fargo007

Every scenario you're deploying rockets in is going to be so unique and likely so immediate, that there won't be any time to look up information like this, and then assure you are flying at the specific altitude, speed, and dive angle the table calls for. It's good to know the limits and parameters though. Much like when you spit out a piece of chewing gum and pretty much know where it's going to land, most often you're going to send your first rocket salvo based on your experience and gut feeling about the entire situation, and then adjust off the impacts. This is definitely a perishable skill, especially moving through rocket types with very different terminal ballistics and sight options. One of the coolest things about the Mi-24 is the wide variety of ordnance it carries, but this has an obligation of ongoing practice attached to it.

I did all testing with no wind so as not to have a variable, but I doubt it will be significant unless we're talking substantial wind. The bombs still land close enough with this short of a fall to create damage. I don't think there's any comparison in accuracy between pilot and CPG. For the pilot to release bombs, the target will be way out of view at the time of release, whereas for the operator, the target is visible in the sight before, during and after release, and there is no chance for lineup error. It's just much more precise. Give it a try! We actually have a mission today where the Mi-24's are dropping bombs.

This is based on level flight and level release attitude. Having the operator do it is far more accurate than the pilot.

The dope I came up with is based on level flight, sight angle, fixed speed. Bomb release being handled by the operator. Doing it from the back seat is always going to be "hamhock" or seat of the pants at best, since you have no way to aim. I worked up three different "standard" profiles that work reliably enough that I can put bombs close enough to either destroy or damage a transport truck on every run if I do my part. This was with the FAB 250kg bombs, but I expect the 500kg will be similar. I did not get the experience that bombing from above 300m AGL will yield practical accuracy so this was the absolute ceiling I decided to pursue. Above this and you're pretty much using a stopwatch. I chose 250kmh because it's quite fast, which as you point out is a factor in not getting blown up by your own bombs. The way this is done is to transfer flight & weapons control to the operator for the bombing run, and have the pilot monitor speed and altitude for consistency while the operator focuses on lineup and trim. nullYou also need to consider slope on the terrain and adjust accordingly. Another thing is this is based on actual release, not when you push the button. There is a small delay.

I wound up working out my own bombing tables based on sight angle, fixed altitudes and speeds. I started with the tables in the manual but found them not to be accurate so I tuned the angle for each until the impacts roughly matched the release point.

Glad you guys are getting some good work out of it! Sure, I can take a look at announcing either the flank or the bugout.

Of course it would, but the actual helicopter doesn't have this capability because it doesn't have this problem. I don't want ED to bend the functionality away from real life, and toward the vagaries of DCS.

Assuming you don't know how to write code, or understand lua syntax, start looking at tutorials on youtube of how to set up LDT, a log follower like glogg, lua tutorials, and begin looking at example MOOSE missions to build an understanding of how it works, and what it does. Also the MOOSE documentation will be of great help once you understand how it's laid out. You're not going to magically arrive at writing solid code without doing some learning. New journeys of discovery are hard, but you and your missions will be better for it. In the end, it's going to unlock amazing new potential that the ME just cannot touch.

LOL - This is a completely unrealistic scenario. If this is the sort of thing you are basing the need for these changes in the Mi-24 on, I have nothing else to add.

Do you have a circumstance in mind in DCS where this would be the absolute best choice of engagement techniques?

It's not that the East Germans didn't do it, it's that nobody does it.

You can show they wrote about it, but you have not shown that it has been used, ever. East Germany certainly wouldn't be who I would pick as an example to follow.

I highly doubt the assertion that just because it's in the manual as a possible tactic, that it means it would be used in combat. I've asked, and nobody can furnish an example of an Mi-24 engaging targets this way in a combat environment. If this was anything close to a useful combat tactic we'd see it. It's just not a thing that's done. The disadvantages laid out in the manual you linked to are clearly why. I think it bears out in DCS as well, as doing this against even 1990's class armor opponents, who have guided weapons very near to the max range of the Shturm and Ataka is probably the fastest way to get killed in an Mi-24 other than crashing. Either way, this is a far out edge case. Clearly not the best use of developer time against the backlog of reported issues and yet to be implemented features. Thanks for the discussion, but I see this as too far from practical reality to justify the use of resources.

Hmm... Maybe because they're designed to do so, and it's part of the training pipeline for those pilots? Expecting that you are going to fight in the exact same way in the Mi-24 as you would in the KA-50, AH-64, BO-105, or SA-342 is a mistake. The tactics employed need to follow the strengths the aircraft has. Shooting ATGMs from a hover is just NOT a 'strength' of the Mi-24. The fact that people are complaining that it's difficult to do so is pretty compelling evidence of that.

Lots of things are mentioned in manuals that are just not put into practice because they make no operational sense. I can't find even a single example of an Mi-24 in a hover, engaging targets with missiles in an actual combat environment. Aside of this being a fringe use case compared to the issues that still need to be developed and fixed.

I guess, but this helicopter isn't meant to attack from hover like this. Against hard armor targets, most of which have guided rockets like the AT-6, Svir, etc. you'll just die. OTOH, I think they could be a little less strict with the match/lineup than they are. It's likely typical that the operator will slew up to "chase" launch authority (I do that), and then slew back to target once it's off the rails. Being a little more flexible with that lineup precision might be some good (and realistic) middle ground here.

If the smoke doesn't bother petrovich (it does not), and you're not flying with an operator, I don't see this as actually adding any capability. IOW - you wouldn't even be able to tell that this actually occurred. Which begs the questions of when you would need to use this, and why? There are much bigger fish to fry IMO.

Love the flyby sound!

While I'm roundly in favor of the idea of occupied structures, how would we decide as a mission designer whether the troops are portrayed "inside" a building instead of up on top of it? I think this is a deeper rabbit hole than might be first imagined.

I'm the script yoda for BSD. Please consider our squadron to be a signatory to this as well.

Change the icon style to Russian. Much easier to deal with and you get to see the heading reflected as well.

You can absolutely do this if you are creating the objects via scripting. It really is very simple. Another way is to create a static template, and manually edit it, modifying the x/y of the objects. As I've posted before, you can also make the template portable to another map this way. The .stm file is just text.

Clearing shader cache means deleting the contents of saved games\fxo and metashaders2. DCS will take a loooong time to load as it rebuilds them with your new settings.

Last thing I would do is go all grammar nazzy on someone trying to help me.