isoul

If ED asked me of what aircraft to model I would say "The least modeled ones which are still in service!". Now I don't mean B-52 or KC-135, I mean all the aircraft that are out that made a name that haven't been used again and again in Flight Sims. We 've seen many F-16/15/18/22 and A-10 is coming shortly. Still there are aircraft like (fighters) Mirage-2000, Mig-29, Su-27/30 (attack)Tornado IDS, AV-8B, SU-25. In general all these aircraft are modern enough to be interesting and added in DCS series with the Russian ones being more interesting (to many of western customers such as myself) cause there is still a "mystery" floating around their name!

I got initiated from another post in the forum and did a little research on the S-13 rocket that the Ka-50 uses in-game. As far as my research went I found 6 variants of rockets which are the following : 1) S-13 : Standard version. Penetration rocket used against bunkers/shelters or runways(penetrates 3m of ground of 1m of reinforced concrete). 2) S-13B : Same as standard version but with larger warhead. 3) S-13T : Same as standard version with two phase warhead(specializes in destruction of aircrafts in shelters). 4) S-13OF: High Explosive/Frag variant. 5) S-13D: FAE(Fuel-Air Explosive) variant, equivalent to 35-40kg TNT 6)S-13DF: FAE(Fuel-Air Explosive) variant, differs in range from D variant I was wondering which one ED modeled and found out that : A) after a search in the forum I 've seen posts that are reffering to S-13 as a penetration (anti-bunker) rocket. B) the 3D-model used in-game is the one of the S-13OF variant(easily distinguished by the long tip which is actually a delay fuze) C) the in-game encyclopedia refers to S-13 rockets but all the specifications(weights, dimensions etc.) are identical to S-13D or S-13DF variants. Apart from these, the in-game explosion animation is quite large for an S-13 penetration rocket(which has only 1.82kg of explosive material). So, does anyone know which variant exactly ED modeled in DCS:BS?

There are many variants of the basic S-13 rocket. The basic S-13 is a penetrating rocket which can penetrate 3m of ground or 1m of reinforced concrete. The B variant, according to wikipedia, has the same use but a larger warhead(standard S-13 has >2kg of explosive). The T variant is a penetration rocket with explosives that goes off in two phases(on impact and after penetration) ideal for destroying aircraft in shelters. Still, on those 3 variants (S-13, S-13B, S-13T) the warhead size/explosive material isn't that much(S-13T has a total 4,5kg of explosives, which is the bigger of the three variants). ED uses the model of S-13OF, easily distiguishable by the long "nose" of the rocket which actually is a delay fuze. OF variant is a HE/Frag rocket with 7kg explosive material and 450 fragments. Still, the encyclopedia states that S-13 rocket has all the characteristics(overall and warhead weights, size and TNT equivalent) of the S-13D or S-13DF variant! Of course this can be misleading since there are so many variants of the same rocket that its easily confused. Appart from this, don't you think that the explosion animation size of the S-13 in-game is quite large for an up to 7kg HE warhead? I think this is a good question for the ED Dev team to answer!

No, an S-13 can't reduce a bunker to dust for sure but the bunker's strong wall interior, once the rocket penetrate the reinforced concrete and explode, magnifies the blast force. My initial objection was aimed towards the fact that Vikhr is an armor-penetration missile and in real life it shouldn't do significant damage to a bridge. I am no expert in explosives but take the following facts into consideration : 1) A well placed German WWII Tellermine(AT Mine) with 4,5-5,5kg TNT is enough to demolish a single-arch, approx. 4m-wide stone bridge. 2) Judging from the shape, the S-13 rocket which is ingame is the S-13OF HE rocket which caries 7kg of explosives(which I assume to be TNT). I don't know if S-13OF keeps the same penetration characteristics of the basic S-13(which can penetrate up to 1m reinforced concrete) but its explosive type is more suitable for demolitions. Vikhr's overall warhead weight should be no more than 10kg(thats a speculation since Ataka missile which weight 2.5kg less than Vikhr has 7,4kg warhead) which is Tandem-HEAT while S-13OF has a pure 7kg HE(overall warhead weights 33kg). So, taking all the above into consideration, when it comes to blast force I assume that S-13OF should be better than Vikhr and that S-13OF has more chances to damage a bridge. EDIT : According to in-game encyclopedia the rocket's characteristics are the same as S-13DF which is a FAE(Fuel-Air Explosive) rocket with 32kg overall warhead weight/14.6kg mixture of explosive material which is equivalent of 32.5kg(according to ED, or up to 40kg according to my sources*). The FAE weapons produces significantly longer blast wave which causes even more damage to buildings. The equivalent of 32.5kg TNT explosion is quite stronger that the blast produced by Vikhr's warhead. Source : "Russia's Arms 2001-2002" Copyright 2001 Military Parade Ltd. http://www.milparade.com/index.php?lang=1 Note : The only thing left to determine the type of the rocket (if it is the OF or the DF variant) is to check what is written on the rocket model in-game.

Another Auto-Pilot fighter here! No worries, many of us made the same mistake in the beginning! When you start learning the Shark, in order to understand the helicopter's handling, you should fly with FD on for a while. Since Flight Director disables the Heading Hold and Altitude Hold channels it is nice for trainning purposes because it will let you see how the Shark will respond to your input without having the (frustrating while learning) AutoPilot 20% authority over the input nor the Hold channels trying to maintain flight course and altitude. After familiarizing yourself with controling the Shark you can disengage FD and get use in controlling the Shark with all channels on (and much trimming)! Keep in mind that "Autopilot is your friend", don't fight it, get used to it and it will aid you!

Actually I am referring to RL! But since you are mentioning it, S-13 can destroy bunkers so its more possible to be able to damage or destroy a bridge...

I cant remember if there is actually a black box but there is "something" that records the flight data so in case of an accident the specialists can determine why the incident happened. Here in Greece we have many cases that military aircraft crashed and the pilot haven't survived so all the questions were to be answered by a "flight recording device".

Actually I am not that sure that Vikhrs or any other HEAT weapon can destroy a quite large concrete bridge(HEAT weapons are for penetration of armor). I would say that FABs and S-13 rockets are best for the task with S-13 being better since FABs take some more practice to make them hit the target.

The basic error done by many of us is that we think of helicopters as air assets! The fact that most attack helicopters are under ground force's command should say something! The helicopter is very different than fixed wing in almost all aspects. The kind of missions it undertakes, the way the mission are flown(altitude, target area approach etc.) makes it quite unique. So, treating a helicopter as a fixed wing aircraft is wrong! Even if the helo carries A2A missiles its for self defense... the only reason that helos may carry A2A missiles is to make fighter pilots think twice before they attack(this is for short range missiles since at medium to long ranges the helo is helpless). The best and only defense of a Ka-50 against fighters is concealment. In case a helicopter pilot makes himself visible to a fighter that flies in the immediate area the only thing he may hope for is that the aircraft has something better to do instead of engage him. As someone with knowledge about helicopter tactics put it... "When someone thinks of an attack helicopter's capabilities he must consider it as a fast moving, highly agile, all terrain (ground)vehicle that carries a wide range of weapons but never think of it as a typical aircraft".

One thing for sure... your E4500 should be your primary concern since the game uses more CPU than a GFX card.

Let me understand one thing... FM of LOMAC is simple? FC flight model is... what? FC2.0 will have the same FM fidelity as DCS? What the FC2.0 FM will be and how realistic will that be compared to DCS FM? ...many questions!

The circle around one point(circle strafe) is possible for Ka-50 for sure! But let us discuss its usefulness first... 1) Against anti-air defenses, especially AAA or MANPADS, its useless(or its just a mean to suicide) as GGTharos pointed out earlier. 2) Against groups of ground targets which are scattered its useless since if you concentrate on one target, the rest of the "targets" will shower you with hot lead. Against a single target, like a tank/IFV/APC, its useful! But when do you get so close to a single target? In case you are flying to a point and a tank/IFV/APC has gone unnoticed(due to concealment) you may pass too close to it and notice it at the last moment..! In this case instead of trying something very stupid(like flying backwards or accelerate in a straight flight and try to gain some distance) you can break hard to the side(preferably to the target's side) decreasing altitude and use rudder to perform an 180 degree turn(to face your target). Once done, your speed should be decreased and you can bank to slip sideways and use rudder to keep your gun pointed to your target. I possibly miss some things required to perform the maneuver but in general that is the case the "circle strafe" can be used. But keep in mind that its most likely its an "emergency" maneuver rather than a formal tactic to engage targets. Still if a target is spotted at a distance, every helicopter pilot would prefer to stay out of range(which is the primary defense of a heli) and engage it instead of making defensive maneuvers.

@ GGTharros Back there I was, initially, carried over and wrote a quite large post which, when I saw it, was intimidating for people to read so I deleted most of it. Thx for posting some arguments on that though.

Always the latest! The newer the better!

Only one way actually exists in how to deal with fighters and that is concealment! Avoid detection by keeping an obstacle between you and your hunter. Don't make me write huge post for backing up my argument! 1) If you weren't interested in Ka-50 why have you bought DCS:BS now? 2) What if I am interested in the 4th module of DCS? Why should I buy the first three ones? 3) No military contract=no data for ED, with no data the quality of modeling wouldn't be the same as in Ka-50! ED never said that it will model all aircraft or many aircraft. 4) Support modules cause is cheaper if you don't want all modules! Already DCS:BS module was cheaper compared to other games in my country!(DCS:BS=28euros while most games are at 40,50 or even close to 60 sometimes)

Greece uses AH-64A which are upgraded to A+ in order to be able to work together with the rest AH-64D(which acts as AFAC). I believe that excluding AH-64A from DCS would be wise only if AH-64A+/D becomes fully disclassified. Still I instist that besides the Longbow radar usage and some enhanced capabilities the D variant is very similar to A one so modeling the AH-64A is still a good thing to do!

So now the convresation turned to Jet VS Helo again... (I think its already talked too much but since you keep up I will place my arguments too). OK a fighter(or even attack airplane) pitted against a helicopter would probably end up with a helo in pieces or both participants turning around and leave. A fighter have a lot more means to detect/engage/evade a helicopter! But think of the bigger picture... battlefield is not a fighting pit! Situations are more complex than we may imagine... Its a multi-threat environment, not a helo against fighter! While a fighter packs sensors/BVR weapons/ECM the helo don't BUT there are other things for a fighter pilot to be concerned such as 1) Enemy ground based radars & AWACS to warn the helo 2) Possible AAA and SAMs(if fighter flies over hostile territory) to threaten the fighter 3) Enemy fighter CAP. You never send one asset alone (be it a fighter, a helo or a tank) in a multi-threat environment. In case the enemy achieved air superiority in the whole theater of war you just don't send air assets unless you are absolutely sure that something(be it ignorance, no available assets etc. etc.) will hinder the enemy responce. As GGTharos and others puts it, many will think that helicopters don't have a place in modern conflicts or that a helicopter is only usefull after air superiority is established. The truth isn't exactly like that... In modern conflicts that US participated, from Vietnam War to recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, the US doctrine was to achieve air superiority(something that they learned from WWII) and then strike ground targets while interdicting enemy air activity(if any). That proved to be a good strategy since most of their adversaries had a small air power compared to US/NATO and only a few(after military analysis) had a problem-free(in means of technology, homogenity and standarization) force to oppose massive air raids. Still in other conflicts were air superiority couldn't be established, like Falklands War, transport helicopters were used and in many nation's military doctrines the use of helicopters is included even if air superiority isn't fully achieved(or is achieved for a short time). Keep in mind that in a conflict between more balanced forces both sides will utilize fighter escort/patrols along the front line so both sides will be busy doing other things rather than hunting down helicopters. Even if the enemy judges that a couple of helicopters are a worthy target to engage, the last flies sorties in such a way that only aircraft in the imminent area can respond (but bear in mind that if an aircraft is near your target area you won't send a helicopter, or it won't be alone).

Actualy "Airwolf" is a Bell-222 which in turn is a civilian/utility helicopter with only a few used in military service and definately not in the "Airwolf" concept missions. It would be totally unrealistic to have an "Airwolf" among us in the skies! A Bell222 flying VIP from one point to the other wouldn't be so much of a challenge. If it was a new helicopter to be developed AH-64A Apache, Mil-28N or Eurocopter Tiger. Definately NOT good idea for Digital Combat Simulator series!

More natural control! I have reversed it too...

Damn you EtherealN!!! Let me back up your saying before coming again to justify my thoughts...!:D A nice example on this? Age of Conan said to support DX10 but the developers, a few weeks before release, announced that this feature won't be included at launch but it will be implemented in future updates. History showed that DX10 support came after several months and the frustration of customers hit game and developer reputation like a tsunami several times... Everybody agreed on that less advertisement of the feature would be better since devs hadn't made it functional when they started to advertise it!

Trying to be the devil's advocate here... I think that EtherealN used the word "hopefully" as part of a policy, many companies adopt, not to state info on features that aren't throughoutfuly tested and may need patches to be functional. Long before Company of Heroes the MMORPG genre and Warhammer40K:Dawn of War achieved standalone games being online compatible for one reason... the game core was the same across all standalone packs! This is happening in DCS series, right? The game core was updated before each release so no user needed to own more than one standalone pack to play with users owning other packs. This can be done to DCS too... this isn't so hard to achieve neither is innovative for today's industry! Since ED said that FC2 will be online compatible with DCS Black Shark why not Warthog be online compatible with it too? If a patch is needed its OK for every reasonable person. There are extremely few products(if any!) that are compatible with future releases without ANY patching...

Don't get stuck in words! Black Shark and Warthog are both DCS modules... As I get it DCS is the Basis of the simulation series and Black Shark, Warthog or whatever comes next are modules that expand the Basis by adding new aircraft etc etc. Each module is standalone that means that each module comes with a copy of the basis. The DCS basis may be updated with each module release but, as long as the update comes in a form of a patch in order to update earlier version of the basis, its possible that all modules can play together since they are parts of the same basis. The word "hopefully" MAY mean that a patch will be needed for BS users in order to ensure that DCS:Black Shark and DCS:Warthog are online compatible. This is quite reasonable though.

The Kh-29T(685kg) exceeds Kh-25ML's(299kg) weight by approximately 130%... Its warhead weight(320kg) alone exceed the Kh-25ML overall weight! The Kh-29L guidance method(semi-active laser) is the same as Kh-25ML but it has only 10km maximum range. On the other hand Kh-29T and Kh-29TE have 12km and 30km range respectively but they are TV-guided missiles. If we pressume that Ka-50's sytems are able to guide such missiles I personally doubt that Shkval can aquire a target at 30km away (unless the target is a ship quite large which is visible at long distances and provided that the atmosphere is very clear).

Keep in mind that DCS Menu/Launcher is a whole different thing than the game itself. ED decided to use different modules(probably cause of resources) and this means that DCS is being split in two or more independent applications that are "calling" each other(thats why when you launch a mission the game menu disappears). So if you want to change a setting while running the game module you must switch to the menu module. Most games that are able to change settings while in game has the game and menus in the same module.

Yeha but since I hat only 1 cent to give away I needed an excuse!:smilewink: