3WA

We don't have playable infantry right now ( and really not much in the way of infantry at all ), but to me the Mi-8 is more of a cargo helicopter, where the Mi-24 is like a flying IFV. So, personally, I do see a difference.

Well, that answers that. Apache vs. BS3 is going to be really interesting to watch now.

I'm not sure. I don't know what is calculating the path of the objects. GPU or CPU? I'm betting CPU. Yeah, I'd rather just buy a new computer and have it simulated completely.

Number of objects spawned. An age old problem in any sim like game, especially fps games I've played. If the sim doesn't cheat, and actually spawns every bullet or object, well, that all takes CPU time to track each and every object. Then also, to calculate where it hit on the target, and calculate what damage was done. So, if your firing an M-61 20mm cannon at 6000 to 6600 rounds per minute ( a little over a 100 rounds a second ), you can imagine how much load that is on your CPU. Some cluster bombs carry over 200 bomblets in them of varying types, some with physics that will be hard to calculate. This is why we have to have high end CPU's to play DCS. Maybe DCS is cheating on some weapons with just an "effects" area, and not cheating on others, where they actually spawn every round.

My thing is, I think ED does so much better work on flight physics than those "other" sims. So I'm happy to see any aircraft come into DCS. Yes, DCS has some things lacking, but I've flown in nearly every sim there is, and DCS so far seems to have the best physics. Probably why it takes them so long to make an aircraft.

THIS.

Oh, I think all this helicopter development and further interest in the ground will drive to them to much greater things.

Yep, it's slow moving here.

Lol, I must REALLY confuse somebody.

Long edit to my above post.

This is EXACTLY what you need. Then, you can release what most people want, and those who want restrictions can make all the restrictions they want. You need some kind of script language to do it, so it can be very exact and cover everything in the World. Yes. This. Exactly. See, here's the problem. I don't disagree with everything your saying. It's just that you are nitpicking it to death. Yes, some of you are ex-military, pilots, people who have really studied these aircraft in-depth, and we understand. But you have to realize that 99.9999% of the people here don't know any of this stuff, and most of them don't care. They don't care about tiny differences in software versions. They are coming in from Arma, War Thunder, different FPS games, Crysis, etc. And they're thinking "oooh! A cool new flight simulator!" These are newbs who are just starting to learn about REAL aircraft. There hasn't been a REAL flight sim since Open Falcon, so most of these 20 year old types probably have never even seen a real flight sim. So, there's the other side of the extreme. We don't want to lock these guys out, as DCS needs to sell to these people to keep on surviving. I've played Open Falcon. I come from Frugal's World, many years ago. I love listening to you guys, and each day, I learn something new. Very fascinating discussion about the APKWS, and I can see some of your points, but I also see the other side that wants to allow it. I think this is one of those things that should be allowed because there is no set time in this World. I could host missions in 2035 if I wanted to (hopefully, I'll have my new prosthetic body by then). By that time, APKWS would be on everything, or have long been replaced, and I would be flying relics of a past age. APKWS does not need Software, or any kind of change to the cockpit, etc. Therefore, anything that can carry a hydra pod, in a time period beyond when APKWS was released, should be able to carry it. There needs to be a scripting language set up for servers, so that they can totally lock out anything that is not realistic. Also, if your going to do something that is unrealistic, like the 6 mavs on the Falcon, on stations that can't handle them, there needs to be check marks in the options to guide the new people into understanding that this is not realistic, and it should be an option, that by default is not checked, so they start out realistically, and get used to realism. There really should be this in the A-10C, as carrying six mavericks on it is not realistic either ( It can do it, but you'll end up burning the tires with mavs 5 and 6). Like your rudder trim option in the Ka-50. Yeah, I know the Ka-50 doesn't really have a rudder trim, but I use it anyway because it is SOOO much better with it, and I personally think it is an oversight not to have been put in. I hope DCS will stick as close to realism as possible ( I think Fri13 said it best above ), because I don't want things to go crazy, but I also want this game to sell to as many people as possible, and literally, one day, become a highly realistic ARMA sim (Air, Land, Sea). In the end, I think DCS needs to completely open up modding. Not lock it down like you are doing now. Modding is something that REALLY sells a game / sim. Just look at ARMA. Modding is what sold that game. Also, release your terrain editor, so people can make small, very detailed islands. This will increase your sales of the helicopters. The large lands right now are great for the jets, but lack complex, masking terrain for helicopter operations ( and also tanks and other vehicles for that matter ). As for some people saying you guys are having problems with the Russians, War Thunder and other sims / games have modeled the Ka-52 with no complaints from anyone. It would really be great to see that module come to life, as it will be the primary enemy of the Apache. ED has to remember. So far, I would say over 90% of people play this game offline, on their own computers. On the servers, a lot of it is "air quake". Very few players are on the reality servers, because to be a good pilot, you have to study diligently. I've been flying the Shark since it came out, and even I still don't feel I know half the buttons in that cockpit. I'm hoping to get the time to study it in detail one day. Kind of shows the people who sales are going to.

Hmm, I don't have this module, but one wonders if the problem is the same as in all the fps games. That not all the bullets are actually being "spawned". Say, your minigun shoots at 4000 rounds per minute. That's around 66 to 67 bullets a second. Now all those bullets have to be tracked by the game, at bullet speed, to the target, far away. I know in a lot games, the miniguns are fake, and only a few of the bullets are actually spawned per second. I did an experiment once in the old Unreal Tournament game by modding a shotgun in a heavy mod called Infiltration. This game didn't cheat on anything. I made the shotgun shoot 800 pellets at once just for a laugh. Target was about 10 feet away. When I shot, the whole game froze for about 3 seconds. Gives you an idea of how much it takes to track bullets. It would be nice to have an answer from ED on this, as a lot of Western planes carry the M61 minigun. It's rate of fire is somewhere around 6000 to 6600 rounds per minute. As for the 7.62mm round, it should kill infantry with one to two hits. They may be wearing body armor, but it takes Level III++ to stop the least penetrating 7.62x51,54 and Level IV to stop 7.62 API.

Here's the launch trailer for the Channel Map.

Pretty sure my iglas could reach him before he could get me. Vhiker, he would kill me before my worthless shkval could ever get a lock on him.

Well, the conversation mainly boiled down to whether they should be allowed on the production year of the DCS Apache (now very much in question ). And since the DCS Apache seems to be somewhat of a hybrid of a couple of years, there was huge debate. People like me debated it should be regulated by whatever year the mission is being hosted, because as far as my side of the debate can tell, APKWS can be used by any aircraft as long as it can carry a Hydra pod. No update to software or cockpit is needed. I think most of those against it play on the servers and are afraid it will be spammed to death ( can see their point, but 90% of people don't play online ). And besides, the jet jockeys spam AMRAAMS everywhere anyway. Also, some people are deeply into American doctrine of whether it was ever allowed or not. I'm like you. I prefer manual rockets usually, as I like to use them close in ( 20 meters or less ) just like a harder hitting gun. I can see APKWS would be good if you were taking on something like a SPAAS, and had the time to lock a laser on it. Caught by surprise, you're only chance would be a fast manual shot. Though that's doubtful in the simple, flat DCS terrain.

I don't think the CEII is a failure. Some of the groups here are EXTREMELY small. Everyone whose been here a while knows patience is key. And I'd still take DCS over that "other" sim. DCS has at least somewhat of a World below. Not just a visual fake like the other one. Hell, I've been waiting for 13 years for the Ka-50 to get Iglas. There's been HUGE debates over it. I can wait a little longer. They're coming. And actually, I'm hoping a certain group that makes really well simulated civilian airliners comes over to DCS. That would be awesome!

I laugh at people like you. You remind me of some garbage a guy in another thread said. You types always come up with the most ridiculous comparisons. Show me where DCS stuck lasers on a plane. You're desperation is showing. I'll take DCS any day over a sim that features a half ass plane flying over a Google Earth map.

I actually wouldn't mind a drivable bus. I could load up squads in it, and drive them to different places.

THIS. Some people can't understand that is what it takes to make money and survive. Remain niche, and you will soon be gone.

I dismiss you, because you are now WAY off course, and obviously not listening to what the other side is saying. Now your just spewing BS and venom. Probably trying to get the thread shut down, because you are losing the argument so hard.

Lol, exactly.

Supposedly, if I remember right, all the info came from Kamov ( stuff never made public ), and pilots that were familiar with it. It was a simulation of one of the real copters ( or so we were told ), but it was just one of the many variational experiments. They are trying to guess what it would have been by looking at the Ka-52, and making educational guesses. As far as I know, maybe Kamov is still guiding their hand. It will be a better balance to the Apache when it gets the iglas, but the Apache is still going to rule the land. It's even near suicide going up against AI Apaches in game now, with BS2. The 4 Cobras in the "Battle" mission are near impossible to defeat with 1 BS2 and AI wingman. The Shkval is so bad at locking air targets that you end up giving up, throwing switch to manual targeting, and just blast like crazy at them with the 30mm and maybe even a few S-8's, hoping to damage them enough that they have to retreat. That's why we are so desperate for igla's on the BS.

You should ask @Glowing_Amraam He would know. He does all the PR videos.

Well, for one thing, BS3 is a TOTALLY different argument. I've said many times, I have always considered that module as somewhat of a fantasy to begin with. The Black Shark was never put into service. It was an experiment ( I think only 12 were made ), and each helicopter differed from the next one, some VASTLY. In the end, the last few made were torn apart and made into Ka-52s. And BS3 is an educated guess at what the Black Shark would have eventually been made into had it been put into service. Though, personally, I'm sure it would have received RWR and FLIR to bring it up to the same standards as Western helicopters, like the Apache.

Lol, someone's losing the argument. When you start screaming, calling people MF'ers, and quoting things no one ever said, no one is going to take you seriously anymore.