but bears most resemblance to MiG23. Russian RD93 engine, Chinese radar, weapons and for sure digital suite. US help on airframe, and Mk. unguided bombs. Not sure how much Pakistan contributed to this, it certainly didn´t provide the major components as it´s industry is not that far as to produce them. But they certainly did have their own role in how they wanted to have the cockpit arranged and otherwise the spec. they required.

First and foremost, congratulations on a first and fantastic module. I like very much the Russian and Chinese tech mixed in one plane. It makes for a very interesting and well modelled module. Again, fantastic job done :thumbup: There is really only one thing I kind of miss in VR, and that is a pilot body. Is it in the plans to add a one for the plane? Would be absolutely awesome to have a Chinese/Pakistani pilot body :thumbup:

Any unguided rocket we have is accurate, but it´s more meant as a weapon for assaulting positions, i.e. you pretty much wreck havoc with air-launched artillery. Ugroza would add a different element to these rockets, one of the more precise nature, where one rocket = one enemy (car, truck, apc, etc...) dead. It would be not only a new weapon, but new tactics. I have always wanted these rockets, as a substitute to the normal unguided rockets, simply because of the variety of tactics that it would introduce. I have never read about Ugroza on Ka50, but if ED can get info on this, I see no problem with it. I support it. Though realism first.

It´s the long side that determines which one is selected. It´s the same with nose gear brake lever.

By historical, and that is for a completely different reason. Technically it is possible, the reason they didn´t do it so much in the Afghanistan was because of the rather long distances that had to be flown (fuel was priority) and also that it was high up in altitude (mountainous areas) meaning they had to offload themselves as much as possible. Also the tactics dictated that it wasn´t needed because Mi24´s and Mi8´s would always fly together. Manual page 323, also shown in the loadout menu and the station selector: "four 20-tube B8V20-A rocket launchers (Fig.11.13) (the weapons control system support up to 6 launchers)" It wasn´t used in the RF, but it certainly was possible without any issues. But this is a very heavy loadout, I doubt many missions required a single Mi8 be that heavily loaded. If Mi8 flew assault missions alone, then it´s possible they would utilize all 6 hardpoints. I wonder if any foreign countries used a configuration of 6*S8 pods all at once. It´s great that you could test this. That means there is an obvious bug that needs to be fixed. Nice ;)