martinistripes

Would be great if ED released their new BS3 module and said something like, "This is our Ka-50 upgraded version. We've based it on serial #** that we had access to. It has all the same features, upgrades and capabilities as this particular helicopter."

Some would take every upgrade ED throws at them. They prefer to dominate, rather than simulate.

Sorry, it was my poor attempt at humour. :D I was just trying to point out that 'can it?' and 'did it?', are two different things.

If a little guy can have soft cuddly unicorn can a bloody large helicopter have them?! Yes it can. Same logic. :doh:

:lol: Guess what... that's not a Ka-50.

The Ka-50 we have 'now in game' isn't really fantasy though is it. All the systems we currently have are documented and you can see photos of. There was at one time, a Ka-50 that existed with the systems we currently have in DCS World. You can't say the same for an Igla on a 3rd pylon. No documentation, no photos, no evidence of it happening. Will be happy for someone to prove otherwise -then I can buy it without hesitation. I accept ED are making this though, and no doubt it'll make many people happy and generate some revenue for their efforts. I just won't use it or fly with others that use it. I'm fine with that. :thumbup:

Read post #6 in the same thread.

Me neither, although I'd like the improved defensive suite. So, if there's a toggle in the special tab that can disable the fantasy 3rd pylon wing, then... maybe. Will have to see how they go about doing this. But then multiplayer... I need to check every time I enter a server if they allow the Ka-50 fantasy version; not good. Imagine, you're flying on a server with the Ka-50 default version and receive an Igla from someone flying the fantasy version. Again, not good. The server restriction should ideally be for the 3rd pylon wing and not the whole Black Shark 3 module.

Exactly.

This is what we really need. It seems like at the moment DCS uses a simplified calculation like, before time HH:MM don't allow lock. After time HH:MM allow lock. Perhaps with HH:MM determined by the time of year. For this reason at dusk and dawn it's impossible to lock targets even when you have clear contrast on the shkval. This, and area of affect for HE and fragmentation so we don't need to get a direct hit to inflict damage on soft and lightly armoured targets. Just these changes alone would make the aircraft more potent.

In real life, it's not always a fair fight. Once we add a mythical/experimental feature to the Ka-50, what's to stop pilots of all other ED modules asking for the same? "The F-15 was once tested with XYZ. Why can't we have XYZ?" Would you like all aircraft to be given their experimental configurations? Where do you draw the line?

I think you misunderstood the joke. He's suggesting you're like Eddie Murphy, you're just not listening to everyone else here (some with a lot of inside knowledge!). Not that he refuses to listen to you. I think we've all listened to you now, and know already what your thoughts are on this. Best thing to do is just wait. We get what we get. Let's be happy the modules getting a fresh lick of paint. :thumbup:

Personally, I'd prefer to fly the aircraft as it was flown in Chechnya, or at the very least a configuration we have photographic and documented evidence of. I wouldn't want to fly a mythical fantasy version, even if it did make me dominate the battlefield. It's not always about winning, sometimes it's just nice to enjoy aircraft as they were, complete with their weaknesses. Fly missions that are realistic and achievable with the aircraft you want to use. Ka-52 would be great. Mi-24 will be great. :D

And this literally all we need to know. Now, to wait...

Interesting posts Fri13. I'd +1 you if we still had the reputation system. Would be great to get those fragmentation sleeves fixed.

We've had no confirmation of a third pylon yet and going by the above post, they must be fitted in place of the Vikhr (much to many's disappointment I'm sure). I can't imagine ED are going to let us fit them to a riveted fibreglass fairing. Anyway, we'll all know soon enough.

Thanks for this, I'll read through it later :thumbup:

"Ka-50 took part in the Russian Army's operations against separatists in the Chechen Republic during the Second Chechen War. In December 2000, a pair of production Ka-50s arrived to the area." -from the Ka-50 Wiki It was the first use of them in combat so they were, in a way, being tested. But they were production aircraft, that's not really the same as a prototype, is it? If they were deployed in a combat scenario, that's good enough. But the AA missiles? Should we now allow every tested experimental configuration of all other aircraft in DCS World? I don't really want to rain on anyone's parade here, because it's a bloody good parade! It's time and attention spent on a really great module; the great grandfather of all other modules. But what changed with the air-to-air thing? How come we've gone from, "Definitely no, you will not have air to air, it's not realistic" to "here, have some air-to-air capability if you like"?

I'd just like to know if we're flirting with fantasy with these new additions. I have huge respect for ED for their dedication in sticking (as close as is possible) to reality. Real aircraft that were used in service, not prototypes or testbeds. ED deserve my money, but I won't buy fantasy. I'll be buying the Mi-24 at full price.

Best news letter in ages! Looking forward to the update. Just curious, ED were always adamant they wouldn't be adding air to air missiles on the Ka-50 because although they were tested, they were never used in service. What's changed? Is it going to realistic for us to carry Iglas or not?

My kind of aircraft. Does this do anything that the Su-25T doesn't? In what situation would you use this instead of the Su-25T?

This is great news. Come May we'll have some decent choices. :)

Does anyone know what the fixed IPD is of the HP Reverb and what it's range is through software adjustment? I have IPD of 60mm. The IPD adjustment on my Vive goes down to 60.8mm minimum which is close enough but not ideal. Rift S is not an option being fixed at 64mm.

I want to ask, given the HP Reverb's total pixels, will we have a clearer image whilst running less pixel density within the software. If so, will this reduction in pixel density cancel out the resources needed to run a higher resolution display? At the moment I tend to use my Vive with around 1.4 or 1.5 pixel density. Is the Reverb likely to run at 1.0 (or even 0.9) whilst keeping a satisfactory image and frame rate?

Anyone using latest version of SteamVR motion smoothing? I tried it again. It's definitely improved but still some shimmering, especially in a helicopter with fast moving rotor shadows. Might be usable in a jet.