Mr.Scar

I will try it out once i get home from work. Thanks

You got point there, but honestly I promised myself to research some things first and then decide if I should buy it. Im on a budget this time, so will have to wait for a sale probably. Hm, about the free flight for two weeks, i did not know it applied to the Jeff too. So might also be a good option to try it out, however I hope i will have time to do it until the free flight ends. But thank you for the feedback

Hey, This will probably be a long post, so please bare with me. I. As a small introduction, I am a helo pilot in DCS. Flying the Huey, Ka-50, had also some fun with the Mi-8 and of course waiting for the Mi-24P and Apache. However I am thinking of changing things a little, try something fresh, and I want to try to get, learn and spend some more time on my first multirole jet, with a similar amount (or more?) of dedication as I do to fly helicopters. Yeah, Im a big rotorhead because it was the helos that got me hooked, and I would like that it would "click" in a similar way for my first multi-role fighter. Because I love ground pounding, but I am also thinking about getting into A2A. As a side note, I also want you to know, that before I wrote this post, I finished the F-15C, Mig-29S and started the Su-27 default campaigns. The reason for that the FC3 aircraft honed my skills a little if it comes to radar, SA and weapons management. It was simply a good training ground in preparation for the clickable-cockpit aircraft, when I felt its the time to try something more advanced. The jets in scope are the F-16 which I already own, and the JF-17 that I do not own. For your information, why those two in particular is that I also own the Mirage, Harrier, A-10C II Tank Killer, F-14, Viggen and the F-18 Hornet. I am mostly a ground-pounder, and I had the most fun with the Harrier and Warthog in the past, before i switched to flying helicopters for like 90% of the time. To explain why other aircraft are kind out of scope for me is that: 1. F-14 and F-18, im not into Navy Ops. I like to take the Tomcat for a joyride sometimes, but that's it. The Hornet does not appeal to me the way how it feels, how it drives. I know it is a long legged plane that can-do-it-all and is a very well developed module, but it simply does not "click" with me. And believe me, I have tried to like it several times. It does not work. Sorry Navy, you can keep your boats and tailhooks. 2. Warthog and Harrier. Spent quite a bit of time on those two and love them, also believe it or not and it might sound funny, but they were the reason i picked up helicopters. And I am not saying this in a negative way, they simply made me realize what I like doing the most. 3. Mirage - Tried it, liked it, but did not get hooked by it. But that was a long time ago and it still does not appeal to me. 4. Viggen - I like it very much, the aspect of burning a trail in the grass with the afterburne, popping up and unleashing hell on targets were fun but in the end, the Viggen is too much of a overspecialized machine for me that requires a lot of meticolous planning. So a no go for me. II. Because of the reasons above, it boiled down to the Viper and potentially the JF-17 Thunder. So below, a bit of what kind of experience/knowledge I have about both aircraft: JF-17 Thunder I do not own it, but watched YT videos about it, read about its history, went through Chucks Guide a bit (and I was amazed about the weapons having around 120 pages...) and truth is I have started to like it very much, although I have never before heard about it and just knew it existed in DCS now. Second thing, even the glass cockpit started to appeal to me in a very positive way. And I think the most important thing, the Jeff was basically a completed module on Day 1, which is something unbelievable. It also made me tune into Deka Ironworks news, where I have heard about the possibility that a Su-30MKK/MKI or a HMD for the Jeff might be a thing. To be honest with you, it gave me the goosebumps. Now, that you know it, a few questions/remarks from my side about the JF-17 that made me wonder if I should pick up this aircraft. Those questions are more about the practical usage, and the way how the aircraft feels to the pilot than dry numbers and systems 1. I love small aircraft, and I know that the pylon layout is quite small, but the ordnance that the Jeff can carry is huge. I do not mind having to think about what to take on a mission, but wanted to ask is it still doable to do a bit of self-escort? Of course depending on the scenario. So here is where the fuel thing comes into the topic. 2. I know the fuel capacity (even with 3 bags) is almost 10.000lbs (correct me if i am wrong) + you get a probe for A2A refueling. However, I wanted to ask, how is the fuel management for longer flights? Lower overall tank capacity does not necessarily mean that the Jeff eats through fuel like the MIG-29 does. Is this true? It would mean that the Jeff is quite fuel efficient and can have quite long legs, despite being able to carry less internal fuel than other multi-role aircraft. Is the A2A refuel a pain? 3. What is your general in-cockpit feeling of the JF-17? By that I mean: - How are the controls? (I use a Thrustmaster FCS 16000m HOTAS) is the Jeff responsive, handles well? ( i heard it has only vertical FBW, but no horizontal one) - Are the HOTAS functions similar or easier/better organized than the F-16 Viper ones? - How does the canopy affect the view and influence the situational awareness in comparison to the bubble canopy of the Viper? My feeling is that the bubble canopy of the Viper is the better one, but the JF-17 glass cockpit displays make them much more visible than those in the Viper. Is my guess here correct? 4. How is the raw engine power of the JF-17? No slouch? Has a "kick" like the Viper does? Is the throttle lagging in a similar way as the Hornet does? 5. The JF-17 feels a bit like a DCS underdog. Its on no fancy posters but is starts to build a name for itself. And I gotta say i like to be an underdog, which the JF-17 seems to offer in a world where Western hardware simply seems to be everywhere... Sometimes I am a little tired of it and caught myself eying more and more the eastern toys. 6. How are the availalble SP campaigns? I ask since I mostly fly single player and like to have scenarios where i use what I have learned. 7. Any other things you thing are worth mentioning? F-16 Viper I will try to keep this one shorter, since I own the module and have... tried it out you can say. 1. My country flies those, so I am kind of slightly biased. It clicks with me, but I am not that much satisfied with the current development stage. However you might be able to change my mind and try it afterall. 2. I love the feeling of raw power in this thing, the engine can really kick and the way the Viper recovers energy is astounding. Is it something that will remain, or something that needs tweaking? (I take here into account that the F-16 is far from being fully complete) 3. I heard the G-Force modeling is a bit pale and is something that hinders the F-16 full potential, because right now it seems that the "pilot" inside the Viper has no resilience. As if he did not undergo training for the F-16. Is this true? 4. I have a feeling that the MFD are less readable than those in the JF-17. Is it true that the glass cockpit is easier to navigate that the one of the Viper? 5. Have not flown the Viper to much, so I have to ask, how is the fuel managment/consumption in comparison to the JF-17? I know the Viper can carry more fuel, but when fuel consumption rate is a factor, then lower fuel quantity does not have to be a hinderance. 6. Any other things worth mentioning to convince me? Summary Thanks for sticking so far with me and reading what I wrote. So now that you know what kind of experience/knowledge I have and what my general preference is, it boils down to the question of this topic. Should I get the JF-17 or stick to the helicopters and give the F-16 more time? I have read in the last news letter I think, that the Hornet is nearing completion and the focus will shift to the Viper. Bugfixing and new additions. But it will still take time and it might be a wise idea to wait. Many thanks for reading once again, and thank you in advance for the feedback. Fly safe

Exactly. And this is why i wish for a official dynamic campaign for DCS, but we need better AI for that. In fact we probably need 3 different types of AI working as one. 1st AI to perform battlefield managment reacting/creating missions for players/other AI according to what is happening on the map 2nd AI managing aircraft that behaves in a different way in BVR and WVR 3rd AI for ground units, which next to the first option is the most needed one i think Imagine a scenario, where we have all those. You are flying a Ka-50, NOE, all is going well. You get to the IP and start searching for targets, you see that fat abrams, lock him up, lase him and puff, he pops smoke because his laser warning reciever told him that someone is lasing him. All the other tanks disperse looking for cover. And you know that recon showed AA elements in the area but they have long switched possitions. Intel is no longer 100% accurate. Meanwhile the AI knows you are there and scrambled fighters from the nearby airfield to search for you... Time is ticking, you still have a job to do. No more easy shooting range. This is just one of potential scenarios, and the lack if Dynamic Campaign is the reason why i stick to single player content most of the time, or Blue Flag servers. Sure, its scripted for the aircraft, but at least it gives some degree of how it should work. However it is, far from "perfect..." And as for the "what can carry what" thing, and additional pylons for the Ka-50 that he probably never had. Not sure what to think about it. But i do know that if we had living and changing battlefield environment, it would not make much of a difference. Simply because you would have to put at least some attantion on what the loadout should be, depending on the AI generated mission for you. And i think this would be the thing that would force virtual pilots to think more about realistic loadouts than frankenloadouts. Just my 2 cents.

https://stormbirds.blog/2021/05/05/rumours-suggest-that-su-30mkk-may-be-dekas-next-project/ I saw this yesterday. If that is true, then it will be the first fixed wing multi role aircraft i would focus on learning. I am mostly a helo pilot, i do love all aircraft, however eastern frames have some kind of charisma that make me lean more towards them than western aircraft. Anyway, would fly a full fidelity Flanker G a lot.

Its the russian counterpart of the Lantirn pod. Russians call it the Palantirn pod. And on the serious side. A Palantir was a seeing stone from Lord of The Rings. Used by Saruman. Quite a bit of fluff if you are interested.

What about 9th of May? I wonder when the Hind drops...

Im not sure if someone already posted this, but I have been digging around the internet, to find more details about the MWS to KA-50, and how it will work. Now I am not sure how accurate this is, so maybe someone who has better technical knowledge or some better info might put it in a accurate way, but anyway maybe you will find it interesting. This is what i have managed to find: 1. The device located in the bottom right corner of that picture which is in Russian but translated to English means "UV direction finder of a missile launch" is the Ka-50 Missile Warning System. 2. And how UV MWS works, and I have marked in bold the most interesting stuff i think: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Missile_approach_warning_system#/Ultraviolet-based_MWS Advantages Operates in solar blind UV spectral wavelength region and therefore has no natural (sun) false alarms. UV based MAW systems therefore have a much reduced false alarm problem to solve compared to IR based systems. Very good probability of warning in high clutter background environments. All-weather operation, as it is impervious to solar clutter, and hardly affected by liquid water. Wide instantaneous field of view. Provide very good AOA information for good decoy dispensing decision making, maneuvering and for pointing DIRCMs. Has fast response time against nearby missile launches. Is a simpler system than pulse Doppler & IR technologies. Does not require cooling and needs only moderate computing power. Low life cycle cost. Disadvantages To detect approaching missiles, the rocket motor of the missile must be burning – it requires the high effective burning temperatures associated with solid fuel rocket motors. IR-based systems are probably better at altitude but UV is better against surface-to-air missiles. Cannot provide actual range information but can derive TTI from the rapid increase in amplitude of the approaching missile's signal. Detection range could be limited against future new technology low IR/UV emission rocket motors. 3. Summary: If this information is correct and the way how I understand it works, the missile launch warnings will come from ground threats mostly. So the fear of being spammed by MLW from different sources other than the close vicinity in which the Ka-50 is operating in should be, at least to my understanding, not that big of a problem. As far as MWS going off, when another Ka-50 launches its Vikhr, it will most probably be detected by the MWS aswell. As far as the A10 vs Ka50 Mws comparison, i think for the Ka-50 the MLW will be less of a problem, since helos operate at low altitude, so the detection range should be reduced. But this is just a theory, honestly i have not been testing the A-10 MWS on low alt, since most of the time I was flying very high if there was a SAM rich area. Anyway, im not totally sure how this will work in DCS, but I do think it does provide some insight. In the end, we will probably more know once the BS3 update drops.

I personally think that having a technological advantage is a nice thing to have, but it does not mean instant victory. The past concerning warfare in human history has some lessons about it When you look at it from DCS perspective, I can assure you that that flying "older" less advanced machines does not mean defeat, when facing a technologically superior foe. The same applies to the Ka-50, Mi-24 and other similar machines. Its more challanging, sure, but far from FUBAR. Just my two cents.

I am rotorhead and I was very positively surprised about the BS3 upgrade. However when it goes to fixed winged aircraft I love the fly the Hog, Harrier and the Mig-29. I hope for a Mig-29 full fidelity module too, however I have learned a long time ago, not to have too big expectations. What I mean by that is, I prefer to be pleasantly surprised by getting something that exceeded my expectations. All in all, there seems to be quite a bit going on, so a nice surprise might be possible.

I love all helos, so if i can afford the upgrade to bs3, then its a no-brainer for me.

This is great news. Im not sure but i think i heard about it too here: Totally, would be another dream come true. I love the Fulcrum and I say this as a Helo pilot... I think I can agree with this one. I was learning the Hip in order to be better prepared for the Mi-24P, but after doing a bit of digging i came to realize that learning the Hind will be a totally different experience. So yeah, comparing those too is not really a thing. I mean they of course share some similarities, but they are different afterall.

I think I was not clear enough. What I meant is to avoid potential DCS vs BF comparisons from game mechanic perspective, since for me those two are completely separate ones. Personally I think using the same tactic in DCS as in BF will get me killed fast. And it is also the reason why I avoid Air Quake servers as a Helo pilot. All in all, A flight sim is a flight sim, a arcade BF is also something else for me. I disagree about using such tactics, But if you think they will work in DCS, im not there to stop you and even more not to start an argument. Feel free to do as you wish, and this is everything I have to say about this. Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the offtopic also.

This is the thing i managed to dig up quickly concerning the Ka-50 https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/the-twin-fates-of-dcs-ka-50-blackshark-3-and-mig-29/ This law does not affect the development companies, but the collection of references. If the information was received not on the territory of the Russian Federation and not by Russian citizens, then the law is not applicable. We do not plan to completely abandon the development of military equipment of the Russian Federation, but the laws impose obligations on us. That’s all. The law will still be supplemented and clarified, judging by the text. Let’s see what will happen next. But don’t expect any serious systems, there won’t be any. So, sorry for the offtopic, but it seems visual upgrades are the only thing we get for now. As for the debate helicopter vs aircraft... please do not make BF4 vs DCS comparisons. Just, please... Fri13 I think explained it pretty well, why we should not compare BF4 tactics to be used in DCS. Yes, the DCS environment is not perfect and I honestly wait for CA to be better and a DC to be released, but even in its current state the "gameplay" is much different from what we have in BF4. So to sum up and come back to the Mi-24, i think it is not such an easy prey to aircraft in the real world. Helos in general are not easy prey in realistic battlefield conditions.

Exactly this. and this. Going further in this way of thinking, in order to compare the AH-64D we would need an updated Ka-50, the Mi-28N or Mi-35M in DCS. Which we all know, wont happen, since even the BS update got postponed. The Mi-24P is a completely different league because it comes from a different era. I personally think it was a much better helo for its time, than the AH-1 or Huey was. So yes, the Apache will be top notch for modern combat scenarios that it was designed to oparate in, but also because of this, comparing the AH-64D to the Mi-24P does not make any sense.

Exactly. Maybe it is not top notch tech, but still fun.

Totally agree. I really would not want to be a tank crewman in that time period and face the Mi-24. Funny small story, concerns the A-10C but i think it applies to the Mi-24 aswell in some degree. My friend was flying the Hog i was in the Su-25T or Ka-50 (i did not own the Hog at that time), doing diffrent stuff to enemy ground forces. Tanks, SPAA, infantry, all was blowing up from different ordnace and the GAU-8. Simple target practice with a certain degree of air defence. Suddenly my friend says - Boy I almost feel sorry for those guys - Why? - i asked - Because I would not like to be in one of those tanks with a A-10, Su-25 or when another ground pounder was in the area. - And what would you do If you would be in such a situation? - I asked He answered: If I`d sniff out an gunship or other ground attack aircraft, I would pop the hatch and run like hell to the nearest forest, praying he does not see me on his TV screen. So yeah, the Mi-24 will be far from being ineffective. About the night ops part, he will definetly not be the best, but if ED decides to add the NVG although Mi-24P did not have those, then it will be very interesting. There are also flares. It aint thermals, it aint nvgs, will require a lot of preperation and the targets position will need to be know beforehand, but it might present interesting mission opportunieties at night when the weather is good and visibility conditions are acceptable. I simply mean, it can be done.

My question is: What do you understand by adding something new to DCS with a new module? The same question applies to the Mi-24P. My answer to this question is: I want to pilot it, because in the neighbourhood I grew up in,had a base where a few of those were stationed around 10km away from the place i lived in. It was the D variant, but i had free airshows few days per week. The sound of the rotor was unique, the speed, the design, the way it moved. I was able to sit in the cockpit of, i was taken for a joyride in the crew compartment. I fell in love instantly. Belive me, such events left a mark and thus being able to fly it in DCS is a dream come true. And for me, the MI-24 is bringing something new to my experience.

Awesome work. I do not have Such possibility to create my own cockpit, but i do appreciate and admire the work you have done. Cant wait for the mi-24P

First of all, todays patch fixed Syria for me. It can still crash, but is much better than before. Thank you very much! And because of this fix, I was able to... well see for yourself I am still stuck in my chair

Yep. Just to add something i found and broaden the perspective of how it was utilized. "The Mi-24s not only protected helicopter troop assaults and supported ground actions; they also protected convoys, using rockets with flechette warheads to drive off ambushes, performed strikes on predesignated targets, and engaged in "hunter-killer" sweeps. The hunter-killer Mi-24s operated in pairs at minimum, more often groups of four or eight, to provide mutual fire support. The Mujahideen learned to move mostly at night to avoid the gunships, and in response the Soviets trained their Mi-24 crews in night-fighting, dropping parachute flares to illuminate potential targets for attack. The Mujahideen quickly caught on and scattered as quickly as possible when Soviet target designation flares were lit nearby." And about the A-10 comparison: "The Mi-24 was popular with ground troops, since it could stay on the battlefield and provide fire as needed, while "fast mover" strike jets could only stay for a short time before heading back to base to refuel." Source: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan_.281979.E2.80.931989.29 I don't know how accurate this wiki is, but it does provide some interesting insight I think to potential tactics. And at least for me, it makes a lot of sense. I read the whole page a few days ago, and when going through this forum topic i thought id share what i found.

Totally agree and this is how things should work and what should be taken into account when flying a specific platform. What I wanted to stress with flying the Hind solo is that we need to take into account how the current state of DCS looks like. We do not have a official dynamic campaign (which is a wet dream for me that i hope comes true) and by the book executed combat scenarios can be hard to come by, especially for pilots who prefer to fly solo. A viable option is a well tailored single player campaign, that will not overwhelm the pilot with air quake. Multiplayer... cliche: It depends. Thus the consideration how viable the Mi-24P is, when used by a single pilot without a human gunner. I think it will be very fun to fly solo. Both in single and multiplayer, but the true potential will be unleashed when flying according to the purpose that it was designed for. And like mentioned before, a extra buddy in a second Hind never hurts. It makes things even more interesting.

Well, honestly i agree with both of you, and kind of share the same thinking as I wrote the things above. However which option is better... again, it depends a lot on the scenario. Sometimes sending two helos, where one can do the job is not a good idea. But here comes the intel and mission planning part. Where are you going? What is the estimated enemy strength? Are you going against soft or hard targets? What type of weapons will be best suited for the job? Do you need only one Hind, two? or a hip with troops additionally to claim a objective? Are there fast movers/other enemy helos in the area? The battlefield is a big living organism, so I would say you cant go wrong with any of those options. However what is important to have in mind, especially when flying a helo: Dont bite off more than you can chew. But coming back to the topic. 1 Hind with a pilot and human gunner, or 2 hinds with 2 pilots and Petrovich AI it all increases SA in both situations. Having extra firepower never hurts.

Yup, some valid points here.

Hehe, again it depends on the server type/combat environment and scenario, and if it is single/multiplayer. 1. 2 Hinds, with 2 pilots and 2 AI Petrovich. Definetly more firepower to strafe run and get the hell out. About spotting/launching atgms? All depends on Petrovich AI and how good it will be at early access and in the future development. 2. Human pilot + human Petrovich, less firepower but definitely more SA and visibility + someone trustworthy that you know will not get bugged because... something. Perfect scenarios, especially on cold war servers would be: 1. 2 Hinds, 2 Hips, and doing assault runs by the Hind, with troop deployment done by Mi-8. This is a crude description how it worked in Afghanistan. Every possible multi-crew position is manned by a human player. That will be a very powerful combo especially on Blue Flag servers where Helos are workhorses and you cant do progress without them. All in all i hope that the AI will be very good in order to have fun with single player campaigns/scenarios. But for multiplayer, a human co-pilot/gunner will always be better. Because well, human? So as you can see I am not able to give you a straight answer. It all depends on how good the AI Petrovich will be. Be it single player or multiplayer environment. Basically the questions you ask, are the questions I ask myself. But the things I wrote above is the way I see it will work.