UB-32 Rocket Launcher

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, admiki said:

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.

Being a simulator, this statement makes no sense. Realism is key here. Turn it around and state; "If you want something not realistic, mod it!". That seems to be way more logical, than adding sharks with lasers and having those wishing for a proper simulation disable it.

 

Look at Mig-21, there are multiple fantasy weapons on that specific version (KH-66 Grom, GSh-23MM pods, +++). If you want to simulate the module, you have to remember half of the weapons not being actual loadouts on it. Now have every single module come with such exceptions. It makes no sense, and rather, fills the simulator with too much "bloat". Mod whatever you want outside of realistic loadouts.

Edited March 21, 2023 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

18 minutes ago, Kang said:

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'.

I see your point without a doubt. With a very specific airframe, you really only get to simulate very specific scenarios, and few at that, as any other scenario falling outside of the time-perimiter of the given module, yields inaccurate results (weapons available, etc...). The question is really; "What should be prioritised, airframe-realism, or broad scenario-realism". If you go with a specific airframe, you can always stay true to its nature, by limiting what scenarios you set it up in. If you go for a broader scenario realism, sure, you can limit weapons in a given scenario, however the airframe spec will still have some inaccuracy as to the specific conflict/time-frame. The first one, gives you a chance at 100% realism, the second, will never give you that. 

 

There are way more factors at play I´m afraid; economy (DCS being niche already, means that the more adaptive a module is, the more customers will buy it. People want selective-realism, sad fact...), development (time, available info, SME´s, etc...), and more. As such, it´s a balance I guess. If everything was purely realistic, fewer people would fly, thus ED would have less money for development, meaning that the sim would not be where it is atm. (technically). Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides, if the sim is to survive in the long run. Still, let´s hope that they prioritise modules´ authenticity, as that´s really what you sit in most of the time. I don´t mind not being able to replay Vietnam with a Russian helicopter or so, but at least the modules we have, somewhat replicate the real ones.

Edited March 21, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Kang]

27 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

I see your point without a doubt. With a very specific airframe, you really only get to simulate very specific scenarios, and few at that, as any other scenario falling outside of the time-perimiter of the given module, yields inaccurate results (weapons available, etc...). The question is really; "What should be prioritised, airframe-realism, or broad scenario-realism". If you go with a specific airframe, you can always stay true to its nature, by limiting what scenarios you set it up in. If you go for a broader scenario realism, sure, you can limit weapons in a given scenario, however the airframe spec will still have some inaccuracy as to the specific conflict/time-frame. The first one, gives you a chance at 100% realism, the second, will never give you that. 

 

There are way more factors at play I´m afraid; economy (DCS being niche already, means that the more adaptive a module is, the more customers will buy it. People want selective-realism, sad fact...), development (time, available info, SME´s, etc...), and more. As such, it´s a balance I guess. If everything was purely realistic, fewer people would fly, thus ED would have less money for development, meaning that the sim would not be where it is atm. (technically). Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides, if the sim is to survive in the long run. Still, let´s hope that they prioritise modules´ authenticity, as that´s really what you sit in most of the time. I don´t mind not being able to replay Vietnam with a Russian helicopter or so, but at least the modules we have, somewhat replicate the real ones.

 

It certainly is a balance and I feel the original question about the UB32s is one that happens to be pretty much right at that edge.

Outside of that particular question I think perhaps it would be good if the module manuals (nudge, nudge, ED: some of the manuals really could do with some updating/completing) could come with a page of appendix that showcased the loadout options, perhaps with a slight colour code for 'actual loadouts used on this aircraft', 'loadouts used on this type', 'technically possible loadouts' and finally 'loadouts included in DCS for the purposes of standing in as a different, similar type'. Admittedly some of these might lead back to the same discussion on what counts as the same type of aircraft in a way, but it might give scenario creators a better guide.

Case in point: while I have been aware of the MiG-21bis' Kh-66 being somewhat imaginary (and technically impossible for the type), I somehow missed out on the GSh-23 pods not being a thing on the particular type. A quick look at a GDR source says you are right, though. Not sure if that is ever mentioned in the manual - also yes, I know, that one isn't on ED, but same point applies.

[some1]

21 hours ago, Bartek16194 said:

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

You can still edit the mission file itself, by unpacking the .miz file and changing CLSID's of the mounted weapons to UB32 pods. But I don't have the step-by-step instructions for that.

A global option to edit the payloads has been removed some time ago for all DCS aircraft, nothing to do with plans to do a paid upgrade of Mi-8, most likely there aren't any in the near future.

2 hours ago, Kang said:

Has this particular version officially carried S-5 rockets? No, it hasn't, you do have a point there.

Depends what you call a "particular" version. Export customers of this particular version do carry S-5 rockets. DCS already has some exotic and anachronistic weapon choices, like AGM-62 Walleyes on a Lot 20 Hornet, but I don't expect any changes and improvements to Mi-8, the module is done and ED doesn't spend any time on it unless a new patch makes it unplayable. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by some1

[zerO_crash]

On 3/21/2023 at 12:08 PM, Kang said:

It certainly is a balance and I feel the original question about the UB32s is one that happens to be pretty much right at that edge.

Outside of that particular question I think perhaps it would be good if the module manuals (nudge, nudge, ED: some of the manuals really could do with some updating/completing) could come with a page of appendix that showcased the loadout options, perhaps with a slight colour code for 'actual loadouts used on this aircraft', 'loadouts used on this type', 'technically possible loadouts' and finally 'loadouts included in DCS for the purposes of standing in as a different, similar type'. Admittedly some of these might lead back to the same discussion on what counts as the same type of aircraft in a way, but it might give scenario creators a better guide.

Case in point: while I have been aware of the MiG-21bis' Kh-66 being somewhat imaginary (and technically impossible for the type), I somehow missed out on the GSh-23 pods not being a thing on the particular type. A quick look at a GDR source says you are right, though. Not sure if that is ever mentioned in the manual - also yes, I know, that one isn't on ED, but same point applies.

I have posted before a similar suggestion, as a final solution, such that you could besides "game mode", also chose "realistic" and a mix of system´s modelling + physics and "fantasy" loadouts. With that said, I doubt ED sees this as an issue significant enough to grant a rework/update of the simulator options.

Edited March 22, 2023 by zerO_crash

[TasDozer]

To play this game realistically, it will uninstall itself and delete your customer account the first time your pilot dies. And you don't get to choose what missions to do, you can only do what you're instructed to do. And you probably won't get to fly for more than a few hours every month. And you'd better only ever operate the Mi-8 with a flight control setup that matches the physical dimensions of the real thing, with all the control curves set to linear and 100% saturation

 

[admiki]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:18 AM, zerO_crash said:

Being a simulator, this statement makes no sense. Realism is key here. Turn it around and state; "If you want something not realistic, mod it!". That seems to be way more logical, than adding sharks with lasers and having those wishing for a proper simulation disable it.

Exactly, but that can't be done now.

3 hours ago, TasDozer said:

To play this game realistically, it will uninstall itself and delete your customer account the first time your pilot dies. And you don't get to choose what missions to do, you can only do what you're instructed to do. And you probably won't get to fly for more than a few hours every month. And you'd better only ever operate the Mi-8 with a flight control setup that matches the physical dimensions of the real thing, with all the control curves set to linear and 100% saturation

 

Careful now, there is only one appropriate realism level and that is the one that those that are not gamers like.

Edited March 23, 2023 by admiki

[zerO_crash]

7 hours ago, TasDozer said:

To play this game realistically, it will uninstall itself and delete your customer account the first time your pilot dies. And you don't get to choose what missions to do, you can only do what you're instructed to do. And you probably won't get to fly for more than a few hours every month. And you'd better only ever operate the Mi-8 with a flight control setup that matches the physical dimensions of the real thing, with all the control curves set to linear and 100% saturation

 

 

That is exactly how a simulator is used by e.g. military pilots. I haven´t went down in more than a year, the missions are chosen, but tasks are often preset, you get to fly much as this is afterall a simulator, one uses the best control-setup that one has at hand (I have practically always had FFB). I´ve never ever used curves or reduced saturation (never - better learn to microcontrol and steady your hand). No problem, aim small - miss small. It´s mindset, a perfectionist, nothing else!

 

3 hours ago, admiki said:

Exactly, but that can't be done now.

Careful now, there is only one appropriate realism level and that is the one that those that are not gamers like.

 

 

Everything can be undone, it´s only a matter of will. MiG-21Bis 2.0 will hopefully finally introduce fixes, and improve working of systems that it never got right, sight to mention one. Ka-50 BS1 used to have a working drift implemented for the PVI-800, that got removed in Ka-50 BS2 due to the new caucasus T3 version, which introduced the terrain as a sphere (as opposed to a flat map). Finally, Ka-50 BS3 brought PVI-800 functionality back from BS1. Don´t worry, we´ll get there. NVGs are yet another example. Hopefully, when the technology matures, and NVG´s recieve proper modelling, it will prove the point of how pointless it is to attempt using NVG in a cockpit not adjusted for it. I am following what´s going on at the Russian side, and I sure like what I see. Let´s assume those were but hiccups.

Edited March 23, 2023 by zerO_crash

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 due to the new caucasus T3 version, which introduced the terrain as a sphere (as opposed to a flat map).

Where did this come from?

[Dragon1-1]

Well, there'll obviously be Caucasus on the spherical world map ED is working on. That's probably what he's referring to.

[zerO_crash]

If you mean the terrain engine designation, then from here: 

 

As to the map being spherical, I seem to remember reading it years ago being explained as the reason for PVI-800 lacking the BS1-functionality when BS2 shipped.

 

EDIT: I actually found an answer (not the one I was looking for, but nevertheless), and the answer is intermediate. While DCS doesn´t seem to be built on spherical terrain, the math done for Coordinates/LOS/INS/radars/weapons seem to be done for a spherical world. Grimes states however that he believes this was implemented for DCS world from 1.5 (EDGE). I am not sure if he means AI-units though, as I seem to remember that Ka-50 had this issue since BS2 introduction and onwards. I suppose there is a distinction between simulated units (user), vs AI (mechanics). 

 

Check Grime´s answer in this thread:

 

On a side note, there are still many things in the sim which are halfways done. For example, while doppler radars have a minnimum altitude for detecting other objects, that altitude is currently counted from the ground, not other ground-objects. For example, a TOR will not see you (due to doppler filters) if you hover below 10m above the ground with a helicopter. However, if you hover 2m above the roof of a multi-story building, he will see you. That, considering trees have a collision-model. Again, the sim has gotten far, incredibly far, but there is stil much to do.

Edited March 23, 2023 by zerO_crash

[TasDozer]

oh yeah, that's an example of the realism in DCS World over the last 10, 20 years: plan a flight from the western edge of Tblisi (41° 40' N, 44° 40' E) to Mozdok (43° 45' N, 44° 40 E). note the true bearing between the two. then note the difference in longitude

if you care about realism at all, you should stop playing DCS until it simulates the WGS84 spheroid

[D4n]

3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

a TOR will not see you (due to doppler filters) if you hover below 10m above the ground with a helicopter

Shouldn't the TOR detected the helicopter due to the massive radar reflection of its turning blades?

Edited March 24, 2023 by D4n

[Northstar98]

10 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

As to the map being spherical, I seem to remember reading it years ago being explained as the reason for PVI-800 lacking the BS1-functionality when BS2 shipped.

EDIT: I actually found an answer (not the one I was looking for, but nevertheless), and the answer is intermediate. While DCS doesn´t seem to be built on spherical terrain, the math done for Coordinates/LOS/INS/radars/weapons seem to be done for a spherical world. Grimes states however that he believes this was implemented for DCS world from 1.5 (EDGE). I am not sure if he means AI-units though, as I seem to remember that Ka-50 had this issue since BS2 introduction and onwards. I suppose there is a distinction between simulated units (user), vs AI (mechanics).

Yeah, I was aware of certain elements being calculated as if the world was spherical (such as the modelling of satellite orbits for GNSS), as well as the radar workaround to better model realistic LOS. But I'm still quite certain the maps themselves use flat geometry instead of spherical (and yes, I'm aware of the spherical Earth map in development).

Oh well, thanks for answering and apologies to everyone for derailing the thread - the spherical thing just threw me.