sublime

dont see it at all?/////////////////

ill give HB my money and a testicle for an A6 module.. since you miss them heres some pix I took on CV65 in 1995 right before they retired https://imgur.com/gallery/TT2qlsn

idk - that looks correct to me?

tired of hitting update lol

from a source I read from this forum about hinds fighting AH1s it said US pilots found Hinds couldnt hover with their wings at all really, and special models with drastically reduced wings had to be made for it to hover. the pilot (us) added it was the most fun helo he ever flew and to fly it you had to act like you were flying an airplane.. and a helicopter. it sounds awesome to fly the hovering thing was just an example in general. Here then let me be more specific. if you have a helo that is very hard to hover, and we dont have an AI gunner to direct the radio guided missile... I mean jesus sounds like a recipe for disaster, a lot of work, and forced unrealistic tactics. further lets say the hind hovers and the source was wrong. doesnt matter, to me, if the russian military (which after all kept autoloaders just to field more tanks by not needing a 4th crewman) decided the Mi24 NEEDED 2 people, im firmly convinced that yes, you needed 2 people. Just because one could fly it in an emergency... well so can USAF 2 seaters. USN planes dont have pilot controls in the back USAF do.. just because a F15 E or F4 could be flown from the rear seat doesnt mean they ever were intended to be flown in their roles as single seaters. Indeed the fact the F15 started single seat and the strike variant added a seat, to me speaks volumes about that plane and whats needed. But TLDR - DCS is complex enough as it is, especially if youre really trying to fly realistically. forcing people to do all the work will sadly make me not purchase the module. Ill probably purchase and constantly bitch about it if they dont make it MP multicrew. but unless/until theres a 'jesterski' I will not be flying a hind. im also curious, will we be using ataka, falanga, shturm, or vikhrs? all have been used.. I believe the ataka (or shturm? which ? ) was designed for the hind but took so long to come out they used the Falanga until about 1980 TBH i think itd be cool if they made all of them optional, however I can see the falanga being X'd out because they almost certainly werent using them when the model we have was introduced. a Hind D Id argue falangas would be a necessity for correct modelling.

ty so you select stored alignment again so its unlit and bang?

reading this I cant help but wonder how this would play out slightly more modern - as in like with the E Germany modified hinds that had R60s for small aircraft etc, and I think by the 80s the US was putting sidewinders on apaches at least.. reading your link though thanks! I wonder if the germany border incident cobra pilot was a Nam vet. very interesting the soviets concluded the helo that could turn tighter would win - considering that meant in their estimation the cobra was superior for helo on helo fighting. i really dont know how the hind flies irl, but one would think their fast speed would be a huge ace up their sleeve, and im surprised the sov test didnt state the obvious - that seeing the enemy helos first seems far more important than all the other factors

and though they were third party the gazelle and hawk come to mind as well. unfortunately because the mi24 is like.. I swear to god, if it talked Id probably try to f*** one, I love them so much hahaha... but as much as I love them, and as fond as memories are of that mid 90s mi24 game after experiencing multicrew done right in dcs (f14) I refuse to willingly go backward on a weapons system specifically designed for 2 men to use. And I play single player more than MP still, to me an AI jesterski is VERY important. I dont know what to make of ED about this subject. On the one hand they made a very bold IMO claim that their AI gunner would be 'much more sophisticated than jester' (That boggles my mind, if you get down to brass tacks theres A LOT of jester commands and stuff, and there still need to be several more really bad like IFF, lgb etc) but THEN ED goes on later and says something like 'it wont be available until late early access' which broke my heart when I read it. and now we are talking about it, Im curious as well - did they mean *MP multicrew will come later* or the AI gunner? Ill give ED a shot if they have a AI gunner and people show hes good. If they mean both the AI gunner and multicrew, theyre going to have to prove it to me, and I dont mean any disrespect but it is what it is. Furthermore than some trust issues is the fact that after seeing the F14 jester in action, and knowing that the game makers now *can* do this its a question of will - Im simply *not willing* to play or fly games that are as realistic as possible but want me to man 2 or 4 or 5 positions. No, no more. Ill happily fly single seats where appropriate, like the excellent Jf17 and the EF2000 will be awesome, but Im very concerned, and thus obnoxious to some, about this issue with the Mi24. Itll just be too much for me otherwise and ruin the fun. Itll require hovering to use atgms usually, and other stuff that wouldnt happen IRL, I can name 50 other things a single person flying it would do diff than 2, and Im just not willing to sacrifice that anymore, especially knowing that 2 years ago a company associated with ED made a fully capable second man AI for the F14. Its a different air frame and helos are a lot different, I also am not a coder I admit. However to my mind its all moot, after the success of the F14 especially if ED was going to do the Mi24 IMO they would have been very conservative and not forward looking to go 'thumbs down' on ai multicrew and mp multicrew. and yes yes, no one need point out that this part sounds silly as they said theyll have it. my response is I get wary whenever I hear something is 'for later in EA' or 'not until release' because the last 7 years on and off with DCS Ive seen some bold developer statements that melted into literally nothing, like you cant even read the posts anymore. /end rant (congrats if you read this stream of conciousness!)

oo thx im excited to read this

Fair nuff... however give me a day or two, as Im almost certain Ive seen Mi24As with Soviet stars, not DRA markings. of course theres always the strong possibility the soviets just manned DRA aircraft. i wouldnt be surprised.

so youre saying that barrel button thing where you select waypoints to input etc? jesus christ I need to relearn some basics. What does it say? im gonna look at chucks guide and stuff again, but... Idk ill post again if I see it quickly. if you dont feel like explaining its cool too EDIT: ok so im looking at chucks. I got the pic of all the diff sides of the CAP barrel. I dont see any buttons that look like theyd be related, can you either point me to something that adresses this or try to briefly (or at length if you like lol) explain? See Ive learned to ignore the CAP except the nav stuff. the BIT is tests AFAIK, and the datalink I thought was mostly not usable in game along with the entire part of the barrel with messages for (Telex?).. so forgive me..

first- thx for detailed response brother ok .. yea Im familiar with the stored alignment box with the carrier, and I know how to set it up as well as RIO . So ground starts - They cant store data? I ask because what seems to regularly confuse me is the once in awhile I go MP and take off on land i hit 'own a/c' and the 'stored info' (not what its labelled) light under it lights up making me think 'oh this is already set up' but then I look at the TID and long and lat are 0's ... lol I can tell you that for sure on a carrier, fly the f14 on stable or unstable and if you start up and the carrier turns youre WPs will be off by a few miles. it wont be major but its enough to ruin say a LGB run. I like the explanation thanks, though i knew most of what you said I always like having procedure verified. if I could get you to myself for 2 hours id drive you insane with rio questions about minor ass details. for example in SP I noticed that jesters link 4 switch is always off! I turn it on. One thing I dont get - what would be the advantage or reasoning to NOT take a stored alignment and use a new one? Because if the carrier ever was gonna turn in the wind Id just chill for a few minutes and start her up. the stored alignment button seemed to make a normal fine alignment and also more quickly as its stored... So Im asking in what situation would I deliberately want to move my F14 so Jester cannot use the CAINS/WYPT alignment thing?

nvm logging out and in fixed.

was just curious. I dont have an emotional attachment to the squad. now theres some usaf squadrons i know my father was in that I feel more attachment too, but even then not really -shrug-

i always really liked it too.

well you cant control how fast the men get out but if you really wanted, helos are helos. hinds did drop spetznas sometimes now realistically a SOF insertion almost always should be cold. indeed, Ive read of times in VN that they pullled them immediately back... for SOF missions either way the VN UH1 method (but use your hip) is prolly the best method. this method is you fly in fast, and do a hard turn to slow and land fast, touch the ground VERY briefly, and gtfo. Theres variations on this, using corkscrews etc. Id go by this as a good starting point youll rarely be inserting troops though, but Itd probably be good landing practice anyways and its always important when inserting troops to land and leave quickly you and the troops are very vulnerable at this stage.

Ok. we seem to have major confusion now. i understand what youre saying, but Im certain I recall Mi24As were used in combat in afghanistan. I recall pix. Also I def saw warpac propaganda of exercises with A models being used... tho maybe I understand what you mean. is this like how theres 1 unit of BMP2Ms or (terminators I think theyre not 2ms anymore) and how theres a few su25ts floating around being actively used though they never were adopted? if so seems the soviet and russian militaries handle a lot very similarly for example.. hows this afghan boy walking by a destroyed A model.. ? https://images.app.goo.gl/yvceMXbFHhaoNm2NA this points to them being made and used.

multicrew doesnt mean solely MP to me to be clear. I cant speak for him, but I can sadly accept the hind if you cant fly 2 people though itd be a huge shame as my best mp experience ever has been 2 seating f14s. but no ai for gunner would be a deal breaker. I fly a lot of sp. and im a firm believer ( even firmer since the f14 with jester, where you are still limited, I cannot imagine without him) that if a military said 2 men are needed its unfair to send us in alone with 1 man, no ai support. Seriously you wont be able to fly the hind realistically in attack profiles, you wont be able to use the ATGMs to their full extent, its near endless why they *need* an ai gunner. jester is almost 2. for me itd be almost incompetent to not have a jester level ai gunner and iceman level ai pilot. 2. theres something to be said about letting these game companies 'off the hook' too much. how many times are we gonnna get announcements, have features slashed before release and not really say ****, then upon release be told x y and z will come.. and then they simply never do. or take like... 3 years (ridiculous) things change with games and coding ,but i do believe in responsibility and accounting. if things are iffy maybe dont promise them. some will poo poo my statement, but if features like multicrew are slashed/ pushed back, whats to say more wont. Hell whats to say that they dont EVER release multicrew (cough cough gazelle) or something? Remember the disaster that was the Hawk?

If its people holding it back, I wouldnt mind them releasing it w.o the human functionality. However I find it hard to believe thatd be the problem if a SP can already switch seats, as theyve gotten multicrew on a few modules now and this should have been in mind from day 1. No AI gunner is a total deal breaker for me however. DCS is detailled enough that again I feel if a military deemed a plane NEEDED a 2nd person to fight correctly, its insane to ask us to fly the same alone.

+1000000000 SAME

+1 also Id ask the community, well unless the people who are against multicrew or totally dont care, to include these remarks and demand that we want multicrew to ED. make it clear another gazelle (Heavy promises, crap delivery ,multicrew promised took years and never happened as promised. huey multicrew... I love the uh1 module but it rlly should have had multicrew) We ARE THE CONSUMERS. they would be making barbie dolls if the entire forum decided they wanted barbie dolls. If people keep saying its unnecessary or they dont care... we may keep seeing BS like the gazelle or multicrew (even with AI) delayed endlessly until its been years. Seriously I love the mi24 but its 2020, if ED announced now they arent making an AI gunner/multicrew I would NOT buy then. Indeed, when they let slip the AI gunner wont be present at first they lost my money for a prepurchase. To me, after the F14, its non negotiable. this game is VERY complex. to the point where we use many real life procedures etc. To me then, if a military deemed it totally necessary for a plane (f14, mi24, whatever) to have 2 men then they're NOT superfluous in DCS and by now should start being added. This will also just grow as problem, an apache without gunner??? What if they made an a6? if anyones ever seen an a6 cockpit the bombardier has his head in a shroud literally when looking at radar. etc etc. I firmly believe - if the military felt the plane needed a guy to operate the weapons AND navigate, than we need at the minimum some AI gunner or something. Jester belongs to HB but theyre so close to ED, I know ED wants their own AI for this, but if it comes to yes or no for multicrew Ill be highly disappointed if we dont even get an obvious jester copy even called jesterski.

really.. no interest??

Ive found HA and a couple of the navigation WPs to not show on radar or as a flyable to wp however I quickly learned as a rio to ask for wp coords in briefing or to write down even though the 14 only has 3 why? first you can 'recycle' those 3 endlessly by putting in new coords. 2nd these are IME the WPs that are really useful as they show as marked WPs etc FP, IP, ST, WP 1-3, Home Base, and I think maybe thats it... I could be misremembering but... I doubt it. the Hostile area, and a couple of other ones are more for real life stuff IME also you can use these for anything. ST doesnt have to be a target. its just a waypoint marker.

or ever was. my memory sucks, and I smoke a ton of pot. however, fine, it was BST not Razbam. switch the name the story is the same. if you were here you remember : they announced A LOT of projects ( im prolly exagerrating on 10 but it was too many ) and now all are on permanent hold. I mean seriously : the AH1 was announced before the F4. its been ' on the way' since b4 the F14 was even announced or started, the viper, the f18, half the ww2 stuff. we didnt even have ww2 content packs then. the f4 was announced a year later or so in 2015 or 2016. I distinctly remember this as my father flew them and I REALLLY wanted in on a F4. plus I had the mig 21. I like the older jets, theres a sweet spot for me from the 60s to late 80s. ANNNYYYWAYS... news was always thin.. then none ... and then earlier this year I read here that someone read the permanent hold on the russian side. i really should start going around on the russian side with google translate - theyre getting way better info than we are

I know how to do a cold start. its been 18 months since i did the tutorial, gimme a break willl ya"?? I didnt see you 'already tell me dude' sorry yes Ive seen 'fine alignment' on the menu, but IME telling jester to do ANYTHING during startup fcks him up, AND I assumed that if I didnt specify and was simply patiently waiting the startup alignment would go as fine as possible. So if you do a regular cold start its a fine alignment then? or do I have to specify? 2nd beyond the incidents you mention also if youre flying DCE or some other stuff the carrier will turn into the wind and this *Will* minorly fck up alignment, the solution is to wait until the carriers no longer turning **if the alignment is stored, i.e. from the carrier, ***what level alignment are we getting? any idea ? *