UB-32 Rocket Launcher

[VampireNZ]

With the Hind approaching with the possibility of fitting the UB-32 rocket launcher, is there any chance this will be included for fitment to the Mi-8 as well?

For no other reason than the Hip would look sick AF with 6 UB-32 launchers fitted! (192 rockets wouldn't hurt either) :thumbup:

[Crash *]

+1

[GunfighterSIX]

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

pylon(1, 0, 0.4, -0.95, -3.26,

{

use_full_connector_position = true,

},

{

 

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_CM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OFP2" },

{ CLSID = "{6A4B9E69-64FE-439a-9163-3A87FB6A4D81}" },

 

{ CLSID = "{FB3CE165-BF07-4979-887C-92B87F13276B}" },

{ CLSID = "{0511E528-EA28-4caf-A212-00D1408DF10A}" },

{ CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" },

{ CLSID = "GUV_VOG"},

{ CLSID = "{637334E4-AB5A-47C0-83A6-51B7F1DF3CD5}" }, --UB32 with S5 rockets

{ CLSID = "{B99EE8A8-99BC-4a8d-89AC-A26831920DCE}" }, --FuelTank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by GunfighterSIX

[paco2002]

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

pylon(1, 0, 0.4, -0.95, -3.26,

{

use_full_connector_position = true,

},

{

 

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_CM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OM" },

{ CLSID = "B_8V20A_OFP2" },

{ CLSID = "{6A4B9E69-64FE-439a-9163-3A87FB6A4D81}" },

 

{ CLSID = "{FB3CE165-BF07-4979-887C-92B87F13276B}" },

{ CLSID = "{0511E528-EA28-4caf-A212-00D1408DF10A}" },

{ CLSID = "{3C612111-C7AD-476E-8A8E-2485812F4E5C}" },

{ CLSID = "GUV_VOG"},

{ CLSID = "{637334E4-AB5A-47C0-83A6-51B7F1DF3CD5}" }, --UB32 with S5 rockets

{ CLSID = "{B99EE8A8-99BC-4a8d-89AC-A26831920DCE}" }, --FuelTank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will break IC? I think the answer is yes, but better to ask first

[MPalmer]

I'd love to see them on the Mi-8 as well...but if I hold my breath for ED/Belsimtek to add them...I'll be all shades of purple!

 

Since the onset of piracy of their modules...there approach is to ruin it for (punish) the masses

[Fri13]

Since the onset of piracy of their modules...there approach is to ruin it for (punish) the masses

 

What you mean?

[MPalmer]

Item 4: integrity check

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4381392&postcount=100

[ricktoberfest]

Item 4: integrity check

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4381392&postcount=100

 

 

Integrity check isn’t about piracy, it’s about making multiplayer fair. If you could change your aircraft to whatever you wanted how would you regulate that?

Also servers have the option to turn it off if they want to use mods

 

 

Modules: A10C, F5, F14, F16, F18, F86, AV8B, UH1, Mi8, Ka50, FC3, Supercarrier, CA, P47, P51

[OfficerAMR]

I have been using them for a few years now. Adding a line of code to each of the pylons will add the pods. The 32's are smaller and do have the same punch as the S'5. But the pods are a lot lighter and the rockets are faster with a flatter trajectory making more accurate at longer ranges. A plus for the Mi8. Unfortunately the 3d model for the pods is not very good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a little suggestion, but if you get the UB-32 launchers off the L-39C/ZA they're HQ models. Looks way way better, i dont know how to upload screenshots here, but i do have a picture of them on my livery pack. If you look at the third image you can see them on the helicopter. Its a bit weird these were never added to the module since the high quality models of the rocket launcher is available in the game, it wouldn't ruin the polish of the module as the LQ UB-32 launcher would.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2831505/

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by OfficerAMR

[CoBlue]

Just a little suggestion, but if you get the UB-32 launchers off the L-39C/ZA they're HQ models. Looks way way better, i dont know how to upload screenshots here, but i do have a picture of them on my livery pack. If you look at the third image you can see them on the helicopter. Its a bit weird these were never added to the module since the high quality models of the rocket launcher is available in the game, it wouldn't ruin the polish of the module as the LQ UB-32 launcher would.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2831505/

Can you upload the .lua file, whit the description were to put it, plz?

[CoBlue]

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar

[AeriaGloria]

This would be important if we get Syrian Mi-8, they didn’t have S-8 in the beginning of war, only S-5. I think they didn’t get S-8 until 2015, and is credited as pretty big reason the SyAAF got more effective during that year

[OfficerAMR]

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

 

Nice work, that it, Didnt see until now been busy this weekend :thumbup:

[Mentos]

It would be nice to finally see some updates and fixes to the module. Perhaps ED would be interested in the topic and add UB-32 launchers

 

 

[Mentos]

[Stratos]

I agree, they need to be added

[IAR-93]

On 9/27/2020 at 6:51 AM, CoBlue said:

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar 4.06 kB · 55 downloads

ok , but where do I put your file in dcs directory ?

 

[Sobakopes]

In game terms s5 rockets I think have a niche. You get lots more when compared to s8. 

This increases direct hit chance on vehicles. And light vehicles like mtlb btr80 still get one shot by these little rockets. Pods are also lighter.

S8 can one shot heavy IFV like Bradley aav7 warrior bmp3 and deal a LOT more damage to the tanks. 

 

Tl Dr s5 would make the best weapon against light apcs on a hip. Guv 12.7 is good too but at closer ranges and with less damage. Sometimes not penetrating. 

27.09.2020 в 06:51, CoBlue сказал:

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar 4 \u041a\u0431 · 67 скачиваний

What to do with the file? Do you have a mod ready? 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Sobakopes

[evanf117]

On 9/27/2020 at 1:51 PM, CoBlue said:

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready.

Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar 4.06 kB · 74 downloads

lol rip not any more 
sadly, why couldn't they just move the Mi-8 lua to the COREMODS folder

[Bartek16194]

I tried to make this mod recently but they did something that affects only mi-8 and there is no such file anywhere or even the code that was in it, it's probably in some dll now, I don't understand why they blocked it. It will probably be like with black shark, i.e. a paid upgrade

[zerO_crash]

This topic has been raised again and again, and as always, the answer is no. If to stay true to the version that ED is replicating here, USSR, there were no S-5´s mounted on this version. By that time, S-5´s were used up/sold to foreign countries, as such, S-8 were the new standard on the block. For some, it might seem like a "small" addition, however as to reality-factor, it's plain wrong. Realism of the module first (never mind the different skins, those are just "artistic"), then everything else.

[admiki]

I don't really care about S-5s, but if you don't like them, just don't use them. Let other people have fun.

[Kang]

17 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

This topic has been raised again and again, and as always, the answer is no. If to stay true to the version that ED is replicating here, USSR, there were no S-5´s mounted on this version. By that time, S-5´s were used up/sold to foreign countries, as such, S-8 were the new standard on the block. For some, it might seem like a "small" addition, however as to reality-factor, it's plain wrong. Realism of the module first (never mind the different skins, those are just "artistic"), then everything else.

To be honest, I always find that argument to be in so much of a grey area.

Has this particular version officially carried S-5 rockets? No, it hasn't, you do have a point there. But on the other hand: the previous version has and the pylon, as far as I'm aware, hasn't changed one bit. It would be a much clearer cut case if the possibility of carrying these pods had been removed for some technical reason, but as I understand the whole reason they were never carried is because Russia ran out of S-5 rocket pods.

[zerO_crash]

Russians didn´t run out of rocket pods, rather, transitioned to the new standard (S-8). S-5´s proved to have too small of a explosive charge in Afghanistan, thus, a bigger rocket (S-8) was promoted during the later years and in the aftermath. The army aviation simply did not want them anymore, after the reports stemming from Afghanistan. Even though it could technically carry it (the wiring is the same as for S-8), I still stand by the fact that modules should be representative of a specific airframe (even though much of the info surrounding a module is often gathered from multiple aircraft, think of it as a puzzle game). There have been other modules that have taken certain liberties, however those, have either been reverted, or often heavily criticized by us purists (NVG in Mi-24 (this version), Mi-8 not so much as a few early ones have been testing NVG-use before proper cockpit lightning adjusted for NVG). Again, I get the wish, especially since everything is already there, however it makes more sense that the simulator remains true to its nature.

 

Hopefully projects like Ka-50 BS3 remain reserved for "testbeds" at most. 3-wing pylon was tested on Ka-50, however with different firing-system that accepted a third pylon. Same with President-S (only DIRCM for us), whereas the system is partly there, it being displayed on Abris is fantasy (could be done IRL I´m sure, but nothing proves it ever was). Igla-V on Ka50 is in itself pure fantasy, the only thing ever being considered IRL was an R-60 missile, much in the same manner as on Mi-24. Again, the explanation was that Ka-50 was a testbed (which saw very limited service), and as such, multiple Ka-50´s in different configurations were baked into one, plus some "minor" liberties. Let´s hope ED doesn´t go that way any further, as such "liberties" often result in more confusion than not. The pride of this simulator is really the authenticity of it, besides physics, system depth, etc... In absolutely most of the scenarios where the Mi-8 (our version) was used, the S-8 was as well. The very early ones, while having S-5, also had weaker engines, different blades, etc. Even if you had the proper weaponry for the scenario, you would have an improper Mi-8 (more capable one) than the original airframe. As such, it would always be unrealistic in one way or the other.

Edited March 22, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Kang]

1 minute ago, zerO_crash said:

 Even though it could technically carry it (the wiring is the same as for S-8), I still stand by the fact that modules should be representative of a specific airframe (even though much of the info surrounding a module is often gathered from multiple aircraft, think of it as a puzzle game).

Maybe that exactly is the point. Whether one prefers the purist authenticity of a specific airframe or a slightly broader approach to representing a type. Probably what we slightly disagree on. Personally I feel that simulating a single specific aircraft without much leeway exacerbates the 'spotty' nature of DCS, which is that oftentimes modules are scattered all over the place with hardly ever having the assets to properly match them in a scenario - but I admit that that is just my opinion.

I definitely agree that the recent developments in Ka-50 have gotten a bit out of hand at any rate with the experimental features and the modelling after prototypes. I realise that the Ka-50 itself is a bit of a rare helicopter, but then ED sure doesn't do things a favour by claiming this BS3 version to be 'representative'.