Topgun505

Incorrect Cat. I have the throttle set to the small slider-control on my Saitek throttle unit (in order to power to idle after landing or throttle to max in case of single engine failure). As a matter of fact that seems to be about the ONLY control I can set that slider to ... but that works. :)

Yes yes I know ... I've already mentioned the effectiveness and asymmetry issues. Don't even get me started on the Phoenix. The F-14 is retired at this point. And it was the only launching platform for that missile. And at $1 million per missile ... that's an awfully expensive missile to have in inventory and not be using. Dogonit ... put my tax dollars to work and load them up on an active aircraft instead of sitting in a weapons bunker rotting away.

The Kh-25 has a 190 lb warhead. A Mk 48 Torpedo has a 650 lb warhead. A single Mk 48 is more than capable of sinking a destroyer with 1 hit. So from a warhead standpoint 3 Kh is about equal 1 torpedo (with the main difference being the KH hits above the waterline and thus would not be as effective as a torpedo). But, in any case, 3 or 4 Kh would do extensive damage, especially if it hit near the waterline. You are correct in that it is currently not listed as the KA-50 being a standard launching vehicle. 6 Viks = 270kg vs 1 KH = 700 lb. So ... if those outter hardpoints can withstand an additional 100 lb or so more than a normal payload of 6 Viks (which I imagine it should as the BS can pull more than 1G while loaded) ... then feasibly, as long as you don't pull too much G while flying you should feasibly be able to mount 1 KH on each outter station. Your big problem launching them would be the sudden massive imbalance on your weapon stations and shift in center of gravity after launching one. So, are they a normal carrier of the weapon? Nope. Could they be? Sure, given a little tinkering. ;)

In the flight I was in last night me and another ka-50 armed with 2 of these missiles each ended up taking down an O.H. Perry class ship (though it took I think all 4 missiles). The 2nd identical ship in the mission (though this one was not moving) was unable to be sunk even after numerous hits (4+) with the same missle.

Welcome Ice. It looks like plenty of people have commented on the campaign so I won't touch that. But ... like you ... I do not have a Track IR either (though I do plan to get one asap). But, so far, I have survived just fine without it. Currently I have a x52 Saitek system. One hat switch on my stick is set to Shkval slew and other is set to move the head view. One of the buttons on the stick is also set to Center View so that if things get hairy I can snap my head back forward in an instant (for times like getting caught in a vortex ring or need to get yer head outta the instruments to look for targets, etc). The only thing you will have trouble with is trying to get a bead on an air target. But yeah ... in general you can survive without a Track IR. It is just VERY recommended. :)

*points to Ericinexile* Yeah. What he said. I am mimicing the performance of the AIRCRAFT operation as much as possible vs the actions the pilot is taking. Though as far as the trim issue is concerned ... I wonder if Saitek has ever given thought to making a force feedback model?

Graphics: The level of detail on the vehicles and aircraft is astounding. The cockpit views are quirky but considering most people who play it will have Track IR that's not a huge issue. Personally I don't have any issues with the terrain. I remember the days of Longbow where there were hardly any hills at all and pretty much no buildings, and ZERO trees. Besides, your eyes need to be looking for contrails from death darts and not how many nuts you can see on the tree in front of you. :) Mediocre explosions ... if you know what's good for you, you won't be close enough to see much detail in an explosion anyway! Sound: This is one of my few beefs. Switch to F2 and then F1 to get back in the cockpit and suddenly your engine sound is muffled. Hit Esc twice and you get it back. Hopefully this gets fixed with the patch though. Balance: The tutorials do move pretty fast. You pretty much have to go through some of them multiple times to catch everything. There could also stand to be some more sessions covering more systems of the aircraft. Steep learning curve? It is a maximum-fidelity simulator. That comes with the territory. Don't wanna spend some time learning it? Then stick to an arcade game ... don't come here. ;) Atmosphere: I can't really agree with either of the negatives here. Controls: Lots of keyboard controls? Again .. it is a maximum-fidelity sim. What do you expect?? Manual only a pdf file? Uh ... yeah. You expect them to print a 400 page manual and a 100-200 page gui manual with each copy?? I don't want to pay $100 for the software package to make up for the cost of printing the manuals. This is fine as is, thank you! Content: Other aircraft are coming as future releases. Nuff said. Realism: I'm not sure where he was flying, there are plenty of hills that I have seen. But. The one realism aspect I do have to ding BS for is the trees not blocking LOS of enemy units and not being collidable. Rotor blade vs 5' thick Pine tree = bad result ... or rather ... it should. AI: It would be nice to be able to specify to your wingmen what specific ground movers they need to hunt. AI on both sides can be a lil quirky but hopefully that will improve over time with patches. Sometimes the AI combat ability of enemy AI is TOO good. When you poke your head just barely up over a hill for just 4 or 5 seconds and get blasted from a M1A1 at 3+ km ... that's frustrating. Tuning: Spot on Territories: I don't really see his issues there. I would like to see a port though. :) Personally I give BS a 9. After the patches come out ... if they solve enough issues would bump it to 9.5

I've tried it various ways. Tried holding the trim during turns and such but considering I don't have rudder pedals it's a royal pain to both hold the trim (which is my pinky finger on the Saitek) and twist the joystick at the same time. It works, but its certainly not the optimal way to fly. I've tried mapping the Heading Hold AP button to a button on the stick and turn that off when I want to disable the heading hold. This is the way I've been doing it up until now mostly. This tends to work ok but does end up in some wobble while it's off, which is certainly not good during fixed-weapon employment (rockets etc) Tried using the FD now that I have a better understanding of its function. I think this is the way I'm going in the future. Probably will remap the current button which is for Heading Hold and switch it to FD and just leave Heading Hold on from now on. Now, instead of turning HH off will just turn FD on. Won't be battling the autopilot for yaw/turn command and will still have the dampening to avoid the wobblies. Yeah ok ... may not be how the real pilots do it ... but the odds I'm ever going to get my hands on a REAL Ka-50 are exactly ..... ? I'll go with what works best. :)

Is it possible to have the laser designator get knocked out by enemy fire? I was doing the single-player Battle mission last night and got a little too close to a LAV which took a dislike to my pitot tube/probe and surgically removed it with cannon fire. Afterwards I found that not only did my velocity indicator not function (of course), I also couldn't lase a target for ATGM fire as well. Considering the timing I don't know if it was just the laser got burnt out or if the LAV gunner managed to core out my designator.

Didn't see that. But still ... it looks like that thread hasn't been hit much since late 2008. And BS just came out not long ago here in the US so I wonder if people are just not seeing that thread and are mainly just lurking here in the General Discussion instead of going to the Multi-player forum. Thus, maybe it's not a bad idea to have a thread in here where BS folks are more likely to see it? Couldn't hurt. :)

I didn't see any other threads along these lines, but forgive me if there is and I just missed it. I'd like to see what virtual squadrons are out there. I wanted a central resource everyone can go to in order for everyone to get together with other people of like mind (as far as your goals for what you wanna do with BS) and your region (so you are more likely to end up playing with other people who speak the same language and are playing at roughly the same time). Please include: The name of your squadron The location of a majority of your players (US, Russia, etc) The time zone most of your players are in The approximate membership of your squad Primary language Goals of your squad (Arcade, hardcore sim vs custom missions, harcore sim head to head vs other squads, etc) The website of your squad, if you have one Membership requirements (if any) Just figured I'd put something up here to help us all get together and get up and flying.

500 feet? or 500 meters? BIG difference. Though , honestly, regardless of which answer is correct there is still one thing that can be said. You were flying TOO HIGH. Helo jockeys bread and butter is generally spent being down in the weeds where radar will find it difficult to lock you up and where terrain can be easily used to shield you from LOS sensors such as laser guided weapons or the good ol Mark I eyeball. I'm not saying you need to be down at like 7m for your whole trip. But when you are as high as you were, the whole world can see you and have no problem lighting you up. I did a mission where there was a destroyer was offshore and it had no trouble locking me up with his radar and downing me if I got to close and I was at around 60m alt. So, the short answer is, Keep your distance from known threats and take them out at range, get your head out of the cockpit and keep scanning for threats, and stay down low.

I'm playing with my squadron. So far I'm seeing an average of like 10 servers up at any given time with an average of about a dozen or so pilots active. But I'm sure that will grow over time.

It will be standalone. Whether or not it will be able to interface with BS I am not sure. And it'll cost ya I'm sure. ;) Probably the same amount as BS.

Awesome level of detail. My big question is how well will the flight dynamics be modeled? There's been instances where an A-10 has had nearly half a wing blown off and an engine shot out and yet it still managed to fly home to base. Hope the physics are modeled as well :)

Nice. That's just as good as my first day at college. My first class was an aviation class and the instructor started it off with a bit of humor. "Class, you just have to remember the #1 rule of aviation .... don't hit anything"

1. Start aircraft 2. Ask ATC to taxi 3. Taxi to position 4. Ask ATC for hover test 5. Perform test 6. Set the aircraft back down on the runway 7. Ask ATC for takeoff clearance 8. Get outta dodge If you skip step 6 ATC will not give you clearance.

I own flight manuals for the: F-16 A-4 A-7 A-10 and .... the F-111 Though, granted, I'm sure it covers an earlier block of the aircraft and not the final variant/block. But if you need info, let me know. :)

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them do it! And as long as the 2 seats worth of functionality can be combined in a cohesive way that doesn't impeed combat functionality then I'll certainly dive in to it. I just have some reservations about how they will do it. Will be interesting to see how they tackle it.

Yeah. I mean ... one of the main tactics is pop up from behind cover, take a shot, and dip back down. Would be harder than heck to do that in a time-effective manner while having to switch back and forth between positions. And trusting the duties to an AI ... um ... yeah I don't see that. As much as I love the AH-64 I don't see it being terribly feasible. Probably need to stick to aircraft that are operated by a single crew member. So ... I guess my vote would be for the Mig-29 (if they can include the IRST) ..... and, failing that, then the A-10C. :thumbup:

The max listed speed of the 111 is mach 2.5. However, this aircraft was mainly meant for low level and mid-level bombing missions. As such it's maximum speed would be far below that (especially down on the deck where the air is thicker). Considering it is not stealthy in any respect, in todays environment it would only be useful at NOE flight utilzing its terrain following radar/autopilot ... unless all air defenses were knocked out ahead of time. The only aircraft to hit/exceed mach 3 in a production military aircraft were the Mig-25 and Mig-31. Now, back on to the topic. I'd love to see a sim of the AH-64, even the A version. However, how are they going to deal with the multiple positions of the aircraft? It would seem to me having to switch back and forth between the 2 positions in the middle of a battle would be quite a chore, not to mention rather hazardous. What would be the point of modeling both the A-10A & C variant? Just pick one and do it well. I'd vote for the C variant. But yeah I'd like to see that one done. The Mi-24 would be interesting but considering we now have the ka50 ... we have our dosage of Russian attack helos so I'm not sure how hard I would press for this. The F-15C I would love to see. :) The Mig-29A I would REALLY love to see .... cause I want to play around with that IRST (Infra-red search and track) system. But I would imagine this is still relatively classified hardware. If they can't include that aspect then I'd almost be inclined to say "Skip it" The F-16c. Hmmm. Lead Pursuit did a great job with Falcon 4: Allied Force. It would be interesting to see if DCS could do better but I think it might be better to not get in to a competition war and maybe just stick to the F-15 since nobody else has done a good sim of that aircraft in a long while.

I was there when Ram got plastered on the ground. It wasn't pretty. Rotors everywhere. :cry:

Kinko that. Column length: (drop down with # of units) Column type: Support (trucks, fuel), AA, Armored, Mechanized Inf, Mixed You can do the same thing with larger units as well. Armored companies, battalions, etc. You could also have the computer randomly take away some units from a column or unit to simulate previous battle losses by the unit so you never know exactly how many vehicles you are going to run in to.

That looks awesome PoleCat. Will have to give that a try. :)

Ok spyda. 3 Questions: 1. Where did you get a touch screen panel from? I don't think I've ever seen one in any sort of retail store. 2. How much did it cost? 3. Are you running XP or Vista? And is it Vista certified? I'd love to get such a touch setup but if it is gonna run me $1000 to set up I'll just get myself a TrackIR and just be happy with that. lol :)