GreyStork

I'm afraid I can't quite agree with you. It's true that arriving on station is important in CAP missions, but we're not talking about a magnitude of seconds. In A/G, if you're five seconds late on your bomb run, shrapnel from your weapons will kill the guy who's coming in on his run right behind you - assuming he's on time. In order to minimize everyone's exposure to air defense, there is very little spacing, and hence very little margin for error.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean...? I guess that depends on the simulation. In many I've tried, the outcome of furball combat isn't decided by chance. It actually matters how you fly and how good you are at avoiding the weak spots in your flight envelope and exploiting the strong traits. The first contestant who makes a mistake, dies. I wouldn't call that pure unadulterated luck. Precision flying, indeed. I won't compare it to A/A maneuvers, since that's apples and oranges. However, there are plenty of cool A/G maneuvers you can use. 'Pop and slice' was one of my favorites in Jane's F-15. It involves approaching the target as low as you can without getting hit by that pk=1 thing down below. To confuse everyone, you don't fly directly toward your target, but instead on a course that will put you about 30 degrees offset to your target at a distance of about 2Nm. At that point, you're still too low to eyeball the target. That's when you roll a bit toward the target and start pulling up. You continue into a wide barrel roll, so you can eyeball the target while inverted, and end up with your pipper exactly on target the moment you roll out at 15-20 degrees nose down. You then pickle and hold, and pull up until release, then bank into the deck and exit at full mil. The initial pop and slice takes some practice to perfect. As for being a sitting duck, the point is not to be one. You can maneuver and lase at the same time, so you hopefully stay out of range of whatever is defending your target. The trick is to keep your SA of where the target is (even though you're belly-flashing it and can't see anything), so you can predict what kind of flight path you can take without hitting gimbal limits before impact. When it comes to planning, BVR A/A involves planning as well. Although you have to continually adjust your tactics, there's still a 'bag of tricks' you employ. Set maneuvers that are rehearsed in advance, so you can communicate your intentions to your wingmen in a timely fashion. That's correct. Getting out of an ambush is what requires skill. That would include a very keen SA. I'm not implying that enemy aircraft aren't more deadly than, say, a SAM unit. At least they are infinitely more persistent when you try to run away from them. Nonetheless, if you plot the points in space during an A/A engagement where missiles are fired at you and compare those to the points in space where missiles are fired at you during an A/G engagement, you might be surprised to see a very similar pattern. Perhaps that may be true of ground forces incapable of defending themselves against aircraft. In all other cases, I believe you're assuming too much. That's what your radar is for. You can usually see the enemy before he gets within weapons range. In A/G you usually have no idea where the SAM and AAA units are before they shoot at you. You forget that your enemy number one in low-level A/G has a pk=1. Lose SA and you end up a lawn dart in a second. Lose track of where that SAM missile is (or rather, where each of those three SAM missiles are) and chances are the result will be identical. Heh. I remember one quote in particular: Fighter pilots make headlines. Bomber pilots make history. ;)

Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but what I wrote was solely derived from my own experiences with simulations - or games, if you will. What air forces train for does not enter into the equation at all. True, but if you're in a furball, it is still the skills of the individual that will determine the outcome. Even in real life. The teamwork is important in assuring that it doesn't get to that point, I understand that. You obviously haven't done much A/G work in a real study sim, not to mention employed basic attack profiles that take advantage of terrain. Or had to consider something as simple as illuminator gimbal limits. ;) That applies to A/G as well. Granted, the guys that shoot at you don't move. On the other hand, you can't see them, either. Basically, you don't know they're there until they shoot at you. And compared to the amount of enemy fighters you might encounter in a fight where you actually have a chance of survival, they tend to be concentrated in greater numbers, especially around the stuff I intend to blow up. When you put it that way, there's always intelligence failure. There is no such thing as accurate intelligence in any remotely realistic campaign. Even if you had 100% accurate intelligence, it would likely be outdated in a matter of hours. Ground troops tend to move around in order to survive, even if they're not as fast as an aircraft. I have tried to lead a flight in A/A, many times, actually. It is very difficult indeed, and much depends on the skill level of your wingmen. Just as is the case when you're on a tight schedule during an A/G mission while simultaneously facing the need to adjust your 'fixed' plan in order to avoid the worst concentrations of air defense systems while still arriving on target the exact second you're supposed to. It is a very small minority of us who fly combat missions in real life, so again, I don't see how that's pertinent to the discussion here. You can lose the ground war if you have insufficient air support (that would be A/G capability), but that doesn't mean you can win the war with A/G operations alone. You still need that tank and that infantryman on the ground. Attack aircraft is pretty much just airborne artillery. Similarly, you can lose your ability to conduct A/G missions if you don't have air superiority (that would be A/A capability). That doesn't mean that air superiority is the most important thing in a war. A/A is merely a necessity in order to ensure that you can conduct combat air support without getting too distracted by enemy fighters. There are enough distractions as it is. In terms of skill, I think we have to agree to disagree. Although A/A requires what could be compared to excellent fencing skills, A/G can be compared sprinting through a mine field with a metal detector while engaged in a game of horseshoe pitching. A/A jockeys need to concentrate a lot on a few targets, while mud movers need to concentrate on many more things all at once. In a good simulation, the skills required for the two different roles are not the same by any means, but the skill level required is the same.

That is true - to a point. If and when things deteriorate to a knife fight (which, granted, is becoming increasingly rare), it is basically the skill of an individual pilot that determines the outcome, even in real life. That individual pilot would in most cases be the segment lead, with the segment wingman usually acting as either rear sentry or bait in a drag maneuver.

An attempt to sum things up No one will dispute that A/A is a very deadly game, which will get you killed if you don't know what you're doing. It requires a great deal of skill to master the art that it really is. That said, and in spite of all the advocacy for A/A, it still remains a question whether it really is more interesting than A/G. It shall be no secret that my personal inclination is toward the latter. I've assumed both roles during both single-player, multiplayer team-on-team, and multiplayer cooperative simulations, so I'd like to think I can explain the allure of both roles. A/A is a very individual sport, and a task that will awaken the hunter in any simulation pilot. A single skilled fighter pilot may surely wreak a lot of havoc on an enemy air force. That is why it appeals to people who are competitive by nature; it's a game emphasizing individual achievement. At first glance, there isn't much to it: just point and shoot. However, it soon becomes apparent to the novice that you can mess it up in more ways than there are chicken recipes on this planet. An air superiority jockey must be a master of precision four-dimensional geometry. He must be able to analyze the capabilities of an opponent quickly - recognizing the aircraft type is not enough; he must recognize the capabilities and preferred style of the opposing pilot as well - and fight accordingly. He must counterbalance weaknesses of his own aircraft, compared to that of the opponent, and force the fight into areas of the flight envelope where his aircraft is superior. Turn radii, G-forces and speed must be managed with with great discipline to this end. He must anticipate and guard himself against any possible move within his opponent's abilities, which might put him at a disadvantage, if at all possible. If that proves impossible, he must expose himself to the less deadly of all possible consequences of his actions. Perhaps most importantly, he must anticipate potential mistakes his opponent might make and be prepared to immediately exploit them, should they occur. Lastly, he must have intimate knowledge of the capabilities of his own weapons in order to maximize their efficiency. He may only get a single opportunity to take a shot at his opponent - an opportunity, which must often be created by placing oneself at a disadvantage - and wasting it may prove fatal. No less important is intimate knowledge of the opponent's weapons, and how to foil them. It is indeed easy to appreciate the exhilaration a fighter pilot experiences when he succeeds in killing his opponent through superior skill. Then, of course, there is the reality of a complex theater of operations. Engaging in air-to-air combat tends to seriously narrow a pilot's situation awareness, and that, in and of itself, is extremely dangerous. In such an environment, it is very rare to encounter a situation where both sides face anything approaching even odds of survival, and consequently, A/A engagements tend to last only a very short time. In most cases, A/A is either easy pickings or sudden defeat. Losing the bomber wing you're supposed to protect to an enemy fighter ambush definitely belongs in the latter category, and so does getting tied up in a fight with escort fighters while enemy attack aircraft decimate your ground troops. In the end, air power is only an aid in winning the ground war. Personally, I find that things get most interesting when you're forced to view your objectives in light of a grander strategic scheme. When you constantly have to weigh your potential losses against your potential strategic gain, that's when significant decisions must be made. Every battle must bring you closer to winning the war, and thus, sometimes ending a mission in failure is preferable to a costly success. Stating that air to ground combat doesn't require significant skill and experience would also be a mistake. The weapon systems employed in A/G combat are usually more complex to operate than A/A weapons and, in addition, are more plentiful and diverse, even in terms of the precision flying required during delivery. The diversity in potential ground targets is fully reflected in the diversity of A/G ordnance: iron bombs, retarded bombs, laser guided bombs, TV guided bombs, runway and bunker penetration bombs, anti-radiation missiles, cluster munitions (although banned by an increasing number of nations), incendiary munitions, laser guided missiles, TV guided missiles, rockets, and guns. There are basically three types of A/A weapons: radar missiles (ARH or SARH), IR guided missiles, and guns. A/G missions require strict timing to minimize exposure to enemy ground defense systems while maintaining safe ordnance delivery spacing. As a result, they must often be skillfully choreographed between a dozen aircraft or more. Teamwork is very important, and I believe more important even than the cooperation between segment wingmen in air-to-air combat, while also taking place on a much grander scale. In terms of skill and experience, I don't think there's much of a difference when it comes to perfecting A/A and A/G operations. There is no question, however, that it remains a matter of taste when determining which of the two offers the greater personal appeal.

From what I've seen in various movies, secondary explosions are modeled quite nicely.

Happy Holidays to all of you, and of course especially to the ones back home in Denmark. :)

Since these micro helis don't use a three-axis swashplate design, they have to control collective and yaw by varying the RPM of the two rotors independently. Hence, they have to use two motors.

If you'd be interested in seeing a few examples of other people's coaxial RC helicopter projects, here's a couple of links: http://www.cad-modelltechnik-jung.de/projekte/kamov_mechanik_turbine.htm http://users.skynet.be/thididag/helicoax/ Of course, a much less expensive solution would be the Heli-Max EZ: http://www.helimax-rc.com/helis/hmxe05-index.html

This is how I imagined the main gearbox would work. However, according to Kamov's own schematics, it seems the counter rotation gear assembly is situated on the lower rotor shaft, although I can't quite see how this contraption would connect to the upper rotor shaft, as it's situated below the lower rotor itself.

I don't know if you can picture this, but if you have two 45 degree cone stub gears facing each other and a fixed 45 degree peripheral gear engaging both, that would make the first two gears counter-rotating. Add a few more peripheral gears for mechanical strength.

I'd be very happy with an F/A-18. Naval operations add another element of ambiance to a simulator, in my opinion. Does anyone remember this oldie but goodie?

Wouldn't it be easier having the option to re-fly a mission from scratch? If at any point in the mission you can see that you've made a fatal mistake, you could just reset the mission and start over. The penalty in this case would be the time you've spent flying the botched version of the mission. The above would not be possible in multiplayer missions, of course. A solution here could be the option of taking over an AI-controlled aircraft, if any of the human-flyable types are available. If not, you'd be out of luck, but in most cases a downed player wouldn't have to wait for all the other players to finish the mission before being able to get in on the action again.

I'm impressed that my comment stirred that much discussion, and to answer a few of the questions - yes, I was basing my employee salary estimates on US figures, but as someone else pointed out, the salary gap is closing for sought-after professionals in Europe (including Eastern Europe) and Russia. This is true, even in India, these days. And yes, the cost of living should be taken into consideration, not least the cost of housing. Try to research home prices in San Francisco, where many of the biggest software companies in the US are located. You can spend a million dollars very quickly, just for a place to live. That said, there is of course still an abysmal salary gap in many countries, compared to the US. The open world market has a way of evening things out, though. If labor is cheap somewhere, rich countries will spend their money there to get the most goods for their buck. That inflow of cash will eventually raise living standards and allow the developing country to produce more advanced goods, which can be sold for a higher price. The more advanced the goods are, the less of a price difference you need to be competitive. Being European of birth and now living in the US, it seems to me that life also gets more complicated the more money you have. There are many more choices to make and a lot more people who try to make you give them your money. Money does not necessarily equal happiness, I can tell you that. It has a way of controlling you through the things you have to do to keep it. Money certainly does not set you free. Freedom is being able to appreciate what you do for a living, appreciate the people around you, and the place where you live. To modify a famous Kennedy quote a bit: Ask not what you want to have, but what you want to do. I've found that it's better to accept that the odds are against you when it comes to rising above your peers in terms of wealth. If you constantly think about what you'll gain from the things you do, that will suck the joy of doing them right out of you. If you can shed your artificially created wants and figure out what you really need, as a humble human being, that will set you free. Now you all probably think I'm a Taoist, and maybe you're right. :smilewink: ________________________________________________ Note: I'm afraid I tend to get rather philosophical when sleep-deprived; sorry about that. :)

Let's try to throw a few numbers out there and see what's involved. Let's say we put aside two months to develop an AI aircraft. That's about 45 effective work days, which translates to 360 hours. That's not a enormous amount of time, actually. Let's then say that we need a 3D modeler to create the aircraft, the weapons, and rig the model for all the movable parts needed to animate it. Then we need a graphics designer to create all the textures for the model, the weapons, and whatever else is needed. Then we need programmers for creating the flight model, the sensor logic (laser designation, etc.), the weapons systems and actual weapons (those have flight models of their own), the player interface (you want to be able to issue commands to AI wingmen - or the AI 'central command' does), and of course the actual AI system that's supposed to fly the aircraft in an intelligent manner while taking into account threats, friendly units, and whatever objectives it is given. I'd say there's enough for two programmers in that lot. Then there's all the background knowledge and planning stuff, like researching the real-world systems and capabilities of the aircraft and creating a ruleset for the programmers to use in programming AI sensor input, flight model, AI flight control inputs to match, responses to various threats, based on the capabilities of the aircraft, attack tactics in A/G and A/A scenarios. There's lots of that kind of stuff - enough for at least another person. So here we have five people working for two months on an AI aircraft. Let's set their average yearly salary to $60,000. I know, that's ridiculously low. Five times two months amounts to 10 man-months, which then translates to $50,000. If you think that's too many people or too much time, factor in expenses for computer equipment, software, office facilities, and things like cleaning services. It all adds up really quickly. I don't think those $50k are much of a joke, actually. :thumbup:

Definitely A/G, and especially with a good team in multiplayer, performing coordinated attacks. Even the best AI can't replace a seasoned human player, and even the best wing communications menu can come close to the immersion of talking to other human players. When the mission is well planned and everyone knows what to do and when to do it, it's a beautiful thing to behold.

I'm not a tester, so I'm the wrong person to ask. However, I believe there is no short answer to that question. You could try downloading videos from DCS and compare. That should give you an idea.

Speaking of informative, please note: This video is from the outdated project Lock On: Black Shark and not DCS.

You can find a higher quality version of the video here: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=downloads&subcat=28&file=751

The gun pod servo is trying to keep the barrels pointed in a specific direction, but it seems the whole helicopter is leaning on it, so it's unable to brake the turret in the right position. That would be why it keeps correcting. Of course, it could also just be erratic input from a broken targeting system. As for the turbine hiss, I assume it's from the crashed chopper. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a normal spool-up shouldn't be going on for that long before you hear blade noise as well.

I can't see that website, but I believe this is the same movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUZdHtlSRk

All I can say is: Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS. ;)

About radar Most radars will 'see through' trees, actually, since modern (i.e. not ancient) radars either perform inter-pulse Doppler analysis (search radars) or are operating entirely on the Doppler principle (mostly targeting radars). Those two giant lawn mower blades on top of the Ka-50 produce very noticeable sidebands that stand out, even when the chopper is hiding behind a bunch of treetops. Only very old pulse search radars without any form of Doppler analysis might lose a hovering helicopter among normal ground clutter. A good radar operator should be able to pinpoint the location of a fast-moving helicopter on any type of search radar, though. Of course, although enemy radars will most definitely be able to see you, they might not be able to get a good lock and shoot at you. This goes for both SAM and AAA systems. Once you unmask, however, they'll be throwing everything and the kitchen sink your way.

I agree that carbon pots are a bad idea, but hall sensors might be overkill. Conductive plastic would be a very nice compromise.

From what I've seen in LOMAC, at least the rain simulation seems fairly accurate, compared to the real thing: