Rick50

That's pretty sweet!! Also it's nice for the campaign maker to have people appreciate their work from a new perspective, give the work some more replayability! Edit: Maybe as more players realise this ability, it may spur more campaign sales?

There's a huge amount of work to develop a complex module like this. The 3d model might not be anywhere near ready to show off. As much legal documentation as possible, radar submodes, Sparrow AI, Guy In Back AI, historically accuracy, complex flight dynamics aerodynamics, 3d scan a real example and it's cockpits, livery research. This all takes time to process through. Maybe HB is concentrating on getting those things right, than showing screens of their model?

Often a paink kit comes later in development, and many will paint up great livery paints without any kit available. Dunno how they do that, but I guess that's some skillzzz!

Nice!!

Ok on the modification (not paid module) front, there is: Now that we have targets for it... presenting... the PBY Catalina!! Please note, to use the torpedo bomber/float plane, the Landing tender is required!!! : .. No I haven't tried it, my gamebox is offline and will be a while, but enjoy!

I've every confidence that Antonov could "easily" make another 225 from the second airframe, assuming the incomplete airframe is not also heavily damaged by the end of the war (and might be). But reality is, it would probably take 7 to 10 years after the war is over, and there's probably no one who's willing to give such a program a budget... so unless THAT changes... the dream is probably over. Like they said in "The Right Stuff" movie: "no bucks, no Buck Rogers". Or to paraphrase from a song: "no money no program". And I just don't see anyone putting up the money for the 6 engine variant anymore. What's not so clear to me is how much Antonov itself will survive the current invasion? Tooling, engineers and employees, specialists, manufacture of and storage of spare parts... blueprints and Autocad files... losing the Mrya is bad enough, but now I'm getting concerned that the Antonov organisation is at significant risk... I know, small concern compared to the lives being lost there, the suffering and all... but it would still be a shame to lose Antonov itself. Now... the glimmer of hope for Antonov is that they recently entered an agreement with Boeing, and the newer versions were capable of doing 150 metric tons... maybe a future 124 variant using Western engines like the 66,500 lbf (296 kN) GEnx-2B67 (seen on 747-800F) might offer even more payload and other benefits?

Dork here... just wondering out loud what it might be like to see one Python 5 per Apache, as a way of providing short range SAM coverage for ground units? Purely hypothetical of course, but consider: they will often be right on the frontline, where stopping an enemy from doing CAS on your troops, if the occasional Apache could provide a credible kill on planes comming in. Why on an Apache instead of ground units? Well, for one thing, typically, an armor advance will only go maybe 20-50km / h of average speed (not top speed, but the average speed over the day), depending on comms, planning, mechanical breakdowns vs field repairs, logistic tail capabilities to effectively keep up with the armor, enemy resistance ambush and tank traps/obstacles, night capabilty, crew rest and state of mind, morale, state of food and pottable water. To effectively protect an entire convoy from attack would theoretically require a LOT of vehicles with air defense, given it's shorter ranges, and the length of the convoys. But... Apaches would be on station at the front. And behind enemy lines. And following some waypoints near the convoy vehicles. Far from averaging 50km/h or less, they'll be doing roughly 300 km/h when cruising along, covering a lot of ground, and when alerted from ISR /C4I could be rerouted much quicker. Not as fast as say jet interceptors... but these would already be airborne, already near friendly ground units... often faster to get a good Python or 9X shot on an SU-57 than an F-22 that had to be ground scrambled. Vipers Hornets Beagles... they can provide some CAP capability for ground units from time to time, but reality is that they will often be tasked with a very wide variety of mission types, switching even during a single sortie. The fact is, there's a high probability that a fancy CAP aircraft may just not be anywhere near our ground units. Not saying that an Apache with heaters is anywhere near as good as a Raptor... but Raptors are few and far between, and would have SOOO many important taskings that CAP over ground units would be a fairly lower priority. So this would not be a massive program. It would be a quick retrofit for gunships. Stick one Python on each gunship, except for special missions. Use that to bolster ground air defense systems like Avenger, SHORAD and Gepard. Use the Longbow radar to help detect/track eneme fighters, and or use the IHADS monocle to aim the heater seeker. Can be hidden/passive, getting enemy position from datalink, then once you have target ID and tone, vaporize it. Python is a Mach 4 that can shoot targets behind you, a serious no escape zone. If the ground vehicle is in a small valley, or surrounded by trees, it'll have almost no coverage for anyone until that enemy fighter bomber is releasing his weapons, while the Apache can still scan and cover an area from hiding, and can pop-up to attack line of sight in two seconds, no matter the terrain, engage high off boresight from helmet cues, radar, datalink, and so on. Why not use old heaters that are at the end of their service life? Well, surely you could. And that alone would be quite the deterent. But carrying 9x or Python5, would be significantly cheaper than fielding an entirely new ground vehicle, engineering for the hydraulic aiming racks, considering fuel, crew training, ongoing maintenance costs and so on, while providing a very effective wpn against incomming CAS. The newer heaters have better acceleration, better range, better Pk ratings, better countermeasure rejection... you get a MUCH more effective result just by using the latest AAM's. Oh, and Apaches would not be the only ones contributing to this concept, as Hogs and maybe even a few UH-60's could do the same. Not all of them of course, but maybe a select few. Here's a scenario: a friendly nation finds itself suddenly very worried about an iminent invasion. You need to send 5 Globemasters ASAP to either repel invaders, or cause a serious re-think of their plans. You send a few Raptors as escort and regional CAP. You send say 8 Apaches. HIMARS. Two Abrams. Patriot missiles are for the next series of flights, because they are complex big systems that need multiple flights to deliver, and time to set up to operations. Currently, those Apaches could only deal with ground targets, but add a serious heater, and suddenly they can help defend from enemy ground attacks, within an hour of being unpacked from the C-17, over a couple hundred KM of terrain each. Eight of them could cover a fairly large area, and would not be stationary at known fixed locations easily seen on satelite imagry, but rather at very different locations every 6 hours, remote sites, FARPs and such. No, it's not a Raptor and never would come even remotely close. But there just isn't enough Raptors to stop every enemy ground attack jet or HIND, from sneaking past to wreck your ground units... this concept might give it a fighting chance. What do you think? Silly? Or maybe worthy of further consideration? PS, I'm not advocating for ED to change it's policy on ATAS for the Longbow module, they have very good reasons for locking in a specific configuration and I very much support their great track record of getting things right... I'm just doing a thought exercise to see if maybe there's an overlooked benefit to reversing course in combat helicopter armament for the overal Armys of the world. And until now I thought the idea was silly... but now thinking it through, I think it makes more sense than ever. Edit: Alternative platforms for super advanced IR AAM's as SAM's, could include MQ-9 Reaper drones, General Atomic Mojave drones, a small number of UH-60's off a pylon, A-29 Super Tucano...

I had to look up the flag... nope, not Poland as it's flag is white over red, not red over white! So Monaco and Indonesia have the same flag, red over white... I'm gonna take a wildarsed guess and suggest that this is an Indonesian Firebird, as I'm thinking theres's probably no room for Monaco to park mili helos anywhere... too many supercars, too many yatchs, too many private jets! I must say I quite like this paint scheme... looks much like what I'd expect Canada to paint an Apache, if we ever decided to buy some... very similar colors to our Griffins and the brand new CH-47's we just bought (CH-47 F or something?)

I mean the woman, Sean Young, who went to the commander's crashed bird, seems to take a Stinger off the winglet, shoulders it, and fires at an enemy helo... ?!? Was that ever a thing?! Carrying the ground/shoulder FCS in a compartment, to mount a Stinger for shoulder use?! Kinda thinking it's something they dreamed of but probably never got done?

So you have an electric motor pulling a huge, very long belt of 30mm. That's a LOT of weight. That's a LOT of contact surfaces each with it's own friction points. And all that weight, once moving in the flat pack, has inertia, probably a fair amount of it. I wonder if the motor controller has mulitple power levels when spinning up and spinning down? To reduce the strain on the belt links, not just as it pulls it to speed, but also maybe to prevent all the rounds that are now moving fast, suddenly all the rounds behind, smash into the rounds up front... I'll bet that causes strain on the link connection, and since they are bashing into each other, might bunch up close and possibly cause even more friction for the next burst. This might not be an issue with the Robbie tanks and just 300 rounds, but I'll bet it's a BIG deal with 600 to 1200 rounds, those are big heavy rounds, and lots of them.

I dunno, I find all of them too cheezy, but I certainly welcome any DCS movie makers attempting to recreate improved versions of all of these! Then again, I don't think anyone can save Firebirds from the dialogue or overacting! One intro I always loved was Hornet 3.0, and at the time I REALLY wished that I wouldn't have to wait very long for graphics to match those of the vid... well it took a lot longer than I thought it might... but clearly DCS just blew past the intro graphics and into another dimension! One thing is clear, DCS Apache has higher quality resolution than Firebirds ever had... not to mention realism... removal of fromage... and no goofy muzik... BTW: did I see Nexus-6 Rachel take a Stinger off the side of the Apache, shoulder mount it and fire?!? What's going on with that?!

Sweet!! Well I hope the systems programming can really get going on this project, the 3d model is certainly ready, or very close to it IMO!! Would be very nice to fly this year in coop missions, in a nimble airframe! Edit: Ok so although it's already been posted, just wanted to highlight the overall status: The systems coder is very busy at this time (as of two weeks ago), so progress is slow right now. HOWEVER... the good news is that systems coding is apparently roughly at 75% complete, this from an article at Helisimmer that Fragger posted two weeks ago!! https://www.helisimmer.com/news/miltech-5-razbam-dcs-status-update-screenshots-february-2022?fbclid=IwAR2ennJhpaLpgC9FzuD4vC9U4iz7ncLY_rizEpPTTkEKqza8kpaLo939t8Q Second Edit: So with that in mind, my hope is for a late 2022 early access launch... !!

there is now an AI aircraft mod featuring the original LOACH Cayuse OH-6 ! The creator feels it might be possible for someone else to combine Nibbylot's Littlebird flight dynamics, maybe cockpit, weapons, with this model to make a flyable version? (not sure if the cockpit is a separate model from the exterior view... some FS planes the 3d cockpit is a different model from the exterior. Not sure if that's the case these days, but back in FS2004 it certainly was)

there is now an AI aircraft mod featuring the original LOACH Cayuse OH-6 ! The creator feels it might be possible for someone else to combine Nibbylot's Littlebird with this model to make a flyable version

Will this do instead? Try with the sound muted if too much fromage

yea, like pacifist Cobras! Mostly for forest fire spotting and such... maybe a few Apaches will get those roles in 20 years...

Nice! Would be kinda cool to combine this model with the flight and wpns pack from the AH-6, just like you suggest! No idea if an M-60 door gunner was possible for a mod... Of course, anyone doing that mod would have to remember that the original had one single minigun, but that the rate of fire might be 2000 - 4000 rounds per minute, or 3000 - 6000 rounds per minute, depending on which settings the unit armorer ordered, and what rate the pilot wanted/selected (no idea if he could change his rate setting while in the air, or if that was a ground-only selection). Meaning what? Well, the General Electric Minigun is powered by an electric motor, and as I understand it, there was two main versions during Vietnam, faster and slower. But also, there was a switch, so the operator could choose between really fast and half of that speed, that's why I give two rates of fire. I do not know which was more common. I have heard that during that war, the Minigun was not all that reliable... not a showstopper, but more a significant headache for aircrews and groundcrews that had to fix them. . From what I understand, it was these stoppages and breakages that caused Dillon Aero's owner to improve them, perhaps as a hobby in those days, but that it lead to major production and contracts all around th eworld.

Dunno about the F, but yea, often smoky trails.... one trick was when combat was expected, in Vietnam, some pilots would put in a single stage of afterburner, because that made almost no smoke. Then again, fuel burn... but not getting shot down has a quality all it's own! On the upside, they usually carried external tanks, and often had air tankers on station. I remember hearing one time, of a Phantom that was damaged, leaking fuel like a sieve... they made it back to base by formation flying with a tanker, topping up every few minutes. No idea if that story was true or not, but sounded plausible and I kinda wish it's true!

Ah, but Army NCO's are not "Gentlemen"! Air Force pilots be gentlemens, give them the ceremonial swords... Apache crews ought to carry grenade launchers instead, M-79 for the win!

Well at least it wasn't a career ender! Unlike the Apache pilot who hit a tree for real... brought down their bird... https://aviationhumor.net/you-think-we-can-make-it-through-there/

"If you can dodge an ATGM, you can dodge a tree!" Or as Trinity might say... "Dodge this!" Good vid!

Yes, because that becomes not only something that people did, but also fits the timeline too!

A few things to consider: These aircraft are NOT simple. There's a lot to learn. Most customers have a limited amount of time to devote to a "game" (yea, it's a simulator, but in our lives it's essentially not a training tool but for our chosen style of "entertainment"). And there are great tutorials. But different people learn differently. Different teachers have teaching styles, different presentation styles for different students who absorb the lesson in different ways. Think back to school, college or workplace instructions: Ever had a teacher that you dreaded going to, because it was a struggle to absorb their lesson? Maybe too wordy, too slow, talks down in a condescending manner? Maybe another teacher you liked because of how they explained things? How they actually did the "hands on" portion? Or jumps too quick to get to the point with no details? Maybe not enough in the nuts and bolts of actually accomplishing things? Too much theory not enough hands-on? Or maybe all hands on at too fast a rate, skipping over verbalizing important steps that are assumed the students know by heart? Not enough theory? Dry monotone theory with no pauses that just goes ON AND ON AND ONANDONANDON... maybe teach is too critical of student, maybe far too lax and too much unwarranted praise, not enough feedback, or maybe you are drowning in feedback and it's distracting you from the process of absorbing the hands on part of the lesson? My point is that people teach differently, and people LEARN differently. Different institutions teach with different styles too... a kindergarten lesson is going to be presented VERY differently from an Army Lesson on safe handling of a grenade. Or a University Biology lesson. Or a car driving lesson. They'll have a different feel, different presentation, different expectations of the students. I think there's room for many different styles, what works for some doesn't work well for others. When we have choices of teachers, we have the opportunity to seek out a new source to learn, when we run into a topic that stumps us. We probably come back to the first teacher for the rest of the topics, but maybe to learn that one thing, we seek out a different teacher because maybe they've covered it differently. Pilot instructors often notice that they learn more as instructors, than they did as students, for a variety of reasons. One told me that becoming an instructor was super useful in becoming a really good pilot. Because instructing is on some level also learning, often in more depth. My own father was a highschool teacher. Smart, knowlegable. Competent. I never spent time with him in a school classroom... but seeing how he struggled to teach us kids non-school things... man, sometimes that was painful. ---- As for DCS content providers, It might simply be someone's getting a lot of grief from a few people over tutorials, that can really weigh heavy on someone sometimes. But really, we don't actually know much of anything. Often people are vague on purpose, because while they feel strongly about something, they also don't want to hurt others feelings, don't want an escalation, don't want friends to go on a crusade that wasn't wanted. Sometimes just want to part ways peacefully and chill. Sometimes it's best to just let a subject rest.

Whenever I visit the forum, the text in actual posts is really tiny, most of the time I need to "pinch zoom" to read the posts. I usually use a smaller laptop with about a 11 inch screen. Sure, I can go into my computer's settings and select "grampa mode" with HUGE font size... which makes it good on this forum... but then makes other sites' fonts MASSIVE and don't fit on the screen more than five words per line... so is there a forum setting that I'm not seeing? An option to change text or font size to my preferences? Thanks!

Hmm... strange that they would include such poly's that simply aren't needed... even FPS sims don't need that kind of details, but for window dressing that will never be used in-game?!?! Sure, the exterior looks great, but this is why a 3 year old system chokes... uneeded details that don't contribute to enjoyment. My guess is they looked for good 3d asset to buy, did so, and just put it iin-game with no model optimisation, reduce the polys not seen by the player.