Grodlund
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Grodlund
-
-
Ok, slight typo on the diameters of Bradley AC.
Either way - that was not the point.
The point was that the Bradley seems impervious to the 30mm AP rounds of the BMP-2 - from all sides - including rear!
Which means I am not surprised the Mi-24P struggles to damage it, with it's 30mm cannon
-
Just want to add my 2 cents to this.
I took part in an event, some time ago. It was Bradleys vs BMP-2's, combined arms event.
Before the event I did some testing.
I put a couple of Bradleys as targets, set them to hold fire and hold ground. The objective was to find out the weak spots and how much damage a BMP-2 could do to a Bradley.
Now the BMP-2 doesn't use the GSH-30, but the Shipunov 2A42 > never the less, it uses the same ammunition.
During my tests, I found that the 2A42 of the BMP-2 did absolutely Zero damage to the Bradley's frontal armor, as expected.
What made me kinda bummed out about the whole event though, was that I noticed I did ZERO DAMAGE to the side armor, and even rear armor. This was tested at all ranges - Including point blank range!
Turns out the BMP-2 can only damage the Bradley by using it's 2 ATGM's
The bradleys smaller 20mm autocannon could however, happily destroy a BMP-2, even by shooting it's front armor - no problem.
In the end, I wrote it off as the usual DCS western bias
-
Isnt that almost exacly what you said by this tame last year?
HeheheheLike I said then. I hope very much to be proven wrong
Only time will tell -
Hate to say I told you, Razorback.
It's amazing how ED let's the hype for thsi module die down - AGAIN.
The hype got going in the Hornet video, years ago, with Wag's "What's this Hind doin here?" - then it just died out.
And now they are letting the same thing happen again.
Whatever happened to the "when we have something to show, we'll show it"?
The usual bull.Only reason I'm touching DCS nowadays is a sertain C-130 mod
-
You had my curiosity, now you have my attention! I always thought the "myth" was the reason behind the concept of the two-seater. It's not you say and can't be discussed here but it was discussed somewhere else? Where, please? I'd like to read about it.
KA-50 Black Shark forum section.
I'm pretty sure I've seen your face there XD
-
I'll have to disagree. In all of history, we've only had exactly one operational single-seat attack helicopter, and combat experience with it led the designers to ditch the concept and move towards a traditional two-pilot arrangement.
No. Wrong. I wish this myth would just die. It has been discussed to death already, and not only on this forums.
Combat trials of the KA-50 was deemed a success and the pilots reported they liked the aircraft and the "increased load" was not an issue, thanks to it's advanced systems.
The faith of the KA-50 and the KA-52 are because of totally different reasons, that were not supposed to discuss in this thread.
-
Ka-50 Can switch out the HMS for NVGs
Put your NVG's on and tune the Shkvals Brightness/Contrast knobs a little, and you can se almost as good as in Daylight.
Getting a proper target lock might be difficult or impossible, but stationary targets are easy and with manual tracking you can get good at killing moving targets as well.
-
No.... just no.
I have no idea how someone might get the idea, that Deka is intentionally increased the performance of the JF over the real counterpart. At least not someone, who spend more than 5 Minutes looking into the modeling of the module:
It is the only module in DCS, that has a targeting pod with limitations. Every single targeting pod in the game enters a perfect track of any target, as soon as the targeting pod starts rendering the scene. The JF is the only targeting pod in this game that has a limitation build in, beyond ~21nm it is unable to measure distance correctly and unable to enter either point or area track.
Did they model realistic limitations of the system to overstate the capabilities of the plane?
It is the only modern module that suffers from engine surges due to smoke ingestion or overspeeding.
Did Deka introduce this limitation to make the aircraft better?
Deka removed the BRM-1 90 rockets from the inner pylons, due to possible exhaust gas getting into the engine and that could lead to an engine surge.
Did Deka remove weapons because they wanted to make the JF-17 more powerful than it is?
Right now the BRM-1 90 uses the Vikhir control scheme, instead of the one from the laser maverick, for example, removing the ability to use it with an external laser source.
It is one of the few modules in DCS that have modeled pilot overheating and freezing. Lost the ECS? Better descend below 10k feet or your pilot will start blacking out due to hypothermia. Meanwhile, the F/A-18C can happily cruise at angels 40 without a canopy.
Did Deka model this to overstate the capability of the JF-17?
The JF-17 is one of the few modules that is affected by jamming at all in the game. The radar can be jammed and prevent it from IFFing a soft locked target correctly. Sometimes it is necessary to enter STT just to get an IFF response.
But I guess that Deka modeled this to inflate the capabilities.
The JF-17 is the only model with at least a rudimentary model of an IFF system, no other module needs to worry about entering IFF codes in this game.
The JF-17 is one of the few models that have INS drift modeled at all. Even if the amount of drift is overstated right now. Most other modules have perfect INS without any issues.
I have literally no idea how anyone, who spends more than 5 Minutes looking into the quality of the modeling, can get the idea that Deka is trying to "inflate the performance". Is it perfect? Of course not. Some issues still remain, that will hopefully get fixed soon.
Of course, you can call me biased too, if you want. The JF-17 is by far my favourite module in the game right now. Why? Because it has great system-modeling combined with realistic limitations.
This ^
-
Formation lights are small red/orange lights facing backwards only.
Not the easiest to spot, especially not if it isn't dark.
I am sure they are on - you just have to know where to look
-
Well, my experience in the Shark leads me to disagree.
The OFP2 Rockets are quite effective at anything less armored than a BTR-80
I never leave home without them, and I qould argue the splah damge is enough to destroy groups of infantry, soft vehicles and light armored vehicles. Even without direct hits.
The S8-KOM needs direct hits, so I never ever use them.
On the subject of cannon/vikhrs and IRL trials. Well I guess it just depends on the mission designer in DCS.
When I design my own missions, I usually tailor them for helicopters. So less armor and more infantry and soft targets.
But most missions I play with friends are just littered with hundreds of tanks - so obviously it becomes a bit less realistic and more focused on Anti-Tank work
-
SPO-10 yeah, sorry.
I just seem to remember that the number indicates how many indicator lights is on the RWR.
Anyways.
Yes. The SPO-10 in the MiG-21 has been broken from release. And IIRC, Leatherneck/Magnitude is aware that it is not modeled properly. Why it takes years and years to fix such an important instrument is beyond me.
At the end of the day, I think SPO-10 is well good enough.
You know the rough direction, so you can LOS the radar - and you now when you're getting locked, so you now when to take evasive action.
-
What hardware you use for flying?
- Display
- SimPit
- Display + TrackIR
- VR
As when I had TrackIR, it was fixed for anything else than long range engagement. But VR changed all how to operate cannon.
I fly only in VR.
I tend to use the cannon as I use the rockets.
Flight director on, and a running or diving attack with bore sight.
But sure. Sometimes you can pick off soft targets from a little bit of altitude with the tracking cannon.
It sure is useful. But for me at least, the primary weapon of the 50 is the Vikhrs. Secondary are rockets. Cannon is a nice addon (or useful in A2A, also in bore sight of course)
- Display
-
I am not sure - but it seems like OP is asking for a very specific RWR > namely the SPO-15,
To me it looks like the thread derailed a little bit, and now you guys are discussing NO RWR.
You can pretty clearly see in the video, that the Helicopter we are getting is (currently) equipped with a SPO-4 RWR (Same as MiG-21)
While a SPO-15 would clearly be better I would argue, for a helicopter, and the role it has, a SPO-4 is sufficient.
You don't NEED to know exacly where the SAM is - all you need to know is that a radar is looking at you, and from the rough direction - and when it is locking you up.
-
I almost exclusively use the 30mm in the KA-50 in fixed bore sight mode.
Very rarely do I use it with the HMS and target tracking.
Everyone has their own opinion of course, and although the 2x23mm chin turret would be cool, I think the fixed 2x30mm cannon is a monster, and it's the one I would want the most.
-
I am not really following you there mate. Might be a translation problem.
Considering the map > we'll gonna have to agree to disagree. I think the terrain looks gorgeous. I mean, let's not compare to other games > but compared to the maps we have in DCS, I'd say this is a giant leap.
With the Mi-24 Hind, I have no clue what you're on about with the AI here. I can't see how the AI has anything to do with how it looks and further, what have we even seen about it?
It's just Matt flying the helicopter. No AI present.
If the rotor speed is not correct or not, I can't really tell. And I fail to see why it matters.
It is the very first time we ever see the helicopter animated at all. The first time we see anything of it other than half finished render pictures or a static aircraft on the ground.
It is still a work in progress, and I bet rotor speed is not the FIRST thing they try to get correct.
Maybe flightmodel and instruments comes first?
Seems logical to me.
I am absolutly overjoyed that we got this first look, and the fact that the thing FLIES AT ALL and that the needles on the instruments seems to be showing what's actually going on,brings new hope to my very pessimistic and negátive old heart <3
-
Yessssss, ED didi it, finally we are in the right forum....and another surprise, the Hind over Latakia video...Oh God I will look this video again and again...
You see Grodlund, never loose the faight, today is party time !! :D:D
I am in full celebration mode!
watching the video over and over again - with a looking glass - trying not too giggle too much :gun_rifle:
-
Should be. IRL the flight controls are duplicated (with the ability to be folded away) in the gunners seat.
I am guessing, for most people who fly without a human this will be the primary way of controling the Mi-24. Just my guess
-
-
It's a new day and a new dawn for us Mi-24 fans.
In this dark year of 2020, it's easy to get excited and happy over the little things.
But this is HUGE!
Thank you!
-
1
-
-
101 Pages and three years of conversation and speculation.
Still stuck in "chit-Chat" and not an official word from any developer.
Disappointed doesnt even begin to describe how I feel :helpsmilie:
-
Also make sure your throttle is set to idle.
I noticed, after using my HOTAS for some years, that even when set to idle, ther was still a tiny imput from my throttle, so I could start no aicraft that required this.
Easy fixed by setting a small deadzone.
-
Why modify your own voice?
Do you need to read subtitles to know what you are saying yourself??
Yeah. The english voices are stupid as F.
That's why you don't use them
-
So frustrating. Not funny at all. :chair:
-
Thanx a million buddy!
Flight Model
in DCS: Mi-24P Hind
Posted
Also take into consideration.
Things that might be possible in real life might still be something a pilot would never do.
Because of stress on the airframe, risk of damage, risk of DEATH etc etc
But in a simulator we don't pay for airframes, repairs, and when we die, we can simply respawn.
The aircraft might be capable of more things, that no sane person would ever attempt in real life