Bushmanni

I think you could get what you want using custom curve in DCS axis tune. I did similar thing for Huey collective at some point to increase precision at the upper end. You have only 11 points to edit in custom curve so setting it up for 95% might not work. But then again Su-27 has metered afterburner so it's not just on/off so having more than 5% of the axis for it isn't that bad idea. Basically what you need to do is set up the custom curve so that at 90% actual position you only get 75% output. Then you set the 10% - 80% numbers to increase linearly to give you straight line from 0% to 90%. The curve is rounded automatically so you might need to make some adjustments to remove bumps resulting from the sharp corner.

There's also demand for different kind of stick base than TM WH base. I didn't like the stiff center position of it at all. Besides that it was great but it's not ideal for precise flying or helicopters as it takes too much force to push it over the center hump.

Does the new zoom function level the playing field sufficiently in PvP air combat against full HD monitor users to make VR viable option in that regard?

It's an AI commanding a simulated red force in BVR fight and not dogfight AI. Regardless they have done good job. As the system runs on a regular 3.2 GHz desktop PC maybe some day we can have something like that in DCS.

Essentially all optical equipment has lenses that focus the image at infinity to prevent eye strain. You might need to adjust the focus if your eyes aren't perfect but as long as focus adjustment is possible for each eye individually you can achieve strain free experience. I don't own VR headset but they have the lenses primarily for this purpose. I don't know if VR headsets allow individual adjustment for each eye but there's definitely some kind of adjustment.

I'll try to get into your server if I happen to be around. You can also check DCS Finland forums for training if you are interested and DCS Finland STEAM group and Teamspeak server for training/flying partners. We have regular training events for F-15/Su-27/M2000 almost every Tuesday night 19.00 onwards for Finnish speaking players. Contact me if you want to set up flying time.

I'm not sure what units you are using but at about 2.0 M DCS missiles can't pull more than about 10 G which makes it possible to dodge them with hard max G turn.

Not necessarily. Choppers tend to be cheap in relation to fighters as they are smaller and have less complex avionics. AH-64E starts to approach fighters in its avionics complexity though. There's also the question of how the prices were calculated ie. if they are calculated the same way. Some kind of US government report stated unit price for AH-64E as 35 million but how that price was calculated was unclear. But regardless I would expect it to be much more expensive than any other attack chopper simply due to it carrying so much hi-tech electronics compared to any of its rivals. One thing I forgot about my evaluation scenario. The idea is that it represents some kind of worst case scenario as you might do just as well with a lesser chopper in a easy scenario like COIN. There's also the chopper vs chopper deathmatch scenario for evaluation which would be simple and straightforward way to find the "best" but that's not what the attack choppers exists for so it's kind irrelevant metric. That setup would probably give victory to AH-1Z if it can carry AIM-9X on top of AGM-114L. I'm not sure about that though. If there are other helicopters that can carry A-A missiles with imaging IR seekers then those would be strong contenders also and it would be more about sensors and who gets the first shot off.

One seemingly logical way to define the criteria for the best attack helicopter would be to consider dealt damage vs. taken damage in a scenario of modern armored task forces (with all the expected support assets) doing sustained battle and the said helicopter providing support. This will consider not only killing capability but also survival, maintainability and integration with supported forces. Apache ranks high in every one of these categories except (maybe) maintainability. Apache ties directly into fire support network and can request an artillery fire mission on a TADS target with a few button pushes. All the previous Apache models have been hangar queens but E model supposedly has been improved in this regard but I don't know how much. If we want include also cost then we should set a fixed sum of money that is used to buy as many choppers as possible with enough money spared to maintain the fleet throughout the combat scenario. The initial amount of money is large enough that you can buy at least 20 units of the most expensive chopper (AH-64E). The size of the armored task force should be large enough that the chopper force can't single handedly decide the battle but needs to operate alongside the ground forces so that performance differences are more evident. When you don't include money factors you compare the absolute performance, ie. a big bad expensive chopper gets rated better than small cheap cost efficient one (if it exists). In real life you always need to consider cost benefit ratio as no one has bottomless pockets full of money.

Apache has quite similar SAS and autopilot system as Ka-50 except it lacks the route mode. The biggest difference is the UI which works more intuitively and doesn't fight the pilot. Like in Ka-50 the Apache has magnetic brake/spring feel trim system and four channel SAS with limited 10% authority that provides rate dampening, command system and hold system. Command system provides uniform aircraft response at all speeds and turn coordination at speeds greater than 40kts while hold system provides attitude, altitude, position and speed holds. Pilot can "fly through" the hold modes in any or all axes. If pilot moves controls away from trimmed position that axis reference is not held until controls are moved back to trimmed position and the system then captures a new reference. If hold mode is disengaged or one of the SAS channels is saturated a tone sounds to alert the pilot.

AH-64E T700-GE-701D engines have 1994hp each (Max TO power) which the RTM322 mk250 can deliver continuously. But it seems UK is upgrading their Apaches to AH-64E standard, along with GE engines which seems a bit strange. Maybe it was too costly to develop and maintain an indigenous version of the E-version.

AH-1Z avionics are slightly better than AH-64D BlockII (otherwise similar but Cobra has better helmet sight). AH-1Z can carry the same amount of weapons payload as Apache but I don't know if it can have full fuel load at that payload. Radar Hellfire doesn't need radar to use it as you can also fire it at TADS designated targets. It gets the target coordinates and velocity vector from the chopper at launch and then flies to the coordinates using inertial navigation. When the missile is close enough it will switch on its radar and find the target that matches current calculated target coordinates the best. It can also be used against flying targets like Helicopters. It's kind of like the ATGM version of AMRAAM.

Russian SACLOS ATGMs they use on choppers are good only against enemy that can't shoot back. Engaging modern MBTs, IFVs let alone SAMs or AAA isn't going to be fun with Vikhr or Ataka. While their guidance is more reliable than laser spot seeker or mm-wave radar in Hellfire it doesn't help if you are left as sitting duck while the missile is in flight. You need to have LOS on target and you can't maneuver in order to ensure hit. With Hellfire you can at least maneuver after firing if self designating but better method is to use separate shooter and designator so shooter can stay safe. Designator can also turn the laser on only when the missile is close enough to see it so target gets minimal warning before getting hit. LOAL launch isn't 100% reliable but you can always try again which might not be case using SACLOS missiles. I wouldn't rate any SACLOS missile limited choppers as credible assets against enemy that has proper anti-aircraft defenses. You can try in DCS how easy it is to plink few human controlled MBTs with Vikhrs when the tank crews don't just sit in the open waiting for you to massacre them. If you give them also few anti-air assets like Strelas (let alone Tunguskas) you are pretty much guaranteed to encounter some very nasty surprises and hairy situations when you try to get in firing position on those units. It's also not that hard to shoot the attacking chopper down with the tank main cannon if it keeps flying straight for too long. Hovering chopper is dead meat if in range of MBT cannon. And this in DCS which stacks the deck in favor of the attack choppers by not modeling self-defense smoke systems, proper fire control and stabilization and anti-air shells for tank main guns and terrain that would provide realistic opportunities for camouflage and cover. Unless tanks and other vehicles are moving or in the open you have hard time spotting them before it's too late. Longbow radar helps but it has it's flaws and there's tech that can camouflage stationary vehicles also against radars.

https://rogueadventurer.com/2012/11/27/update-cluster-munitions-in-syria-zab-2-5-incendiary-submunitions/ Could be RBK-250 ZAB-2.5 which is a thermite cluster bomb.

There a microphone systems that can calculate firing point of a bullet that zips past the microphones. You need multiple microphones for this but it's done already. And if there are systems that can home in on EM wave sources doing the same with sound waves would work pretty much the same (as long as you have a clean signal which could be a problem with sound). For example you could build the equivalent of a monopulse antenna using microphones and apply the same signal processing to it and you have a sound homing seeker. Theoretically there's nothing stopping you building sound seeking missiles but the nature of sound waves in air makes it impractical.

Jump in, ask help and don't worry too much about looking stupid or causing trouble. The best and quickest way is to learn from others instead of trying to do it on your own and most people are happy to help. You can study Brevity code from manuals but in order to learn to use it you need to use it.

Well thought out structured training with an instructor produces results much faster than the typical sim pilot way of hopping in the pit and learning by trial and error. And about reversing the collective axis. I have my collective axis set so that when my HOTAS throttle handle is at idle the collective is at bottom. I have flown like this for years. I once had an opportunity to try out a collective and I could use it without any problems despite having used to the throttle collective axis in "wrong" direction. Collective stick just feels so different and intuitive that the muscle memory from using a throttle handle doesn't even try to kick in.

Some day flight sims will also look like this. :)

Such a joy to listen to effective use of Brevity. Good job.

F-15 was designed to outperform any existing aircraft in dogfight, including F-5 that was the best US dogfighter until F-15 came along. F-15 has better climbing capability, better sustained turn capability and also better instantaneous turn capability than F-5. F-15 was the first modern fighter that was designed both for speed and turn capability while the planes before were one or the other. F-15 would beat most other fighters in all performance metrics and only lose in some categories against the rest (like in speed against MiG-25 or in STR against Sopwith Camel) but be overall much more superior that these planes wouldn't have a chance in a fight. Basically F-14 is pretty much the same and all the other fighters coming after F-14 and F-15 are similarly superior to earlier planes. In a "fair" 1vs1 any 4th gen will beat F-5, MiG-21, etc. 3th gen without much trouble as they were designed to do. You can still lose to them if you don't know what you are doing though. Red Flag etc. are designed to teach the pilots how to fight in a real war where nobody fights fair and in that kind of setup it's more about tactics and pilot skill than performance of the plane.

The problem can also be in the planes instruments. Until we get tools to gather direct pressure and temperature data from DCS atmosphere there's no telling which is wrong or if they both are.

I think licensing is an issue between the module developer and the original manufacturer. Get your lawyers out and start negotiating or finding ways around a law suit.

Donated

Good job. I still remember how good it felt after successfully completing this mission and landing back to base. This is the mission that really makes you grow as a chopper pilot as it requires you to properly plan your cruise and the attack itself so you don't waste precious fuel too much so you can get back home after completing the objectives. It seems like choppers still eat Vikhrs like they missed breakfast without much effect on their flying ability. Fortunately the AIs cannon finished them off without hassle.

Can you show a screenshot as I don't recall seeing any other letters besides the selected missile info.