isoul

In my case a new GFX card didn't need a new activation! (thought my GFX cards were quite similar 8800GTS-9800GT-250GT but different brands)

Yeah but HDG HLD function is required since the helicopter can easily sideslip. You need heading hold too. The only bad thing is that most of us don't have FFB sticks and pedals.

Let me start answering in reverse order. FD's main drawback is workload. This isn't much of an issue in a two-seater but in the world's only single seat attack helicopter this means trouble when you have to fly all the route "manualy", unless its a joy ride. Another thing I can't imagine is not using the Alt Hold, which helps me a lot, and this can't be done when FD is on. In general I find FD useful when I have to make much and fast turning, I find AP+Trim useful in navigating, setting up attacks, auto hover etc. When you are setting up an attack, usualy at range, you need to focus on other things rather than flying the helicopter manually. At least that way works great for me. About the situations the Ka-50 will get into during the game... I do agree with you. Recently I 've re-played Clear Tkvarcheli mission and I can assure you that in such situation I doubt that the Russians would send an attack helicopter alone. Soviet/Russian military tactics and doctrine dictates that the attack helicopter should operate in conjuction with ground forces and both elements must provide cover to each other all the time. AFAIK there is no "conducting air-war" or "air campaign" in Russian Army's book.

As far as I know the AP disengage is used when you have a malfunction of the AP or control surfaces that doesn't allow the AP to operate correctly. Disengaging the AP channels will mean that you 'll stop control dampening, a function that you always want to be on.

Can't agree more with that! 1) Flare button is really far! On the other hand usually the flare dispensing is done using programs/sequences... but still the button is quite far for a pilot to let cyclic, push the button and grab the cyclic again. 2) Indeed, I 've seen videos were breaking from an attack and launching flares is sudden but still seems smooth. 3) You mentioned new patch? You mean after 1.0.2, right? I am not aware of that... good thinking about the trimmer fighting thing. 3deg/sec... sounds good and handy! In general I agree!!!

But how can you visualy distinguish the ID of a Georgian BMP-2 from a Russian one during a battle?

I don't think that FD is dis-allowed by the book. It is used to manually navigate the helicopter. This means you can use it in normal occasions but it will add more workload to you since you have to take care of the navigation at all times. Probably the correct case would be that "It is not not advised to use FD all the time, only when situation needs it", but I don't really know the "by the book" rules of FD. I use FD if the combat situation needs it (when engaging defensive, want to launch rockets etc). I set the trimming postion by pressing-releasing the trimmer button instantly. Sometimes I have to hold the trimmer button for short periods (a few secs) only when stabilising the Shark. This "holding" isn't adviced for RL pilots but then again, in our case, the stick can't simulate trimming correctly unless the stick is FF. So "holding" trim button can be useful in our case but if you want to fly by the book you shouldn't use it.

The Flight Director gives you "manual" control with input dumpening and without attitude hold functions. Flight Director requires your attention all the way. FD will add more workload to you and, unless you need to engage enemies, can be avoided. In case you are traversing through safe or open areas you have no reason to engage FD. Having the Attitude Hold functions will make your life a lot easier once you master it. In general I find it quite easy to fly without FD on. It helps you focus on other things.

Why add each executable? Since graphics engine is the same I pressume that you want the same AA and anisotropic settings. When you make a change on one "simulator.exe" the changes applies to the other aswell.

The last time I send him he was back in one piece. I used my range finder to calculate distance to the edge of the town and send him for a recon no more than 5km deep. He spotted an air defense and some armor.

(Regarding the absence of RWR, IR jammer and other equipment) I don't believe that back in 1980, when Ka-50 was designed, lack of money was an issue. USSR was in possession of money and technology to put RWR on board but possibly there was another reason for not doing so. Of course in '90s, after the collapse of USSR, funding was an issue, and even if modernization would be needed, the lack of money halted any attempt. Of course Radar, RWR,FLIR or IR jammer doesn't pose a "threat" to the carrier helicopter. But there are many other reasons that would "dictate" that such equipment wouldn't be that necessary on a helicopter at the time. In general there are reasons that derives from various aspects, like military doctrines and/or combat roles for example, that may affect tactics and equipment. The small fuel tanks of Mig-29A, the absence of A-A missiles(for self-protection) in attack helicopter in most armies are typical examples. These didn't happened cause of designer's "short-vision" but due to doctrines and combat role. I can keep on with some more examples and their explanation in detail but I think it will become boring. On the Shkval quality I must say I agree with DTWD.

The lack of Radar Warning Receiver isn't a problem in asymmetric warfare where the opposition doesn't have radars (Chechens and Afghans don't use radars as far as I know). The lack of IR jammer is a problem, since that kind of air-defence is most used in asymmetric warfare, but I think that the engine exhausts suppress part of the IR signature (as in many other attack helicopters), which is not a "cure" but it is a little something. In general, the absence of some systems must not be judged easily. If we can find a reason to put one system on-board a heli or aircraft I am sure that it's designers could find ten more but for some reason they didn't! Such reasons,that we cannot see, are the answer to whether a system is or isn't included. Also, we are unaware of many facts and dangers that would sound exaggerating or idiotic to us but pose a potential/real danger and does not allow the usage of some systems the way we imagine. The Shkval quality isn't that bad. In general most optical sensors/targeting systems used in aircrafts doesn't provide "crystal clear" images. The image usually has to be clear enough to spot/identify targets. If you check youtube about aircraft camera recordings you 'll see that no camera provides a very clear image. Apart from this, the atmospheric conditions, speed, turbulence and the range that the sensor is used in most cases will degrade the image quality no matter the capabilities of your sensor.

...and who said that "hut hunting" isn't important? Probably Russia plans to use Ka-50 instead of letting it rot! You see more and more "asymmetric warfare" in recent days. Ka-50, as it is, may see action again an again, it isn't decommissioned yet. "Older" equipment may not be so good at a modern full scale war but in asymmetric warfare technology alone won't make you prevail(see A-stan war). Today you see more use of the cannon instead of sophisticated Hellfires, you 'll see more use of a retro-fashion helis, like Ka-50, rather than state of the art F-22 or F-16CJ.

You have to let me play it again cause I can't remember it. EDIT : Probably a good approach is from the passage south to the city but I would try the passage to the west too. But you have to eliminate the HAWK battery first cause its the biggest threat in there.

Probably not! Unless ED has a connection to "someone" that will give all the required info for free... ED obtained Ka-50 info from a military contract and is said that ED has very good relations with Kamov.

If you are fired upon your arrival you are possibly doing something wrong. Did you approach too close? Try to stay a bit further, using the what Avilator said above, and use you sensor(Shkval) to spot target.

Typically you have to switch Master Arm On, Laser On and press I or Y to select inner or outer hardpoints. Can't imagine what you may do wrong... you should post a track!

From a quick test I 've done, the coefficient that seems to affect the area that the damage is applied, is the HE1 which is multiplied by expl_mass. Of course the expl_mass value is the most important because its the actual damage done but the HE1 is very important too since it may degrade or multiply the damage effect. I 'LL CONTINUE THIS IN A NEW THREAD IN RESEARCH

I agree! I am stunned that someone bothered to simulate this using this way while other "inaccuracies" are present. Any other info on the coefficients and their importance?

The FC2.0 is needed as long as DCS doesn't have enough airframes for people to fly online. Once the DCS will get 3-4 airframes, I believe that FC2.0(with its "simplicity") will be a drawback for DCS, unless FC2.0 planes are made to meet DCS standards (which seems impossible due to time/effort and required contracts needed). I support the "abolishment" of FC2.0 under these conditions.

I believe that if BS, FC2 and A-10C will be made online compatible the map has to be changed. So I think the actual question is if BS/FC2 will be online compatible with A-10C.

COMMENTS : The HE1 is the coefficient that affects the damage done when warhead impacts on different surfaces(ground, concrete etc). This is quite straightforward. Only one question remains, is this the coefficient that affects the area in which the damage is applied? The HE2 coefficient needs some clarification. The "size of the effect of the explosion" can be misleading. For sure this is the the size of explosion animation (if you alter HE2=100 you see a quite big explosion with a large shockwave) but is this a coefficient that affects "area damage" of a warhead? To me the following questions arise : 1) Does that number represent in any way the area the damage is applied? 2) Is this coefficient multiplied with expl_mass like the HE1? The HE3 is the size of the funnel. Is this represented in meters or something? Is this coefficient multiplied with expl_mass like the HE1? Its not reasonable not to multiply HE3 by expl_mass because if you check the warheads.lua you 'll see that S-8OFP and 250 or 500kg bombs may have the same HE3 value. If you set HE3=50 for example you will see a quite large crater left behind. These need some tests and further investigation unless someone from ED answers that. Apart from these and regarding the S-8KOM... the warheads.lua contains the following data about this rocket : warheads["C_8"] = -- С-8КОМ shaped-charge, fragmented { expl_mass = 3.0, -- Warhead 3 kg, explosive 0.855 kg + fragments bonus other_factors = { 1.0, 0.5, 0.5 }, concrete_factors = { 1.0, 0.5, 0.1 }, concrete_obj_factor = 0.0, obj_factors = { 1.0, 1.0 }, cumulative_factor= 3.0, cumulative_thickness = 0.3 }; The S-8KOM is stated(in DCS encyclopedia) that can penetrate 400mm armor. This, in warheads.lua, AFAIK is represented by cumulative_thickness which is defined as 300mm(0.3m). Isn't this an error?

I did some searching around the .lua files and remembered the warheads.lua file ZaltysZ mentioned on another thread(research section). So what I 've seen ... The general "concept" of damages and coefficients that warheads(rockets among them) have is the following : Explanation (based on the ED remarks -in russian language-) : - expl_mass : The actual damage done. ED puts here the total mass of the warhead in kg. Althought the explosive mass of a warhead isn't equal to the warhead's weight ED puts it that weight in order to take fragments "into consideration". This doesn't sound correct but its a way to represent the fragments. - other_factors : This is what happens when the warhead hits the ground. It has 3 coefficients(they are explained later) - concrete_factors : This is what happens when the warhead hits concrete. It has 3 coefficients(they are explained later) - object_factors : This is what happens when the warhead hits "an object"(probably meaning a building, a vehicle etc). It has only 2 coefficients(they are explained later) The coefficients : * HE1 : This is the explosive damaging effect. This coefficient is multiplied by expl_mass (HE1*expl_mass). * HE2 : This is the size of the effect of the explosion. * HE3 : This is the size of funnel from the explosion. The absence of this coefficient under object_factors is reasonable cause when warheads hits an object they leave no funnel. - concrete_obj_factor : This is the coefficient of the warheads concrete-penetration effects. This only occurs when wearhead hits concrete and the coefficient is multiplied by expl_mass(Y*expl_mass). - cumulative_factor : This is the effect of cumulative(?) ammunition. This coefficient is multiplied by expl_mass(Z1*expl_mass) and works in conjuction of cumulative_thickness. - cumulative_thickness : This something like Armor Piercing Factor. It is represented in meters. In general this is what happens about cumulative_factor and thickness : IF armor < cumulative_thickness THEN cumulative_factor is applied ELSE it will do nothing

No way M67 is a defensive grenade! The WWII good old (defensive)Mills grenade had an effective radius of no less than 30m... Today's defensive grenades still have similar casualty ranges. The M67 is just 400gr! The effective throw(by a normal&healthy adult) can't be even close(not to say less) to 15m. I remember myself throwing such grenade much further(about 25m), with good accuracy, and I was no super soldier nor an athlete! Fragments may travel long distances BUT I can assure you that at 200m... or even at 100m a fragment can't be lethal (unless God WANTS you to die). I have experience at least 10 grenade explosions no more that 100m away and I hardly ever seen or heard a single fragment or rock landing(and bringing the dust up or making a noise) near me. I 've only once heard a rock falling on the ground, well away in front of me, after a grenade exploded. On the contrary I know a guy that was watching grenade throws at a sheltered position(no more than 40m away, just back of the thrower) and a single tiny ball(used as filling) hit him on the nose making a tiny wound, with almost no bleeding! Casualty means both killed and wounded right? If 1kg high explosive material goes off, blast radius can be 10m. If a defensive grenade has a 30m effective casualy radius(due to fragments), why the Hydra rocket can't have 50m? Effect is assumed against infantry. For example, the OG-7V(frag rocket used with RPG-7) 40mm rocket, which has just 210gr of explosive, has a lethal radius of 7m against body armor... Russian typical grenades for grenade-launcher has 30gr of explosives and have kill zone radius of 5-7m and damage zone radius no more than 15m. Would a Hydra, with its multiple weight of more explosive material, have so small kill and damage radius respectively? I can't belive that the explosion of 1kg of high explosive material(and the possible fragments) 50m away will wound me less 50% of the time.

This is a good way, indeed, to aim rockets I guess! Good thinking... I am going to try that too! Mate I really don't know! As I posted before, an offensive hand grenade(frag) has an 100% kill rate at 10 meters. A defensive one "kill" radius is said that it may reach 50m(depending on ground type). All above are against infantry since hand grenades aren't filled with large enough "balls". But the fact above about 70mm HE rocket needs some clarification. The 10m is the blast radius itself or the overall "casualty" range? While serching the internet I found this regarding the M151HE warhead the Hydra 70mm rockets are carrying. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm This sounds reasonable if you consider that a hand grenade's explosive material is only a few grams (M67 grenade has 180gr explosive material). I think now we have a clue about rockets and its effects.