AeriaGloria

The way it is in DCS Mi-8/24, it will stop moving pedals as soon as AP gets back within 18% limit. Which can be annoying as it will often move pedals in a seesaw motion on-off-on in an annoying way

I wouldn’t say vast majority, it is hard to tell how many Mi-35M had been made. It and the Mi-35P operated by Cyprus/Serbia should be the only ones with fixed gear. I think 1,500 Mi-24V were made and over 600 24P. I believe anything outside the Warsaw Pact was given the 35 designation?

the Cold War museum manual says it should re trim the pedals if the 18% authority is not enough and MicroSwitch disengaged. You mean if “pedal damper” red guarded switch is disengaged? Becuase if so then I believe it should only provide dampening regardless of MicroSwitch position. But it can definitly re trim your pedals with up to 100% authority of pedal damper engaged and yaw AP on, with microswitches released and heading changed more then 9 degrees

Mi-35: export Mi-24V Mi-35P: export Mi-24P Mi-35M: 2006-2019 produced modernization Mi-35P Phoenix: 2019 replacement of Mi-35M and optional upgrade, with MAWS, original wing and retractable gear new AP and electronic systems.

Telling CPG when to stop? it does have a 4,000-5,000 rpm fire rate with only 1,470 bullets if jamming isn’t modeled Im sure it would work just like George does

What happened is the positions were wrong. Cue past bug report. So the positions were fixed. Then the indications became wrong, so it’s kindve an evolution of the same bug

Yefim Gordon Mi-24. Not as long as other fixed wing books, but still some good info. He can be really wrong sometimes, but it’s only sometimes. As for CPG having stuff to do, I know Miki said not in combat but there is some big things for the V/VP here 1. the turret allows bombing using same CCIP radio altimeter system as the ASP-17V. CPG points at target, if low and fast enough the bomb will drop at calculated CCIP. CPG does wind correction themself. There is dials and adjustments to correct changes in radar altitude delta, barometric height, etc, same modes exist for using turret 2. while CPG can fly, I see this rarely in multi crew flights as pilot can also use auto pilot for help 3. the CPG has full ARK control, but unfortunetly can only use radio channels of UHF/VHF radio pilot has set. So as long as channels are set, CPG can control comms. This means that while your individual flight lead is your Mi-24, your CPG who doesn’t have much to do may be the actual flight lead making radio calls. So pilot can focus on flying and CPG deals with communicating with everyone else. We have been trying to implement this at BSD, but it is hard and slow to work against tradition 4. One thing I do as CPG is sometimes check magnetic deviation and correct during transit 5. Spotting, helping with dead rocking, operating lights, landing gear, using Raduga to spot and visually navigate/recon There really isn’t a lot for CPG to do, but V/VP give you the bombing modes and many different ways to fire the turret very accurately, controls pilot doesn’t have to adjust CCIP for gun/rockets There is a lot to do depending on how much you are cooperating, how much pilot needs help. I can say, if there was more for CPG to do, I would play it more. Using Raduga and firing missiles is fun, but if we had the turret that would certianly balance it out.

You are not the only one who has noticed. Glad Mole was able to help out. Godspeed

What is definitly not a myth is not turret but gun reliability. You could only fire 500 rounds before needing to wait 5-20 minutes depending on temperature for it to cool. And often it jammed before hitting 500 rounds. At 4,500-5,000 rpm, that’s little more then 6 seconds of firing. Right now the YakB In the GUV pod has no such limitations, so who knows if ED would implement it The Gsh-30-2K would jam also, but I have never heard a reason for why. It seemed to be more random and rare

Where is such unreliability reported?

I find the 30mm absurdly accurate. It seems to be the most accurate unguided weapons it has, and best deals with the limits of the CCIP system. 2 km is really max effective for it but you can take out things up to 3 km if you look use a lot of ammo and aim above the pipper.

No, 248-250 rounds is max. There is some websites that used to say 700, but I have a feeling this number comes from a video game, and was widely disseminated as people went “LOOK 700 30MM ROUNDS.”

It is a sometimes repeated but apparently truthful story. Most accounts seem to mention barrel rolls, and in Yefim Gordon he mentions at this particular display for Mil by the “hoolilgans” in Afghanistan also included turns at 60 degrees bank, right at the limit. “In such a kill-or-be-killed environment, Hind crews acquired a certain edge. Their own brass called them "flying hooligans"; in the US military, they would have been called "cowboys" or "hairy-assed". Early in the war, Marat Timoschenko had visited Afghanistan to see what the troops thought of his helicopters, and gunship crews put on spectacular displays for him. They even demonstrated maneuvers, such as barrel rolls, that the design engineers considered impossible. An astounded Dr. Timoschenko had to comment: "I thought I knew what my helicopters could do, now I'm not so sure!" from http://www.airvectors.net/avhind_1.html When it comes to Afghanistan, you have two really good sources. Soviet/Ex Soviet authors, giving primary accounts or the recorded primary accounts of the war. And also declassified CIA docs can be interesting, such as one totaling Soviet losses and comparing it to Soviet number. One Russian account I have read and found becuase it was shared on ED forums, was this http://otvaga2004.ru/boyevoe-primenenie/boyevoye-primeneniye04/afgan-vertolety-mi24/ I had fun using Google translate on this one. There are many others I do not have written down. Also, to stay on topic, L166V was never part of original features. So it follows that as a paid upgrade, you could have the introduction of L166V function as well as earlier generation MANPADS, including their useless with newer systems. I also think there are people that wish they could have soldiers in the windows with AK/PKT guns. I know it was found to be pretty useless during the Afghan war, but it would make an interesting dynamic to troop transport, being able to have four of them manning the window guns, the pot trying to give the gunner’s extremely small FOV the best chance. I know there’s people that would love to have NS430 in 3D, in perhaps the front seat. But that’s a different story as that’s usually it’s own paid “module” as well. What would be a gift is a campaign showing how fun it can be…..

What else would you change with FM? There is recorded instances of rolls being done at a display in Afghanistan for Mil executives. And while the cobra is realistic, the helicopter would mush and pitch up violently, what’s missing is blades striking the tailboom. It seems from my reading this should happen if you keep pulling the stick back after the mush/cobra/rotor-stall happens. There has even been times that 24s returned home with dents on the top of their tail booms. That is the only thing that seems to truly be missing from the FM as I understand it, but there might also be a good reason such as lack of information on this dangerous occurrence

I think our only hope is a Mi-24P 2 upgrade focusing on these export additions. 23mm pods, more S-8/13 variants. SPO-15 (first would preferably be a more deeply modeled SPO-10 with a variable beep frequency). Cyprus used Mi-35P like ours but painted black for NVG compatibility, shortened wings, 8 rack Ataka launchers. And fixed gear all for decreased weight.

I think it’s pretty lucky to have George so closely linked to Petrovich. Look how Hornet is still being developed and even F-16. The son of Peter being the older brother of George has ensured us many years of updates for George being ported over to the Mi-24 or simultaneous updates as George/Apache. I expect development of that system to be part of core DCS development from now on.

1. In DCS it can’t be broken as long as governor works. This is true as of current open beta 2. I’m well aware the EPR takes temeprsture and pressure into cosnsideration. You say it isn’t a reference, but then you say it’s for the pilot to see their power level? No systems in the engine depend on EPR. It is purely a measurement made only for the pilot to monitor power and for data recorder. That’s why it’s odd that certian aircraft straight up can’t reach full takeoff power at sea level, but the Mi-8 has no trouble and Ka-50 seems to reach full takeoff power much easier then Hind as well. I don’t see how your description is any different then a reference-indicator that you insist it’s not. The only consequences of exceeding the limits other then decreased engine lifetime will be consequences that come from the pilots superiors 3. You should try the current OB. With multi threading many people have a 20-40% boost in frames. I don’t need to spend computer money for a while now 4. I am not concerned with speed as much as I am with the EPR/PTIT/RPM relationship between the different modules

UPK-23-250 is an export only weapon. ED has based their weapon options on Russian only used weapons. Only export Mi-24 is compatible with UPK-23-250 I don’t think it will be officially released until we have campaign and manual

The bombing system is fully implemented. The timers work and the sight can be depressed 30 degrees. What’s missing for employment is bomb drop tables for CPG. If you want the ones for 250 kmh, you can find them in my weapons guide. Someone pointed out recently that since the charts indicate -3 degrees pitch at 250 kmh, you have to add/subtract the difference to your sight depression

I know for release that they are working on the pilot model you mentioned. That they also are working on full manual. They promised campaign on caucuses as well with module for free. They have also promised to allow both map sizes to work for all ED maps. I reported SPO-10 innacuracies a while ago, and the feedback seemed to be that it would be looked at. I really hope that gets improved. In addition there is still some desync between cockpit seats, I hope that is added. And a few more keybinds such as the Lcntrl + T for gunner to bind axis. I can’t think of much else that wouldn’t add any new features outside of the original release scope

You mostly had your wing pylons shot up then. Looking at the Loadout chart, 8x ATTM should work with 2x S-8 pod 2x KMGU 2x S-24 Bombs won’t work. If you load those you won’t be able to drop them. And as mentioned before, if you load 2x S-5 pods with 8x ATGM then only the ATGM will work. If you load GUV pod, then ATGM won’t fire. So Just don’t load S-5 UB-32 pods or bombs or GUV with 5-8 ATGM. Anything will work with ATGM 1-4 on wingtip stations

I have tried to collect as many documents as possible. Obviously I can’t share anything newer then 1980. But I have made 2 guides for weapons and autopilot using some of the information from real documents. They are not “manuals” per se in how to operate, but explanations of how the systems work and how to best use them in DCS https://forum.dcs.world/topic/294627-personal-mi-24p-autopilot-and-weapons-guides/

Well for example Mi-24 only has 3 degrees twist. Barely noticeable

You can’t break the engines if TV3-117 in DCS. The 6 minute power limit is for increasing lifetime. Head of belsimtek ex-Mi-8 pilot has said you can run engines at take off power all flight and not notice any change in power at the end. They are similarly unbreakable in DCS unless the governors are disengaged. In my experience the inition OP has something right. There is something very weird beyond tuning in the TV3-117VMA of the Mi-24/Ka-50, and TV3-117V of Mi-8. In Ka-50/Mi-24 engine model is identical. Gearbox is different. Engine limits, RPM, EPR, and PTIT, should be identical. Yeah a suppressor will decrease performance, but what the engine cares about is PTIT/RPM, with EPR only as a reference for pilot/data recorder In Mi-8 for example, the EPR seems to be perfectly at 100% take off power much more then Ka-50, Mi-24. In addition, there has been alotnof tuning of the TV3-117VMA engines it seems since release of Mi-24/BS3. But Mi-8 soldiers on without any changes to its 117V. In itself the only difference to the pilot between engines should be higher temperature and power, not overall EPR behavior. Anyways, I haven’t done as thorough a test as OP, but I’m glad OP has. And I might look at the tracks and test myself. I assume there’s a few things that lay on a sliding scale of “almost completely finished,” “requiring tweaks,” and “from a decade ago when the game had less fidelity.” I’ll run my own tests using your figures as a comparison and get back

Yea it’s realistic. Any rocket launch is limited to above 100 kmh in the manual. And the same is true for Mi-8/Ka-50/Mi-28. By Mi-24 development the phenomenon was in manuals and known. However there is a video of a Mi-28N firing S-8 rockets in a 130m hover and crashing from gas ingestion causing engine failure. The video seems to be gone but I don’t remember it being a lot of rockets. There seemed to be one 2 years later also at 400m altitude. At that hieght you would think a dual engine failure would be needed to not survive https://defense-update.com/20110215_mi-28n_crash.html#.ZCHHsCVlAWM