Lucas_From_Hell

I often see the fact that the gun is fixed listed as a disadvantage here but in practical terms I'd say that's not an issue. The YakB is a 12.7mm, meaning it has a shorter effective range, lower armour penetration and worse accuracy as well due to the primitive aiming system. Neither the YakB nor the GSh-30-2K are good ideas against IFVs, which leaves APCs and soft targets on the menu. Now, any self-respecting APC in this game has either a .50 M2 or a 14.5mm KPVT turret. The GSh-30-2K can handsomely outrange these machine guns, and thanks to the computed solution on the ASP-17 sight the pilot can come in, place a very accurate burst on the targets then break away without ever entering their firing envelope. Practically speaking, this will look exactly like a Su-25 or A-10 strafing run. The 30mm rounds destroy most APCs and soft targets with a couple of hits. The YakB on the other has no aiming aids, it has worse penetration power and an effective range that matches the M2 and is worse than the KPV. The potential results aren't good. At the ranges where the gun is effective, the enemy can shoot back. If you fly slow, they'll chew up the helicopter in seconds, so you need to be fast. If you set the gun to the traverse limit to avoid flying directly at the target, the enemy will have a harder time hitting you but you also won't be hitting much since the aiming system is poor. Because the gun itself is weak, you'll need multiple hits to kill anything, which then means multiple passes, potentially running out of ammo before bagging a single M113 or BTR. The only advantage the YakB has is when picking off soft targets with no defences whatsoever, since you can calmly take care of them one by one, but it's not really a game changer because the Mi-24P pilot can just come closer and snipe them one by one with the ASP-17, or if time over target is an issue there's eighty S-8 rockets at hand that to dispose of them instantly. Against MBTs, both Mi-24V and Mi-24P are stuck with the Shturm/Ataka, and the same broadly applies to IFVs as well. However, the Mi-24P can still engage an IFV with its cannon in an emergency, whereas the Mi-24V can't touch them at all.

Вполне понятно, спасибо за ответ!

You are not a customer. You are part of their target audience. You have not paid for any product, they have not sold one, there is no page for the MiG-23 in the DCS products section. What this behaviour is called is being a 'Karen'.

All fair points, except there hasn't been any meaningful update that doesn't get posted here. The last project report was the 30/10/2020 one by Elmo, which is actually a link to a forum post. Sure, you don't get to chit-chat with the devs here about the weather or little intricacies of the ejection seat chute activation altimeter mechanism, but you don't need to either.

Assuming the gunner has the crosshairs aimed perfectly at the helicopter, this is true. The main problem however is that tank main guns are heavy and move slowly, so usually the helicopter has come and gone before you ever get close to firing. However, when you fly The DCS Special™ firing missiles from a hover for fifteen minutes, they know exactly where you are and will absolutely try to shoot you down with the main gun. This is why you fly fast attacks with pop-ups and change ingress directions for each pass.

Кстати, а это будет?

All good, it was a most entertaining experience! Thankfully in this mission the strike group is massive so it was very hard to miss once I flew near it. It also didn't disrupt much since I'm playing the campaign missions by opening them one by one in case small hitches like this get in the way. Great work so far, it's been a very fun ride!

[SPOILER ALERT] Mission 4 small problem. The MiG-29 traumatising our overly dramatic friends at Uzi 4 turns hot on me. We play chicken. At around 2 miles, something falls off the MiG as we cross paths. The dialogue about figuring out whether that was a missile or not plays. We get on his tail, no permission to fire. All of this is fine, except the MiG's missile was actually launched and had time to guide and explode in my face, taking out the radar, INS, TACAN and half a dozen other systems with it! I RTB'd after that, found the carrier through the little standby compass and pulled off a standard CASE III final thanks to the ICLS still working, but I get the impression that was not the mission designer's plan.

Q: Will there be air-to-air missiles? A: Not initially. We employed the R-60 on it in Afghanistan, but as an air-to-ground weapon. We’re working on this so that infrared seekers on missiles can see temperature contrast not only on aerial but on all objects. That’s not our team’s work, but they’re on it. Source

Another thing worth checking that would make a world of a difference - more than skill levels even - is to check the gun traverse and gunsight limits on certain ground units. Many of them like the BTR-80 have manually-operated turrets with very narrow fields of view in scopes, so they would usually not be able to keep up with aircraft coming from most angles or lead shots since they can't see the aircraft in the first place.

The "falling apart" thing is one of those western pop history half-truths that refuses to die. There were problems with vibrations in early production models. They studied the problem and changed the mount later on. The problem went away.

They haven't taken any money from anyone here, they're not obliged to provide any updates. They are on Discord, on a server they control. They also occasionally go on Reddit. Is two channels not enough?

Would it be possible to add a way to change the radio channel presets on the ground before start-up, at least for the first two (MAIN and EMERGENCY)? This would be very useful in multiplayer missions where other players are in frequencies that were not set up previously by the mission creator on the MiG-21. A kneeboard interface similar to the laser code change one (available on the F-5, Mirage 2000 and others) for example would be a simple and familiar way to solve the problem.

I don't understand why everything is suddenly a problem with the Mi-24 survivability. We've had the Ka-50, which is also armed with a mix of S-8 rockets, guided missiles and a 30mm cannon, since 2008. It's one of the most popular modules in game, and easily one of the most effective platforms. The 2A42 can be slewed to an extent, but it also becomes useful at ranges where you're well within the engagement envelope of just about everything short of an AKM. It has more missiles, but that just changes the arithmetic from killing twelve tanks to killing four to eight. The Mi-24 can take twice as many rockets while still carrying missiles The most common DCS engagement profile of the Ka-50 (hovering near cover) is infinitely more dangerous than the fast attacks with a break at maximum range used by the Mi-24 as it presents a very easy target for anti-tank guided missiles launched by armoured units like the Malyutka, Konkurs, Refleks or Kobra, and even the main gun on modern tanks. The Mi-24 has a RWR, which will alert the pilot of both presence and direct threat from both land and air-based radars, which the Ka-50 is blind to. In case it is hit, the Mi-24 has better armour around critical components and can stay in combat for longer. On the Mi-24P both crewmembers are well-protected and can fly the helicopter and employ all weapons, so it can continue its mission even if one of them is incapacitated, whereas the Ka-50 becomes a paperweight the second the pilot is hit. The crew separation allows the Mi-24 pilots to separate flying and target acquisition, which allows for more aggressive low altitude profiles and faster target acquisition (this was demonstrated in field tests between the Mi-24, Mi-28 and Ka-50). I could go on, and the Ka-50 does have some advantages for what is worth, but my point is: the Mi-24 can kill a lot of stuff, and it will. The game doesn't need to be redone for that to happen. Just fly it right and have fun.

Even this is overthinking it. You can do this right now, add a trigger zone associated to a unit. If round in proximity, set ROE = weapons hold with a Stop Condition = Duration x, Disperse = On for x seconds. If weapons land nearby the infantry will disperse and stop shooting for a bit.

The problem here is not on the F-5, it's a DCS bug in general. The Mk 82 Snakeye fuses are arming instantly instead of the pre-set delay there specifically to make sure they get enough time in the air to clear the fuselage and other bombs.

In real life as far as I know most Mi-24 regiments had a system where a single squadron within it trained for sling operations on top of the curriculum, the helicopter is capable of doing them but much like troop transport it wasn't anything close to their main tasking.

Whichever it is, firing an offset gun with that muzzle velocity and rate of fire at slow speeds is a nice way to do doughnuts in the sky.

While that's the go-to for most people, I've found it to be suicide most of the times as it often leaves you in range of ATGMs, AAA, IR SAMs and tank guns. I've found the standard formula of running in fast, popping a shot then breaking away much more survivable and exciting. The Mi-24 will be the same in that regard.

While these are all valid concerns, I think we might be thinking too deep here. The very first DCS module was an attack helicopter and it's been working just fine 13 years after its release. The Mi-24 just has more rockets and less missiles, but the same principles apply. It'll be fine.

The GUV pods with the 7.62mm and 12.7mm machine guns will be available. There were ground vehicles in Afghanistan, mostly trucks, cars and bikes, but also a limited assortment of military vehicles captured from the Afghan and Soviet armies or brought over from Pakistan.

It's was never standard procedure, and outside of Wikipedia I'm struggling to find sources to confirm this actually happened. From a logical standpoint, it made no sense: the vast majority of flights in Afghanistan happened with a crew of two, as the crew chief provided very little use, increased risk to human life and added weight in a situation where the helicopters already struggled due to the local weather and terrain. It was also heavily mined and, as typical with guerrilla warfare, front lines were abstract and the enemy could appear anywhere. I find it somewhere between unlikely and impossible that they would take a third crewmember, a full weapons load plus enough at the back to make a reload worth it, then land somewhere in bandit country hoping they wouldn't sit on top of a mine or get ambushed by the mujahideen, and service the helicopter as if it's no big deal. Running some quick numbers here, the take-off weight for the Mi-24 at sea level in standard conditions leaves you about 3200kg for fuel, crew and weapons, once the IR exhaust suppressors are fitted. Let's be generous and say three fully-suited people would get you 100kg each, so that's 300kg. A single B-8V20A pod weights 100kg empty, so times four that's 400kg. Twenty S-8KO rockets, or a single pod's load, get you 226kg, times six (four pods plus a reload for two) that's 1356kg. The GSh-30-2K carries 750 rounds usually, which means 300kg. Four Shturm missiles weight 186kg in total. Our tally is at 2542kg so far, meaning there's only 658kg left for fuel, or 31.3% of the internal fuel capacity (2100kg max). That's to make this thing fly at at sea level. I don't have the available data for the Mi-24, but we can extrapolate from the Mi-8MTV2 documentation as they have the same engine, with the caveat that the Mi-24P performs worse at higher altitudes due to its smaller rotor disk. The difference between maximum weight for sea level and 1000m in the IGE hover graph is around 1500kg. I can't see how it was done.

He has said there will be regular training missions on the interview, and they want to do some tutorial videos too. No reason to worry, this is just another standard launch.