DCS Mi-8 is 7 years now, time for an update ?

[msalama]

I don't think anyone has said one should pay for pure visual updates, such as cockpit touchups etcetera. But you'll most likely need to pay for new content regardless.

[PL_Harpoon]

My take on the subject is that while I believe that free visual upgrade is in ED's best interest, if they decide that it was too much work and charge for it, I wouldn't hold it against them.

[Rogue Trooper]

Although I am not a stranger to pay for upgrades, like the upcoming KA-50

I can't deny that paid visual upgrades is HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

 

I mean think about it for a minute.

I use to take the Paywalled upgrade of the Admiral K as a prime example.

 

The videogame-industry is constantly evolving.

Games that we thought looked AMAZING 2011 will look terrible 2021!

 

So if DCS is going to stay around in the next decade - of course they are going to have to upgrade the visuals.

With other simulators coming to the market soon, DCS will be left in the dust and look like shit - compared to the others - in five years or less.

 

So the question is.

How long can they keep the Admiral K behind that paywall?

 

If we boot ut DCS World in 2025 and if I would not have bought the SC > will they keep that old relic of the Kuznetsov around? in 10 years? 15?

 

Following the logic of constantly evolving graphics fidelity, it is clear that they can not keep graphic overhauls behind a paywall.

The modules has to carry them selves and they need to focus on getting new customers to buy the "old" modules - by making them look modern and appealing.

 

Sucking every penny from the ones who already payed seemes to be a short term solution to save a sinking ship.

Which we will have to hope that this is not

 

If we take a look at the total releases of DCS modules and separate them into their distinct categories we can better refine our discussion.

I have included the date of the initial release of each item that initiated each distinct category.

(the dates are fast and rough but should be accurate enough to do their job). Apart from each initial category release item, the total list within each category is not at all time release accurate.

 

Civilian/civilian training 2 items.

Yak 52 (2018), Christian Eagle II.

Choppers 4 items.

KA50 (2008), MI-8, UH-1H, Gazelle.

WWII fighters 7 items.

P-51D (2012), BF 109 K4, FW-190 A-8, FW-190 D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, I-16, P-47.

Jet fighters 16 items.

A-10C (2010), F-86F, F-5E, F-14, F-16C, F/A-18C, AV-8B, Mig-15bis, Mig-19P, Mig-21bis, AJ-37, M-2000C, L-39, C-101, JF-17, T.1A.

FC3 Wets

Airframes are a good introduction to DCS.

 

I believe if we are lucky boys and girls we will see the OH-58D this year.

I also believe we will see the BO-105 before the MI-24 Hind or KA-50 upgrade.

 

Hopefully Grodlund, you can see the numbers laid bare and why the impoverished and destitute chopper pilots offer money to keep their meagre lot relevant to the standard that the fast moving jet and WWII pilots are accustomed to as standard.

 

We simply want to stay at the dining table eating.

 

The smiley faces on the dates seems to be out of my control as each eight turns into a smiley face.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[unknown]

I wouldn't pay for a facelift of our Mi-8, even considering it's my most played module and i love this heli :wub:

But i would gladly pay for an upgrade to this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#/media/File:Mil_Mi-17-V5_(Mi-8MTV-5),_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN1905918.jpg

[FW190]

I have all dcs modules, but this big bird i'm in love with it more than my girlfriend, so i will pay with big smile.

[Bagpipe]

I have all dcs modules, but this big bird i'm in love with it more than my girlfriend, so i will pay with big smile.

 

She can fit lots of junk in the trunk :thumbup:

[Razorback]

I wouldn't pay for a facelift of our Mi-8, even considering it's my most played module and i love this heli :wub:

But i would gladly pay for an upgrade to this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#/media/File:Mil_Mi-17-V5_(Mi-8MTV-5),_Russia_-_Air_Force_AN1905918.jpg

 

 

+1 :thumbup:

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Hmm I'm not sure about the dolphin nose myself: I'm quite fond of the visibility we have at the moment :-)

[unknown]

Hmm I'm not sure about the dolphin nose myself: I'm quite fond of the visibility we have at the moment :-)

 

I can understand that point, i love the look of the Mi-8 we have in DCS. But tbh the version with the dolphin nose and loading ramp instead of the clamp shell doors grew on me. And you can add an additional tool to play within that dolphin nose :D I would like to see the other one additionally to the one we have right now in DCS and i would pay for that one because :prop: :D :laugh:

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mil_Mi-8_MTV-_1_(_radar)_Airport_Poprad-_Tatry_Slovakia_(9).jpg

[Hueyman]

In the mean time, a full 4K PBR retexturing as a free update a la IL2 would be great!

[dovla]

I would pay for fix or removal of those dog tags on chain which remain in same position no matter what the chopper does :)

[PickleMonster]

Those are dog tags? I thought they were a heating element for the window.

[molevitch]

They are Heating elements.

[Hueyman]

Look at that Hind teased in Syria map !

 

 

 

Hope the Mi-8 will get that visual lift treatment, the rotorhead is the same !

[scoobie]

@dovla: You got the dog tags imprinted in the windshield, so someone else must have got the dogs! Who's more entitled to complain, huh? :smilewink:

 

Hi there, good people,

you've already listed my dreams for Mi-8, but what you're asking for here is basically "DCS RW Ops Pack". The thing is that most of these things require development in the very DCSW, only then a module may follow and implement new features in the chopper (Mi-8 or another). Since supposedly so few people fly RW (I haven't the foggiest idea why), I don't think ED has time to do it. Besides, I believe they wouldn't like to make such "RW Ops" as a kind of a module (good idea from a financial point of view), because I think they struggle hard to prevent excessive erosion in their code base. This means they would rather have all these features programmed 'flat' in the code, in the 'base' DSCW. So... lots of work and no direct payment. Conversely, fighter jets immediately pay in thick piles of cash. So uhm... you know... I'm afraid the chances are scarce here.

Still, FWIW, my 2 cents:

 

-1 for multicrew

What is going to keep you busy throught the flight if you're not the pilot flying? Set a new leg in the DISS? Tune a radio once or twice? Shoot side/rear gun for 60 seconds in a 40-minute mission?

You have RIO in a Tomcat, and RIO has lots of work to do as compared to Mi-8. How many of you do RIO in MP? 4 people? For a 1000 who only want to sit in front and drive/shoot. Not too many, is it?

AI RIO in Tomcat was a must - too much workload for a single guy, but it's not the case in Mi-8.

 

My impression is that people ask for multicrew, because they THINK it would be fun, but if they actually got the feature, they would play for 2 days and get bored, then everybody would only want to be the pilot again. So, if such feature requires a significant amount of time/effort on the devs part, then why squander time implementing a next to useless feature (IMHO, of course)?

Really, I must be missing your point. Maybe there's something super cool about multicrew for Mi-8 and I just can't see it.

 

Oh, to make things worse, it turns out that mulitplayer people are a small minority in DCS (absolutely shocking news to me, really! supposedly only like 10% DSC user fly MP). So, 10% times small RW community equals 23 people who would actually pay for it. Will not happen.

 

Someone here claimed it's nearly impossible to manage Mi-8 single-handedly. That doesn't seem to be a fair statement to me. If you have problems, it most likely means there's something wrong with your setup. Either you don't have enough hardware on the desk (controllers) or perhaps you've made assignments to your controllers that are not essensial during the flight (and thus 'squandered' your limited H/W resources/buttons/whatever). You could, and perhaps should, use some whizz-bang software such as Joystick Gremlin + vJoy (I do), or anything that will work for you. It works wonders, trust me! It only needs a bit of creativity on your part.

Really, to me Mi-8 feels only a bit more complex than Huey.

 

+0 for bambi bucket. Sure it would be beautiful to have this (hell yeah!), but the trouble is not with the bucket, but with proper fires. Quite a bit of research to do, then programming, for example, the flames must 'know' what material they got in contact with and how the fire should spread according to that, so it means all scenery objects in DSCW would have to be able to 'say' what they are made of. So maybe you'd have to rewrite the sceneries? All of them? How about 3-rd party sceneries? Tonne of work only with that and there's another tonne of various ascpects of fire to sort out.

Sure, you could go for severe simplifications, but then users will complain that fires are so unrealistic/ridiculous etc. (well, DSC is not a fire fighting simulator, after all).

Then you'll have a myriad of bugs to squash, and on top of that the big question, probably without good answer: how not to fry the users' GFX cards with these fires? I'd like to fight fire, but at 2 fps I might be unable :smilewink:

 

+1 for working winch, oh boy, there's so much to do with the winch and it seems not so hard to implement in the current DCS as they've already done sling loading. I believe it would take 3D models of a few 'types' of soldiers hanging on the line (1, 2 or 3 of them, perhaps). Just like sling loads, different weight, only the line length controllable.

 

* One strange idea from me - it can work nicely together with a winch, but not only that:

Make AI crew members call out the distance to obstacles (toggle on/off), allowing for what they can actually see in current weather conditions (the latter might be hard to implement). Left or right (the opposite of player's current seat), rear and down. This could let you fly VFR into IMC-ish weather (cut into the bottom of the cloud, proceed through fog etc.)... well, 'crawl' into IMC at a walking pace, not fly at 100 kph, sure. That could cater for some hair-raising SAR in the mountains or just anywhere in nasty weather (the latter with GPS, I think). Normally nobody sane would risk their neck that much, but RL SAR pilots sometimes do that. It works like this (a pilot is saying): "I can't promise you anything, but let's see if we can do it"... and sometimes helicopter SAR teams do super scary things and only that way save lives.

Or, it can simply let you take a chance on landing zones so tight that you wouldn't dare otherwise (IRL at least). I'm not talking about anything stupid, though. I strongly believe that simulation means "as real-life-like as it gets", but if you go an inch beyond real life, you're turning a sim into a game and immersion is ruined. Still, sometimes you may know how to enter into a tight landing zone (or hover zone), because you're still above it, but once you get in you don't really get the idea how much free space your tail rotor still has etc.

(Mirrors, at least on my 1080p pancake, are mostly useless, don't know about 4K, perhaps they're better).

AI crew members could help.

I'm thinking about something a crew chief now does for sling loading, something like "10 right, 20 back" or whatever they say IRL (no idea).

So... if you had this AND a working winch... :)

 

+1 visible troops inside, of course we're talking about something rudimentary. No one (sane) expects a million 3D models, 150 doctor models (hell, you may even skip the busty blonde doctor Angel), 86 patient models etc. Of course not. I'd vote for this because... sometimes I just can't remember if I have passengers or not. Those missions are sometimes so tense, quick, and uhm... I'm kind of oldish and.. you know... if I could see them back there, it would make things easier for me.

 

+1 different interiors like civilian, ambulance, VIP, cargo etc. Ha! This one is SOLELY a job constrained to the very Mi-8, has nothing to do with DCSW. At least we've got one such feature in the set :)

 

+1 fast rope deploying. If a winch worked one day, fast roping would get easy to implement.

 

+1 UPK/GUV/RKTS efficacy fixed, of course, but that's not an upgrade.

 

+1 those pretty rain droplets be removed by wipers (essential for hovering/landing in confined spaces). I think DCSW must be involved in this.

 

* Icing. People, I've been waiting for this for 20 years to no avail! Please, I won't live forever (but again - it involves DSCW).

Yes, icing seems really hard to do (properly), but also seems doable to at least some sensible extent. No visual appearence, only effect on flight characteristics, engine performance, perhaps failures of specific systems (where applicable). For example, pitot tube icing has been modelled in sims for... at least 20 years, I can't remember clearly behind that. It's not rocket science, you just 'choke' the tube if flown for some time in conditions of X/Y/Z. Simplifications are not a bad thing.

AFAIK no one's ever done icing in a sim (don't know about X-Plane, but I doubt it) and the good news is this would be beneficial for everyone, not only rotorheads.

 

* If our version of the big lady had some RWR installed in real life, that wouldn't hurt, either. Other planes go 'beep', 'plonk', 'tick' so at least you know it's dangerous. In Mi-8 you only hear lovely chirping from the rotor scissor link and you think it's summer holiday. Then out of the blue you go boom and wonder what the hell happened :smilewink:

 

Oh, damn... it was more than 2 cents. Sorry! Enough of daydreaming.

[BaD CrC]

Great post Scoobie. Thanks for taking time to write it.

I was also shocked that only 10% of ED's customer fly MP. When you are looking at the number of RW modules (4 RW vs 31 FW), assuming that it is more or less a representation of the share of RW pilots in DCS, that would leave only 1.3% of ED's customers flying RW in MP!!!! I now understand better why there is so little love for us.

 

At BSD we mostly see the benefit of multicrew for three things:

- Instruction: our IPs spend a lot of time training our new guys and being able to sit next to the trainee would be a revolution for this.

- No respawn policy: some of our MP missions requires downed pilot to wait to be rescued and flown back to the FARP before jumping into a new chopper. Being able to actually jump in the rescue helicopter and do something while being flown back would be a real plus

- Being able to fly mission with the others even if there is no task for your platoon: some missions we are flying sometimes requires, for example, UH helicopters with AH support only. OH platoon guys could still join the fun by acting as gunners on a huey or mi8.

[Art-J]

 

* Icing. People, I've been waiting for this for 20 years to no avail! Please, I won't live forever (but again - it involves DSCW).

Yes, icing seems really hard to do (properly), but also seems doable to at least some sensible extent. No visual appearence, only effect on flight characteristics, engine performance, perhaps failures of specific systems (where applicable). For example, pitot tube icing has been modelled in sims for... at least 20 years, I can't remember clearly behind that. It's not rocket science, you just 'choke' the tube if flown for some time in conditions of X/Y/Z. Simplifications are not a bad thing.

AFAIK no one's ever done icing in a sim (don't know about X-Plane, but I doubt it) and the good news is this would be beneficial for everyone, not only rotorheads.

 

 

Engine inlets icing is modelled already in our Mi-8, while pitot icing is there in many DCS airplanes - maybe the Hip has it as well? Flew it in cold conditions only a couple of times, so I don't know.

[scoobie]

@BaD CrC

Thanks for clarifying! Now I get it. I just didn't think about what MP squadrons needed.

So yeah - multicrew does make sense, I get the point now.

 

I was thinking a little bit of what it takes to do multicrew and I got a headache. It may be a bit easier if you have separate 'stations' (seats) on a ship, especially if the module also forbids players from jumping from one station to another, so the authority over the ship's systems is clearly divided between crew members. It could become even easier if the plane was built in such a way that I can't see your gauges/instruments, nor can you see mine.

In Mi-8, however, it's particulary hard because 3 people over the internet sit in one common cockpit and each of them may touch and see everything. All players can press the same button (though buttons shouldn't be hard to do), all 3 may have hardware toggle switches and all 3 surely have their joysticks, pedals etc. - the axes (flight controls and perhaps some knobs/rheostats/etc. - I have 7 pots on my DIY button box). Who's got the controls then? All of us? How do you deal with that? Or does only one of us have controls? But in such case the two other folks become passengers, so no - that wouldn't be multicrew. Whose computer is to calculate flight model and systems modelling? Mine? Yours? His? All three? If not all three, then somehow all instruments (gauges, annunciators, switches etc.) must show the same value/state/position on each of our computers, so all such data must be pushed through the internet. If all three PC's were to run flight/systems models in parallel, then you must be sure the results are 100% the same on each machine. By and large, that should be the case, but it's software so some interesting phenomena may emerge :)

And so on and so forth...

I think I can only see the tip of the iceberg here and even the very tip doesn't look like a child's play.

 

Now, I don't write it to say that because implementing multicrew seems rather hard, it shouldn't be even considered. I'm just trying to understand what task the devs are potentially facing and why they don't seem particularly enthusiastic about multicrew :smilewink:

 

@Art-J

It's my wooden English (sigh) - I didn't make myself clear.

Pitot tube icing is either modelled or at least I'd swear it is. My point was different:

The goal of icing modelling is NOT to charm the public with the finesse of the physics you've used for icing. The goal is simply to punish a player for ignoring icing. Far-reaching simplifications are (IMO) absolutely acceptable here. I'm fairly sure pitot icing is simplified and everyone is fine with that.

So, perhaps a CRUDE modelling of wing icing (rotary or stuck wing) could be considered?

As for the engines... I'm puzzled with what you wrote! I always try to be a good boy and when depressed Natasha complains about icing I immediately switch all the de-ice gear on. This way I've never had a chance to experience what happens when you ignore the gloomy girl. Would you mind elaborating a bit on what effects on the engines one may expect? If there's any, I'm in heaven as otherwise it feels so strange/fake/childish to operate a non-functioning system.

[Murey2]

With the Ka-50 getting the President-S ECM, I think the Mi-8 can also benefit from it. it would be awesome.

 

 

[randomTOTEN]

-1 for multicrew

What is going to keep you busy throught the flight if you're not the pilot flying? Set a new leg in the DISS? Tune a radio once or twice? Shoot side/rear gun for 60 seconds in a 40-minute mission?

I imagine all of these activities in the same sortie could provide some interest. I'm mostly interested in the teamwork aspect of the Mi-8 Multicrew. I.E. it would be nice to have human eyes on the right side of the cockpit. Perhaps shared cold start procedures? To have one pilot fly low level while the other visually navigates, references charts, sets ARK frequencies, operates radios/lights/flares?

My impression is that people ask for multicrew, because they THINK it would be fun, but if they actually got the feature, they would play for 2 days and get bored, then everybody would only want to be the pilot again.

This is a fair concern and might actually be the case.

+0 for bambi bucket.

Never even knew this was a thing people wanted.. yeah agreed.

+1 for working winch

This would be another thing I'm looking forward to with Multicrew. You've suggested several AI functions for a hoist/sling system. These tasks could instead be managed by a 2nd player.. who can manually operate the hoist, and give direction to the pilot. Currently single player hoist/sling ops can be a pain with various cameras, special indicators, and robotic AI responding to scripts. I think it would be much more natural to have somebody else in the heli on comms that can actually talk you into position, while you naturally look ahead and hover the helicopter. At least have the option... I don't think we've ever seen that feature anywhere before. It will be a first for the consumer simulation industry.

 

The rest is pretty low priority for me. I also think we have engine icing modeled in the Mi-8, but it's also been a long time since I've experienced it. I recently had it happen in the Ka-50 and it manifested as an uncommanded decrease in SHP/RPM.

[Art-J]

So, perhaps a CRUDE modelling of wing icing (rotary or stuck wing) could be considered?

As for the engines... I'm puzzled with what you wrote! I always try to be a good boy and when depressed Natasha complains about icing I immediately switch all the de-ice gear on. This way I've never had a chance to experience what happens when you ignore the gloomy girl. Would you mind elaborating a bit on what effects on the engines one may expect? If there's any, I'm in heaven as otherwise it feels so strange/fake/childish to operate a non-functioning system.

 

It's been 3 or so years since I last flew the Hip in ice-inducing conditions, but I vaguely remember engine pressures/temps/RPMs drops and fluctuations being the result, decreasing power output I presume. I was flying empty at that time so I could continue, but I imagine it could be a problem when flying heavily loaded or trying to hover at high density altitude conditions.

[Hueyman]

It's really one of the most detailed and in-depth system simulation ever made around, really under rated ..

 

 

I believe I saw somewhere they have a slightly different version directly used for FTD Level 3 Mi-8/17 simulators for real crews Type Rating ..

 

 

It looks very advanced and feature complete system wise, maybe only a cosmetic overhaul, to be on par with incoming Mil Mi-24 ( looking STELLAR ) would be welcommed !

 

 

I'd be ready to financially support this, like Black Shark 2,3 .. and A-10 II ..

[Rogue Trooper]

cosmetic is all that is required with this girl, multicrew also perhaps.

 

It was done top notch in the beginning and upgraded over years to where this superb module stands now.

 

I never find anything to moan about with this module... Belsimtek at their very best.

[Pikey]

mi8 is the best chopper module and close to the best module DCS ever had. Whilst I'd support paid updates with something on a feature list, it does raise the question very well, how do you stop people expecting updates when modules have well outlasted their playing timeline? So how many people in 2020 are asking for updates to Far Cry 4? This is a clear disadvantage to the free core, paid DLC model.

[slowmover]

An update would be great and even better an Mi-17