Jump to content

Murderous

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thanks for clearing that up Peyoteros. I'll have to look up the Kh25ML. I never paid too much attention to beam riders...learned something new today:)
  2. Missles look for a specific pulse rate frequency of the laser designator. (PRF) Although, it isn't provided what the actual frequency is in positions 1 2 and 3 it's assumed they are different. When a Vikhr comes off the rail, it will look for the code that you have selected in your aircraft. So, your wingman has to have the same code selected as you do for his missle to look for the right PRF. My question is, since the Vikhr is a beamrider, if it's not launched from MY aircraft, it seems impossible to be guided by anybody else since it won't be in the "control zone." So, is a remote laser designation possible? It seems the Vikhr doesn't look for a laser spot, just the boundaries of this "control zone."
  3. Yeah still battling through the AI. Engage Mission and Rejoin command works well...they will stand off for that one. It is hard though, trying to get them to attack a specific type of vehicle instead of wasting missles on the soft stuff.
  4. Ok, I've searched a bit and really haven't found any threads bringing up the problem with wingmen and standoff engagements. I can't seem to get my wingmen to maintain position alongside myself or at least outside of the enemy's systems. Most of the time, the AI will fly right over the target and become endlessly engaged defensive until he's dead. Does anybody have any technique or procedure to get around this quirk? *scenario* I find 3 columns of tanks, bmps, and MLRS. defended by AAA. I datalink respective columns to wingmen...we are at 5km out. I tell each wingman to engage datalink target by type... Wingmen fly into the engagement zone of the target columns and....die. Is there a command or a technique to keep them at 3-5 KM out? Oh, and to the DCS team...truly unbelievable job with v1.0!!! Thanks for tuning out the endless "release it now!" and delivering a product that works first time around. (If this wingman thing is the biggest gripe I have, thats a good sign.) Murd
  5. I understand what you mean...to an extent. I don't really understand how the yaw control problems work out. At what speed do you keep the rotor in the KA-50 during autos? Single rotor birds also have a tremendous increase in rotor speed (without collective application) during the flare as well...so that appears the same. I hope someone can shed some light on this subject for me.
  6. That looks pretty much spot on gents! As long as the rotors didn't actually stop IN game, I think you've nailed it. Just to clarify, on approach and certainly during the flare, the rotor should be spinning at 100% of it's regualr RPM. After you settle through the flare and begin applying collective, the rotor will bleed off to below 80% within about 2-5 seconds depending on the aircraft and weight. Once you are that low on RPM, the rotor isn't really efficient anymore...so you don't want to balloon up on your flare. Otherwise, thats a long fall from 30 or so feet! Edit: Oh I am basing all this info on single rotor airframes. Now that I'm thinking about it, having 6 main rotor blades may actually speed up that rotor RPM loss by a ton! Now I've got 1 more thing I can't wait to try in this sim.
  7. So correct me if I am wrong, but I think the answer you were looking for was trees are nothing more than a visual being. They do not react to weapon or aircraft contact with or through them. Aircraft/Ground sensors can also see right through them.
  8. KISS4LUNA- The top picture is just zoomed in a lot more. Notice the switches...the bottom picture is zoomed out more and visually covers the area just below (and including a little of ) the top picture.
  9. I do agree that the Army failed on the deployment. Also, any attack airframe is in a WORLD of trouble against MANPADS. Doesn't matter what country is flying them.
  10. To be more specific, the first accident (pilot error) was jumped upon by the media which in turn attracted public/political attention. The 2nd accident was merely a mechanical failure that unfortunately happened too soon after the first. For some reason, the US Army and Washington had decided to hype up the AH-64 deployment as some sort of "proving ground." Following the swarm of negative press the US was forced to withdraw the 64's before their mission was even clearly defined or had begun. That being said, I just don't see how a person can say it "failed" due to the environment it was in. In fact, it is precisely the environment the aircraft was designed for! BTW not flaming anybody, just wanted to argue a point that had not been mentioned. Edit: I am pretty sure the aviators flying those aircraft were proficient and trained for the conditions they were flying in. There are many other factors that could have caused the first crash, possible hypoglycemia, fatigue, or just simply spacial disorentation. These are key factors that many simmers simply take for granted.
  11. The AH-64 didn't fail in Yugoslavia, as somebody already stated, it never received a mission! Hard to accomplish a mission when politicians and blood thirsty media rip it from under your feet.
  12. The entire "which aircraft is better" argument here is pointless. IRL, you know who will win the fight between the KA-50 and the AH-64? The guy who sees the other guy first.
  13. Yes the Army has cut funding a couple years back. Freed up a couple of billion dollars for the rest of the Army. Why use an extremely complicated stealth helicopter against RPG's and SA-7's in the middle of the desert? Not to mention that anything with a processor greater than a calculator doesn't like ambient temperatures of over 50 degrees C. And I have NO idea what they based their flight model, avionics model, targeting systems or any of that stuff on...
×
×
  • Create New...