isoul

Think this other wise... Ka-50 utilizes the same gun as BMP-2. If the gun of the BMP-2 was able to defeat armor even at 1000m, given the BMP's low profile and its speed, this vehicle would be an excellent tank hunter without even the need of an AT missile. Still, this is not the case. The 2A42 is used against personnel or unarmored vehicles (HE rounds) or lightly armored vehicles like APCs or IFVs(Hummers, BMPs, BTRs, M113s etc.). Once you see some heavy armor on the field and you are out of missiles you can throw him some curses, swear and give a promise that you 'll get him next time! :)

But FC2 is many steps behind DCS series. I doubt that FC2 can be brought to DCS standards and the ability to fly an F-15, MiG-29 etc with the normal flight model compared to those flying with A-10C and Ka-50 and their high fidelity flight models will be like...cheating! I think this has been discussed to death already. Its not a waste of resources, its just technology and its products moving forward! Simple as this and happens all the time!

Can someone set my wingman's "Heroic Actions Switch" to OFF? He seems to have his self-preserving instinct tuned down! Thx & Bye!

In my small experience I found that wingman's best role is recon. Still it might prove to be a one-use-per-mission ability since they tend to get shot down quite easily! I believe that all other AI pilots (except my wingman ofc) are better at the job! My wingman is probably a part-time pilot... probably a news-paper boy as his main occupation.

I was thinking... A real A-10 pilot leaves his airbase in his car to go home and relax... playing DCS: A-10C..! That would sound ... at least weird to me! He has a real one at work, why bothering flying a simulator of the exact same aircraft he flies at work? Do you believe a bus driver would play Bus Simulator? I doubt that. Seriously... A few years ago... when Falcon 4.0 AF was one of the best (and the few) simulators out there I was talking with an active F-16 pilot. I told him that there is a PC simulator about the aircraft he is flying and he was amazed that some people are willing to get used to procedures etc etc needed to fly an F-16 but he never sounded interested to evaluate the game at home. He mentioned that even the Lockheed Martin military simulator doesn't make you feel the same as when you are up in the sky in real or practice missions! I believe that real pilots already know the feeling and wont change that for a PC simulator. Maybe someone who is willing to evaluate how close the simulator is to the real stuff but not to consume his spare time with the same stuff he does at work!

I checked yesterday the "recommended" CPU for DCS:Warthog and thought... "Should I laugh now or wait a bit..?" ED recommends its customers to have one of the most expensive processors in the market! And what about its minimal requirements??? A Pentium4 3.0GHz..! Now that IS interesting... From one point you are told than in order to run the game you need a 5 year old CPU that worth less than 80euros and on the other point you are told that the recommended CPU is one that costs more that 800euros. So what I get with an in-between these two? A frustrating experience at the cost of 300euros only? An acceptable experience with the same cost? Can we have a more realistic description of what we need to run the game at an acceptable level of both detail & performance? For example, if you have the recommended CPU fr DCS:BS (E6850+) you could get an acceptable frame rate of 35-40 most of the time(not all of the time!). If you need an i7-970 for a similar performance in DCS:A-10... OK thank you, bye bye! There are two chances... either ED is defining the word "recommend" too high or they just trying to recommend me buying their product in 2-3 years from now. Sorry guys... I 'll stick around my Shark's tail! PS : Maybe you should reconsider your recommendation or just state CAUTION : Recommended system may be hazardous for your bank account (...and heart if you are at the wrong age)!

You priority list should be : 1) Buy HOTAS (or any stick that lets you control the aircraft with ease) 2) Buy TrackIR (the eXperience is better than you probably imagined) 3) Buy warmer pyjamas 4) Buy some carrots your mama told you 5) Buy your dog a new rubber bone . . . n-1) Buy yourself a fluffy teddy bear n) Buy Rudder Pedals (they cost more and are used less than you believed in the first place) In general... Once you have a HOTAS that lets you control the Shark you go for the TrackIR (remember that TrackIR 4 is good enough and cost less)

Actually the word "restricted" isn't compatible with Track-IR unless you are already using a better solution!

The TOW isn't a very maneuverable missile... neither their targeting system is designed to help them keep track of fast moving targets. Considering these, a TOW isn't much of a threat, compared to other weapons, for a heli.

Now you mention it, the TOW missile doesn't seem to produce any smoke trail or its barely visible. I don't think the absence of smoke was unintended since the missile isn't that fast and when launched against a target at maximum range it takes 15sec or more to reach it. This is enough time for the target to be alerted and react and any opposing units to spot the launch point and retaliate. Nice observation...

The key is range. You correctly point and lock your sensor with the laser rangefinder on. This provides enough data to the aircraft's computer in order it to calculate the impact point. The "trajectory indicator" you mention is actually the Calculated Impact Point. If you have locked a target beyond the rocket's range (usually 3km) the reticule will drop too low. This means, theoretically, that in order for your rocket to travel that much distance to the target you have to fire it with your nose pitched up. Practically, even if you were able to do that, your results will be poor since the rockets will disperse too much. If you take your time and approach the target you 'll see the reticule will eventually come up.

Is there any plans to implement that to the Shark aswell? Its a pity that now the shark has no training sessions in game (not counting the various videos) since the training lessons are "broken" since last patch.

The only objection I have is price... I bought it a year ago 30euros and in Steam its 40euros...! Al thought I don't like steam(its on my computer as a necessary evil), its a good marketing choice!

Agreed... My point was that you can't calculate or measure everything. The human factor is something still unknown to us and hard to measure which makes most things quite complicate. This reminds me of the good old Command & Conquer where 20 rifle infantrymen could destroy a medium tank... you would lose many of them but eventually you could destroy the tank with bullets. Of course C&C wasn't a simulation and if a simulation allows such stuff then it definitely has many flows in its design.

Since the DCS platform is the same and I run Black Shark smoothly with an inferior system I believe that the system you mention is enough to let you enjoy the game.

Games, games, games... I bet that, if these "games" were available in WWII, they would predict a fast and easy victory of the industrialized Italy over the rag-clothed Greece. Thank god the world haven't witnessed anything more than games that make generals proud!

A good and important addition to my hasty answer! I knew that... I have crashed once in order to learn it(the hard way)!

Indeed! Helicopters are quite harder to fly. Then again, if you manage to do it, you did something "exceptional" compared to all the other virtual-pilots! Descending using the 'D' key will help you maintain a descent rate no more than 2m/s.

I, on the other hand, have a very simple and general question! Ka-50 is a single seater, A-10C is a single seater... Have ED taken into serious consideration to simulate two-seaters in general? If I judge from my wingman's flying skills with the Shark... I wouldn't like to be in the air with an AI pilot on the front or back seat of my helicopter! Am I wrong?

No I meant IRL... are the Russian tank technology so inferior compared to Western tanks?

Are the Russian tanks so inferior compared to Western ones?

Are you serious about the HEAT? To hit armor with HEAT, HE or FAE has very different effects. The HEAT is an explosive penetrator. This can punch holes throught armor while HE or FAE have completely different effects (and are used against different kinds of targets). Modern infantry AT weapons are mostly HEAT missiles. To summarize things up, if you are in a tank, you don't want to be hit by HEAT warheads. Still you can't compare an AGM-65 with a Vikhr or Hellfire since the weight alone of the last two are 4 times less. Vikhrs weight almost as much as Hellfires but are cheaper so Russians encourage pilots to fire them in pairs. Their cost is 4-5 times less, if I am not mistaken, than a Hellfire. Apart from this, the ability to penetrate 1m of steel behind ERA is far from insignificant. Vikhrs are stated to have the same penetrating abilities with the TOW (which you state as "mighty"). These penetrating abilities are enough to defeat a Leopard 2A6 armor (at least theoretical).

Actually the hardest thing with S-8KOM is to hit the tank directly... S-8KOM can penetrate armor but heavy tanks will be harder to take out and require more direct hits(never happened to kill a MBT with a single S-8 here). I believe that a Ka-50 pilot is expected to counter heavy armor with Vikhrs... IRL 12 missiles are more than enough since 2 Ka-50 won't be sent against a whole armored battalion.

Actually yes... don't expect to see dust clouds from the low flying. The ground is quite hard, compact and rocky in most places. Ask the German guys at Krauss-Maffei who had to provide us with different tracks for the Leopard2 Tanks, the standard ones that are used in Germany kept breaking too easily when tanks first participated in exercises! Anyone can easily tell the low altitude judging from how close the Apache is flying to its shadow. I don't believe that someone is able to remember a hilly place of some square miles, that he visits once or twice a year, in such great detail that he would do extra ordinary things. You can judge from the video that the Apaches are not flying at a very high speed there.

Some really low flying Apache pilots at 03:20. You can see the last one at 03:48 making slight maneuvers in order not to avoid touching some tall bushes. Part of a joint arms exercise.