Mi-24P project manager live stream

[Northstar98]

Plus with a fixed gun, you're probably not aiming at something if you're in a hover, whereas with a turreted gun you could.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Plus with a fixed gun, you're probably not aiming at something if you're in a hover, whereas with a turreted gun you could.

 

Looking the few videos of the Mi-24P firing in forward flight, that cannon will push your nose down and fast.

Now think about being in hover? First round hits the target and rest are on the ground.

 

https://youtu.be/7fX3t5bg7N4?t=58

 

It can even be seen how much spread the helicopter has while firing from short distance.

 

And that is why you can see pilots using either low RPM, or firing with just one shot at the time.

 

https://youtu.be/3poFqNfFqVo?t=144

 

So you become to use it like a sniper instead A-10. Similar thing is with the IFV and APC with autocannons, you don't go for full long bursts but short ones and single fire as better hit once well, than shoot multiple all around.

 

Similar thing is with the AH-64 and Mi-28 as well, the gun recoil is pretty brutal. This is something that KA-50 with the gun position truly helps as the cannon is like a large caliber sniper rifle.

 

And then there is the other helicopters as well, like our Gazelle that doesn't have realistic behavior by not having any recoil at all with the cannon. And similar thing was with the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior in their videos.

 

https://youtu.be/0BdgJ25IkA0?t=8901

 

https://youtu.be/2YXSE9j3hxY?t=1565

https://youtu.be/2YXSE9j3hxY?t=1811

 

The KA-50 does have nice cannon recoil, but it might be even too little. But comparing to many other helicopters, they don't seem to have almost any compared to those few videos.

So how one would go and aim Mi-24P cannon while in hover? I don't think it is pretty sight at all. Maybe in a single fire, but you become slow as you are turning that whole helicopter around to get a sight on target. Why WSO would be nicer. In KA-50 it is at least nice to have HMS so you can just look at the target and shoot at as cannon follows your HMS. So having even those few degrees to left is enough, as you learn to put target more to your right and you can always shoot more below than you can see. And this helps to make attacks at close as engaging example a column is easy when you take few shots on each vehicle and from 10 you might take in one attack run 6-8 of them.

 

And considering the Mi-24 doesn't have even semi-rigid or rigid rotor hub, but fully articulating. Why Mi-24 can't do loops or any fancy maneuvers without high risks, as whole helicopter is hanging freely from the rotor. That is its pivot point basically (little above it). And as the fuselage can freely tilt and swing from it, you will get very high recoil from it. This is why the AH-64 has advantage as it has rigid rotor hub and gearbox that has lubrication even when inverted, why it is certificated to be able perform loops.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

On 1/21/2021 at 4:27 PM, MBot said:

Another interesting question is whether ED plans to improve helicopter AI to include NOE flight and pop-up attacks (I doubt it) or whether in SP I will be the sole Hind on a high intensity battlefield (I expect so).

 

That is good question. Would be nice to see AI pilots to be able fly just few meters from the ground, fly slowly around the buildings, trees, under high powerlines etc. So get in the position, search targets while moving slowly etc. Now they just do that on like 50-80 meters.

 

It would help a lot to do missions.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Helicopter AI surely is a bit problematic at the moment: try following AI through a mountainous area at low-ish level and you can see for yourself. They dramatically slow down as soon as a slope appears in front of them, then start rocking back and forth while climbing, only to accelerate as if they had rocket-boosters attached as soon as they cross the ridge line...

[Fri13]

19 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Helicopter AI surely is a bit problematic at the moment: try following AI through a mountainous area at low-ish level and you can see for yourself. They dramatically slow down as soon as a slope appears in front of them, then start rocking back and forth while climbing, only to accelerate as if they had rocket-boosters attached as soon as they cross the ridge line...

 

The AI's could use some advanced dampening systems in their controls and decisions, so they wouldn't be making rapid constant changes and react to things on the second.

[Fri13]

On 1/10/2021 at 1:41 PM, Northstar98 said:

Which I also find strange, following this same reasoning I would never use an F-5E-3 if I had a Hornet; for one the AIM-9B is far inferior to the AIM-9L/M let alone X; I would never use an SA-2 when I can put down an SA-11 etc.

 

Hopefully when it goes to preorder the intended timeframe for the variant will be clarified (though from what I gather the only real difference is this IR jammer).

 

I always thought the LIPA was added to Mi-24 in Afghanistan, to protect against Stingers and not Red Eyes and such earlier. But it was then just the flare launchers that got added.

https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=3250

I am more sad that we don't get the laser range finder and LLTV sight.

 

If I would be a betting man, I would guess that we don't get the IR Jammer because the Russian laws. As KA-50 was dropped from getting the IR jammers, then there is even possibility that Mi-24 would get denied and it is safe bet not to include them even if they would be ineffective.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

I always thought the LIPA was added to Mi-24 in Afghanistan, to protect against Stingers and not Red Eyes and such earlier. But it was then just the flare launchers that got added.

https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=3250

I am more sad that we don't get the laser range finder and LLTV sight.

 

If I would be a betting man, I would guess that we don't get the IR Jammer because the Russian laws. As KA-50 was dropped from getting the IR jammers, then there is even possibility that Mi-24 would get denied and it is safe bet not to include them even if they would be ineffective.

 

AFAIK (which isn't much) Lipa was only really effective against first-generation IR SAM systems, such as the Redeye and Strela-1 (SA-9)/-2 (SA-7). And isn't effective at all against 2nd generation systems like the early stingers. That's why the flare pack was added, to counter the stinger.

 

I'm not sure how Lipa work, but presumably it's some pulsed IR lantern, kinda like the shtora emitters but on a helicopter (obviously big -ish), presumably tricking the conical scanning scheme (is that right?) employed in early IR SAM systems. President-S is combines a precise MWS and then using a laser to dazzle the seeker.

 

I'd imagine Lipa is much easier to simulate than President-S.

 

Personally I can do without the rangefinder or LLTV sight, but I'd happily snap up a night capable Hind, I'm most interested in a Mi-24V as it is the most produced Hind variant (and when you think of the Hind, the V or the D are what probably come to mind). I'm tempted away from the reasons given against the 12.7mm gun, sure it's less effective, but wouldn't the 7.62mm M134s on the Huey be even less effective? Ultimately the advantages come from being able to point it independently, which is better for engaging things like MANPADs trying to ambush you.

 

Plus, and this is a big one - it looks cooler, so there! 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

AFAIK (which isn't much) Lipa was only really effective against first-generation IR SAM systems, such as the Redeye and Strela-1 (SA-9)/-2 (SA-7). And isn't effective at all against 2nd generation systems like the early stingers. That's why the flare pack was added, to counter the stinger.

 

Yes it was said it was just for Red Eye and such. But I had somewhere the idea that they were added as well in Afghanistan, even when it was previously already existing.

 

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not sure how Lipa work, but presumably it's some pulsed IR lantern, kinda like the shtora emitters but on a helicopter (obviously big -ish), presumably tricking the conical scanning scheme (is that right?) employed in early IR SAM systems. President-S is combines a precise MWS and then using a laser to dazzle the seeker.

 

The President-S has two kind turrets, one ED was to implement was the IR lamp, while the other version has the IR laser.

IIRC it was that the IR light source pulses at such frequency that the missile seeker loses its bearing because the rotating slotted frequency and then when you get it lost, it can't lock again.

 

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'd imagine Lipa is much easier to simulate than President-S.

 

Same principle really for the DCS. You have just a "light source" that will have X times a second change to roll a dice and when proper value is seen, missile lock is broken. It is not complex thing in DCS how these things work. The hard part really is the 3D model, texturing and animation and then system design that what power it requires and how much, what is the procedures to activate the it with what switches etc.

 Like the flare, chaff and ECM systems in DCS overall, everything is very simple dice rolling that at what change the missile will lose a lock.

 

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally I can do without the rangefinder or LLTV sight, but I'd happily snap up a night capable Hind, I'm most interested in a Mi-24V as it is the most produced Hind variant (and when you think of the Hind the V or the D are what probably come to mind).

 

I hope ED considers in future to make a other variants as well once they get P done. As it is great income source as minimal work for a V after P as WSO cockpit should be only difference (and the cannon) and many would be willing to buy it.

 

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm tempted away from the reasons given against the 12.7mm gun, sure it's less effective, but wouldn't the 7.62mm M134s on the Huey be even less effective? Ultimately the advantages come from being able to point it independently, which is better for engaging things like MANPADs trying to ambush you.

 

I love to fly Mi-8 shooting with Kord. It is nice to engage APC's like M113 outside their engagement ranges (1.8 km IIRC) and destroy them. Killing a infantry at those ranges is more about luck as your shot gets so close to them but you need direct hit, but it is not impossible or unlikely, just like a having just 0.15-0.2 change to do so.

In a UH-1H it is great to use the miniguns and slew them. There is something to do as the co-pilot flies and commander use miniguns (that is how the walkaround person told that Commander is on left side and co-pilot is on right side) as you get devastation to all kind targets.

 

But we need better (toned down) effects for the bullets (no tracers) and much smaller dust flying in the air etc. As now the 5.56 and 12.7 mm is like firing a 30 mm shell.

 

Looking the video of the modernized Mi-24P firing cannon at night, I can't even imagine how annoying feeling it is as you have NVG on and then that cannon flash is lighting the whole cockpit, both sides of canopy (reflective dome) and it must be like dozens of flashbangs going off constantly.

 

At least that we are not going to see much in DCS as Mi-24P was limited to day-time only use now. And it will be interesting to hear what the WSO experiences with the pilot firing cannon even when it is so much extended and has big muzzle hiders. If the OH-58 co-pilot has annoying experience when that 12.7 mm HMG fires just next to them and little behind with all the shaking, noise and bright light bursting, then the WSO can't have so nice thing either in Mi-24P at night time.

[Apok]

Actually one of the first things I want to do is test that night time muzzle flash. Looks so awesome.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I hope ED considers in future to make a other variants as well once they get P done. As it is great income source as minimal work for a V after P as WSO cockpit should be only difference (and the cannon) and many would be willing to buy it.

 

Absolutely!

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

But we need better (toned down) effects for the bullets (no tracers) and much smaller dust flying in the air etc. As now the 5.56 and 12.7 mm is like firing a 30 mm shell.

 

Absolutely, plus it would be great if the tracers got a revamp.

 

I think the 2021 and beyond newsletter mentioned updating splashes though.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Looking the video of the modernized Mi-24P firing cannon at night, I can't even imagine how annoying feeling it is as you have NVG on and then that cannon flash is lighting the whole cockpit, both sides of canopy (reflective dome) and it must be like dozens of flashbangs going off constantly.

 

Agreed.

 

[Fri13]

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Absolutely, plus it would be great if the tracers got a revamp.

 

Fairly simple ones really.

1) No full tracers all the time. Like give infantry a option to have last 3 rounds as tracers that signals them that magazine is going empty and option to have no tracers at all! And fix their visibility in various lighting conditions.

2) Adjust the tracers sizes and visibility, now they are like laser beams, but that is very difficult to do as in real world the human eye sees them differently than what we can render in games.

3) Different colors as well properly for units.

 

16 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I think the 2021 and beyond newsletter mentioned updating splashes though.

 

Yes, I thought that was a funny thing considering that Taz1004 has here modded heavily those splashes and explosions, smoke effects and all. Great mods, and it looks like Taz managed to challenge ED to improve their work.

 

 

Example in the news letter it was pointed that ED is implementing the smoke grenades. Likely something that Polychop as well requires for their OH-58D as there the pilots can throw smoke grenades to mark places etc.

 

It has been at least since Lock-On those silly 300-500 meter tall color signal smokes that are absurd that how example in 2.75"/80 mm rocket can be so much content to produce so huge smoke and lasting minutes.

 

And this has been huge affection to air-to-ground missions as one marking area with smoke has been visible to tens of kilometers. While in reality example the S-8TsM marker smoke is in best conditions only visible up to 6 km (lighting, strong contrast like yellow against dark green forest).

 

Now if we get proper smoke effects, we could see a infantry throwing a smoke grenade on ground that will be visible just couple kilometers, and be very faint and small that you need to know where to look for. These for marking landing places, friendly troops, or direction to enemy troops (two smokes to create a vector to enemy) etc.

That will make Mi-24P far more fun to fly when you could see a proper market smokes instead those hundreds of meters tall bright smoke towers.

 

Think what we could do like go rescue a downed pilot with Mi-24 that pops a smoke when he hears helicopter to closing that is friendly.

 

[Northstar98]

Just now, Fri13 said:

Fairly simple ones really.

1) No full tracers all the time. Like give infantry a option to have last 3 rounds as tracers that signals them that magazine is going empty and option to have no tracers at all! And fix their visibility in various lighting conditions.

 

Agreed, plus given proper rounds instead of just generic ones.

 

Just now, Fri13 said:

2) Adjust the tracers sizes and visibility, now they are like laser beams, but that is very difficult to do as in real world the human eye sees them differently than what we can render in games.

 

Yes, that's my main gripe, they don't really look authentic - something like WT (yes WT) have much more natural looking tracers.

 

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

 

Yes, I thought that was a funny thing considering that Taz1004 has here modded heavily those splashes and explosions, smoke effects and all. Great mods, and it looks like Taz managed to challenge ED to improve their work.

 

 

Example in the news letter it was pointed that ED is implementing the smoke grenades. Likely something that Polychop as well requires for their OH-58D as there the pilots can throw smoke grenades to mark places etc.

 

It has been at least since Lock-On those silly 300-500 meter tall color signal smokes that are absurd that how example in 2.75"/80 mm rocket can be so much content to produce so huge smoke and lasting minutes.

 

And this has been huge affection to air-to-ground missions as one marking area with smoke has been visible to tens of kilometers. While in reality example the S-8TsM marker smoke is in best conditions only visible up to 6 km (lighting, strong contrast like yellow against dark green forest).

 

Now if we get proper smoke effects, we could see a infantry throwing a smoke grenade on ground that will be visible just couple kilometers, and be very faint and small that you need to know where to look for. These for marking landing places, friendly troops, or direction to enemy troops (two smokes to create a vector to enemy) etc.

That will make Mi-24P far more fun to fly when you could see a proper market smokes instead those hundreds of meters tall bright smoke towers.

 

Think what we could do like go rescue a downed pilot with Mi-24 that pops a smoke when he hears helicopter to closing that is friendly.

 

 

Absolutely agreed.

[kotor633]

Am 21.1.2021 um 14:39 schrieb Fri13:

 

 

 

 

Wow ... that's all you can think of about the video.  

[S. Low]

Effectiveness? PFFT lol. It's the hind. GIMME GIMME.

 

 

[Fangs Out]

Who orders a module based on effectiveness? I order modules based on the significance of it (F-5E, Mig-21Bis, F-86, P51D , etc and etc) 

[WarHawk72]

14 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

Who orders a module based on effectiveness? I order modules based on the significance of it (F-5E, Mig-21Bis, F-86, P51D , etc and etc) 

 

In the same boat myself, i love all the older planes and helicopters, are they obsolete on a modern day battlefield? I suppose they are, but i like learning them because of that, clicking 20 buttons to start it up....yes please. To me it is the 'charm' of these aircraft that makes me spend hours with my head in a manual for days on end to work out a flow or what i need to flick to get something done.

 

Don't get me wrong i love the bug, fighting falcon and all the modern jets they are great modules and well worth the time to learn how to operate them, but for me old is gold.

Edited April 8, 2021 by WarHawk72

[Northstar98]

On 4/7/2021 at 2:10 PM, Bravelink03 said:

Who orders a module based on effectiveness? I order modules based on the significance of it (F-5E, Mig-21Bis, F-86, P51D , etc and etc) 

Absolutely!

Edited March 8, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:10 PM, Bravelink03 said:

Who orders a module based on effectiveness? I order modules based on the significance of it (F-5E, Mig-21Bis, F-86, P51D , etc and etc) 

I do

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep the topic on the Mi-24P Hind please. 

 

As a heavy attack helicopter I have been having fun with it, low and fast attacks at tree top levels require high skill. 

 

thanks

[molevitch]

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please keep the topic on the Mi-24P Hind please. 

 

As a heavy attack helicopter I have been having fun with it, low and fast attacks at tree top levels require high skill. 

 

thanks

You big tease!

 

[BIGNEWY]

deleted off topic 

 

Mi-24P project manager live stream is the title of the topic here, please stay on topic