Night Vision?

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

How else are DCS supposed to bring the money in?

Manuals? Who uses manuals?
I just watch grim reapers videos, no point wasting my time reading manuals..

 

You should reconsider your choices in life. It is obvious that you landed at the wrong door.

 

Those who are serious about flying use manuals. Also those who wish to learn their module fully, and those who can and are willing to read and study it. And finally, those that don´t come here and claim something is a bug just because they aren´t invincible or that something is "missing" on their aircraft, like LWR, RWR or NVG.

 

My position is quite clear, if you cannot infer my standpoint from what I wrote, then I understand why you prefer Grim Reaper´s videos to reading the manual.

 

As to money, they´ve been bringing it in since before you came. But greed becomes a factor at some point, when the money flows in, it´s hard to take a definitive stand and say; "no, we are detaching ourselves from our core-values".

Edited September 14, 2021 by zerO_crash

[StevanJ]

8 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 

You should reconsider your choices in life. It is obvious that you landed at the wrong door.

 

Those who are serious about flying use manuals. Also those who wish to learn their module fully, and those who can and are willing to read and study it. And finally, those that don´t come here and claim something is a bug just because they aren´t invincible or that something is "missing" on their aircraft, like LWR, RWR or NVG.

 

My position is quite clear, if you cannot infer my standpoint from what I wrote, then I understand why you prefer Grim Reaper´s videos to reading the manual.

 

As to money, they´ve been bringing it in since before you came. But greed becomes a factor at some point, when the money flows in, it´s hard to take a definitive stand and say; "no, we are detaching ourselves from our core-values".

 

 

‘I landed at the wrong door’?

.. Because I choose to play a game a certain way?

 

Are you ok?
I joined the forum in April 18, 2014. If youd like me to send you a message from that account (or the later accounts) just let me know.
How long someone has been here isnt important.
Core values are.

 

I prefer grim reaper videos because my time is more valuable than to sit there and study a book built around a game.

I value my time at a rate which is important and while I’ve donated my own time to this community, I’ve reached a point where there are no longer returns.

 

Spending 5 minutes watching someone do something in this game, is far more valuable than spending more time reading the manual.

without this understanding we’d have no twitch, YouTube or even promo videos, but if you aren’t the sort of person that watches these videos then I guess there’s no point in me explaining the basic principles of why you are here.

 

Nice profile pic x

Edited September 14, 2021 by StevanJ

[zerO_crash]

8 hours ago, StevanJ said:

 

‘I landed at the wrong door’?

.. Because I choose to play a game a certain way?

 

Are you ok?
I joined the forum in April 18, 2014. If youd like me to send you a message from that account (or the later accounts) just let me know.
How long someone has been here isnt important.
Core values are.

 

I prefer grim reaper videos because my time is more valuable than to sit there and study a book built around a game.

I value my time at a rate which is important and while I’ve donated my own time to this community, I’ve reached a point where there are no longer returns.

 

Spending 5 minutes watching someone do something in this game, is far more valuable than spending more time reading the manual.

without this understanding we’d have no twitch, YouTube or even promo videos, but if you aren’t the sort of person that watches these videos then I guess there’s no point in me explaining the basic principles of why you are here.

 

Nice profile pic x

 

 

No, not because you chose to play it a certain way, but because you make a claim on "core values" yet don't adhere to them. This is not a game in the sense of being explicitly made for fun, it's a simulator that is trying to replicate something in a digital format.

 

If you'd follow on, then you'd know that ED was making money before now as well. And yes, someone who has been with the community longer understands what we are all on about here, why DCS has become so popular and fantastic, for the moment at least. The experience of seeing it evolve from the start, gives one insight into what issues should be solved, what has been missing, and that is not NVG on the Hind. Understanding this sim makes one understand why we can't have the newest and best (Ka52, Mi28, Mi35, etc...). It would make it unrealistic, and thus few want it. Gazelle is a good example, how few people fly it? Why? Because of the lack of realistic features like a proper flight model that replicates physics and real world aspects of a rotorcraft.

 

A DCS manual, although made for DCS, does include much info that can be found in the IRL manuals, NATOPS for example. Therefore, your idea of studying a "book built around a game" is a really shallow understanding of the situation. The fact that you can open a NATOPS manual on F-16, F-18 for example and find relevant info, in fact info that can be used within DCS directly is the pride of this sim. You apparently don't understand that. Not everything is Chuck's manual or even ED-manuals. There really is no other sim that replicates the physics and systems as well as DCS. Therefore, adding unrealistic stuff is ruining the sim. Choosing how you fly is one thing, but trying to make changes to the sim by requesting unrealistic features is something completely different.

 

I can infer that it's more giving for you to watch a video as opposed to reading "a manual" or "a book", and judging from previous responses I don't need to ask why. Go ahead and learn it the way you want, but you do not understand the apparent value of this sim, if videos is all that you are judging this sim from. Those who use DCS as a sim, do not want it to become a "game" as you view it, ruining authenticity.

 

This discussion bears no value whatsoever, because as I pointed out earlier, our concepts of what constitutes a good simulator are worlds apart, judging from your responses, which I might add are neither presenting anything concrete nor logical. It's all based on what "I want and how I play". I won't waste my time on this nonsense. Besides what "I want", there is also the "what's realistically logical within the realm of a SIMULATOR".

Edited September 14, 2021 by zerO_crash

[StevanJ]

2 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 

No, not because you chose to play it a certain way, but because you make a claim on "core values" yet don't adhere to them. This is not a game in the sense of being explicitly made for fun, it's a simulator that is trying to replicate something in a digital format.

 

If you'd follow on, then you'd know that ED was making money before now as well. And yes, someone who has been with the community longer understands what we are all on about here, why DCS has become so popular and fantastic, for the moment at least. The experience of seeing it evolve from the start, gives one insight into what issues should be solved, what has been missing, and that is not NVG on the Hind. Understanding this sim makes one understand why we can't have the newest and best (Ka52, Mi28, Mi35, etc...). It would make it unrealistic, and thus few want it. Gazelle is a good example, how few people fly it? Why? Because of the lack of realistic features like a proper flight model that replicates physics and real world aspects of a rotorcraft.

 

A DCS manual, although made for DCS, does include much info that can be found in the IRL manuals, NATOPS for example. Therefore, your idea of studying a "book built around a game" is a really shallow understanding of the situation. The fact that you can open a NATOPS manual on F-16, F-18 for example and find relevant info, in fact info that can be used within DCS directly is the pride of this sim. You apparently don't understand that. Not everything is Chuck's manual or even ED-manuals. There really is no other sim that replicates the physics and systems as well as DCS. Therefore, adding unrealistic stuff is ruining the sim. Choosing how you fly is one thing, but trying to make changes to the sim by requesting unrealistic features is something completely different.

 

I can infer that it's more giving for you to watch a video as opposed to reading "a manual" or "a book", and judging from previous responses I don't need to ask why. Go ahead and learn it the way you want, but you do not understand the apparent value of this sim, if videos is all that you are judging this sim from. Those who use DCS as a sim, do not want it to become a "game" as you view it, ruining authenticity.

 

This discussion bears no value whatsoever, because as I pointed out earlier, our concepts of what constitutes a good simulator are worlds apart, judging from your responses, which I might add are neither presenting anything concrete nor logical. It's all based on what "I want and how I play". I won't waste my time on this nonsense. Besides what "I want", there is also the "what's realistically logical within the realm of a SIMULATOR".

 

 

I agree, which is what Ive been saying from the start.
Hence why NVG should be added, as its been used in the real life counterpart.

I dont call it a game, DCS does..
But as youre lacking the understanding of why.. Allow me to point it out for you..
 

Be as condescending as you wish. Its not going to change the game..
 

[Harlikwin]

45 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 

I agree, which is what Ive been saying from the start.
Hence why NVG should be added, as its been used in the real life counterpart.
 

 

It has been used in a pit thats most likely been modified, and likely a very recent modification at that. Plus, at a guess only the pilot controlled weapons are actually usable as using a NVG on the gunner sight would be a terrible joke.

 

Bottom line: its a simulator. If you want to simulate using Gen3 NVG's in a non NV compatible pit with all the lights off, fine, make sure all switch labels are turned off, and you can only map whats on your collective and cyclic. Turn on some lights to try to look under your gogs, your NV goes blind. Have fun..

 

There are real reasons that militaries don't do stupid stuff like that IRL, because it gets people killed, lots of guys died figuring this stuff out decades ago. 

 

Warthunder or whatever is thata way...

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Harlikwin

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

 

I agree, which is what Ive been saying from the start.
Hence why NVG should be added, as its been used in the real life counterpart.

I dont call it a game, DCS does..
But as youre lacking the understanding of why.. Allow me to point it out for you..
 

Be as condescending as you wish. Its not going to change the game..
 

 

a) Read what DCS stands for - Digital Combat Simulator. Don´t read too much into semantics, ED has never been very consistent with their language. I suppose it has to do with the studio not being of US/British-origin.

 

b) Read the part in the next paragraph below the one you outlined, specifically the first sentence of it. It says it all. There really isn´t much to argue about.

 

c) ED is making MAC - Modern Air Combat, which is supposed to appeal to the crowd that wants less realism and more air-time, simpler. Consider FC3.

Edited September 14, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

They don't get this, things like this have been talked so much. Just saying "16 pages of APKWS" They don't get the difference between operational, test or prototype and they too don't get the difference between technically possible, certified/approved and operationally used. They can't grasp the concept of simulating something from a particular time and space, sharing a system with other simulations of something from another particular time and space. And they love to build paragraphs of wild interpretations, turning words over in your mouth, weird stories and bean counting product descriptions ad absurdum just to be right. It's hilarious. I only still do this for sole entertainment.

 

Yeah I know. On the upside ED at least allowed server owners to disable this idiocy on period servers.

[StevanJ]

35 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

a) Read what DCS stands for - Digital Combat Simulator. Don´t read too much into semantics, ED has never been very consistent with their language. I suppose it has to do with the studio not being of US/British-origin.

 

b) Read the part in the next paragraph below the one you outlined, specifically the first sentence of it. It says it all. There really isn´t much to argue about.

 

c) ED is making MAC - Modern Air Combat, which is supposed to appeal to the crowd that wants less realism and more air-time, simpler. Consider FC3.

 

 

A) Ya think?

 

B) Yeah? The bit where it says it’s ‘their dream’?

Dream - As in not real?

 

C) There you go then.

Now maybe you can relax and play that..

Edited September 14, 2021 by StevanJ

[Harlikwin]

17 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 

A) Ya think?

 

B) Yeah? The bit where it says it’s ‘their dream’?

Dream - As in not real?

 

C) There you go then.

Now maybe you can relax and play that..

 

 

C)

 

You're the guy who wants unrealistic capabilities for the hind...

 

If you want to Upgrade your experience, turn down the "gain" (not a thing on Aviation NVGs "because IRL reasons") till you can barely see anything outside and inside lights are too "bright", then put on some yellow green covered glasses, smear them with Vaseline aside from the center 4mm. This will approximate the PNV-57E. Disable any sort "mapping" or tool tip popups for switches.

 

Congrats, now you know why no one used crappy NVG's in non NV compatible pits. On the upside, you won't die like the poor guys that did test this in the 80's. 

 

And just so we are 1000% clear I have representative versions of all relevant NVG's from gen0 to gen3 sitting within 10ft of me... 

 

So I can also say that ED modeling NVG's is well... Not good... If I'm being nice... Oddly they seem to use a few different models with the Ka50 or Mi8 versions being a bit closer to reality.

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Harlikwin

[StevanJ]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

C)

 

You're the guy who wants unrealistic capabilities for the hind...

 

If you want to Upgrade your experience, turn down the "gain" (not a thing on Aviation NVGs "because IRL reasons") till you can barely see anything outside and inside lights are too "bright", then put on some yellow green covered glasses, smear them with Vaseline aside from the center 4mm. This will approximate the PNV-57E. Disable any sort "mapping" or tool tip popups for switches.

 

Congrats, now you know why no one used crappy NVG's in non NV compatible pits. On the upside, you won't die like the poor guys that did test this in the 80's. 

 

And just so we are 1000% clear I have representative versions of all relevant NVG's from gen0 to gen3 sitting within 10ft of me... 

 

So I can also say that ED modeling NVG's is well... Not good... If I'm being nice... Oddly they seem to use a few different models with the Ka50 or Mi8 versions being a bit closer to reality.

 

 

I dont fly the hind.
I own it, but not yet flown it.
If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it..

On the store page, theres nothing about which year its supposed to be, so even if it came out and a week after launch that the manufacturer decided to upgrade it and add an NVG compatible cockpit, then we should too.
The links ive previously provided prove that this hind can operate with them.

If youd like to stop NVG's on the Hind, or even HARMs on F16, argue with ED. Not the customers that would like the option 'for' capabilities.
Send a message to support, start a petition, go for a sponsored walk if you have to.
But sitting in a chair and arguing on a forum -over a capability, isnt going to change the mind of those that want it.
 

[zerO_crash]

On 9/15/2021 at 12:08 AM, StevanJ said:

 

A) Ya think?

 

B) Yeah? The bit where it says it’s ‘their dream’?

Dream - As in not real?

 

C) There you go then.

Now maybe you can relax and play that..

 

 

 

b) A dream is an aspiration, an ambition, not a measure of whether it is a success or not. Currently, there are things waiting to get fixed in DCS from long ago, before one can as a whole say that it is a quality product. Furthermore, if english was your native language, you´d understand that it´s a dream because it´s a constantly evolving product. It never get´s finished, thus it`s a dream for the future of this software, to stay as realistic as technology and information permits it to be.

 

c) Does it not seem like I am relaxed?! If I wasn`t, you`d be receiving a whole different tone. I suppose with what MAC wants to represent, it suits you more than me. It´s simpler and less realistic, which is what you are looking for. Your whole response made no sense whatsoever, think, then write, not the other way around. I do however see why writing is such an issue when you delegate most of your time to videos, instead of practicing the skill of reading and writing. 

 

 

On 9/15/2021 at 7:40 AM, StevanJ said:

I dont fly the hind.
I own it, but not yet flown it.
If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it..

On the store page, theres nothing about which year its supposed to be, so even if it came out and a week after launch that the manufacturer decided to upgrade it and add an NVG compatible cockpit, then we should too.
The links ive previously provided prove that this hind can operate with them.

If youd like to stop NVG's on the Hind, or even HARMs on F16, argue with ED. Not the customers that would like the option 'for' capabilities.
Send a message to support, start a petition, go for a sponsored walk if you have to.
But sitting in a chair and arguing on a forum -over a capability, isnt going to change the mind of those that want it.
 

 

 

Then what are you doing in a Hind-thread arguing for something that you haven´t tried?! Your prerogative is complete nonsense.

 

ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs. Done, discussion closed. I can find it and link, if you have trouble believing what you just read, if you read at all (it would be easier to communicate with you through video).

 

You just proved how limited one can be, when discussions get nowhere because that individual has taken a stand and nothing will change his/hers mind. Why are you even in the forums other than to spread misconception and demagoguery? Obviously you will never learn anything, because you chose a side and no amount of logical arguments will change your POV. That´s when you know that you found someone "on level", when the discussion bears impact on both sides. You have presented nothing but BS all the way, only your points of view, there is nothing factual nor specific in what you write. 

 

"If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it.." - No, it´s not capable, because the lightning in the cockpit is not correct for NVG, something that would result in shimmering, over-saturation and over-exposure, therefore "let´s not have it". Yet again a BS statement. Do you even read what´s written, or did you come to troll for the lack of meaningful activities in your life?

Edited September 16, 2021 by zerO_crash

[StevanJ]

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

 

b) A dream is an aspiration, an ambition, not a measure of whether it is a success or not. Currently, there are things waiting to get fixed in DCS from long ago, before one can as a whole say that it is a quality product. Furthermore, if english was your native language, you´d understand that it´s a dream because it´s a constantly developing product. It never get´s finished, thus it`s a dream for the future of this software as well.

 

c) Does it not seem like I am relaxed?! If I wasn`t, you`d be receiving a whole different tone. I suppose with what MAC wants to represent, it suits you more than me. It´s simpler and less realistic, which is what you are looking for. Your whole response made no sense whatsoever, think, then write, not the other way around. I do however see why writing is such an issue when you delegate most of your time to videos, instead of practicing the skill of reading and writing. 

 

 

 

 

Then what are you doing in a Hind-thread arguing for something that you haven´t tried?! Your prerogative is complete nonsense.

 

ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs. Done, discussion closed. I can find it and link, if you have trouble believing what you just read, if you read at all (it would be easier to communicate with you through video).

 

You just proved how limited one can be, when discussions get nowhere because that individual has taken a stand and nothing will change his/hers mind. Why are you even in the forums other than to spread misconception and demagoguery? Obviously you will never learn anything, because you chose a side and no amount of logical arguments will change your POV. That´s when you know that you found someone "on level", when the discussion bears impact on both sides. You have presented nothing but BS all the way, only your points of view, there is nothing factual nor specific in what you write. 

 

"If someone else wants it, and its capable.. Then sure lets have it.." - No, it´s not capable, because the lightning in the cockpit is not correct for NVG, something that would result in shimmering, over-saturation and over-exposure, therefore "let´s not have it". Yet again a BS statement. Do you even read what´s written, or did you come to troll for the lack of meaningful activities in your life?

 

B) I was born in Stockport, Manchester, England.
If it never gets finished how the heck are we going to keep you from complaining?

C) Honestly, it seems (with youre condescending tone) like youre on edge about this NVG conversation. It seem like if we get the NVG you might further complain and come across as more 'miserable' (difficult i know) because you arent happy you arent getting your own way.
Alot of my work involves reference books and report writing, im not gonna come home and stay tuned in to that kind of lifestyle.

I prefer to 'switch off', and enjoy my spare time..

When i choose to play the game, its alot more fun to me to stick a video on one screen, and replicate it on the other.
You do you.
You read books, and enjoy spending your evenings jotting notes down on your sim pit knee pad for all i care.
Its not personal, but im not taking you too seriously due to your profile name, and profile picture. Im just taking you in jest.

Im sticking up for the people that want it.
Im also looking to see which way it goes. When eventually its out of EA, ill love nothing more than speeding around the valleys, both in the day and the night.
Im not too sure how id spot things, or see things at night without the NVG's but knowing that the Mi24p has been used at night with NVG's as mentioned and re-linked here.

I can look forward to flying at the tree tops and enjoying the module the way i choose to play it. Which is why i personally love this game, the choice to play it my way.
Isnt it great?

Ive proved you have no argument, and yet youre still here.. Thats the great thing about this game, we can still converse together and socialise on a platform where everyone gets to say his peace.
Ironically, I came here to argue that the Hind shouldnt have the NVG's, but then i found out NVG's were being used in the hind. So i brought it to the forum. And realised, who am i to say wether or not a module should have its limitations- especially when its in print that they have been used..
Then you started arguing with me, being rude and condescending and i thought 'hmmm, maybe just maybe, with all this manual reading- this guy doesnt get chance to actually read the news..'

Do i even read whats written? What?!?

I come here to discuss a module, and to report bugs. Im not like you in that i cant argue nonsensically, i bring news, videos and support the active discussion.
So far youve brought a bad attitude, but its ok. Because we both know if you dont like NVG's on the Hind, you can make sure you dont make them available in the Mission Editor.

Lack of meaningful activites? Oh.. Youre saying i have no life..
Well you can be as eristic as you wish, but im kind of sensing you need a friend in your life, so all you gotta do is keep talking and ill talk back..

[Amarok_73]

https://wzl1.mil.pl/helicopter-upgrades/

... and the last position from the list.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Pipok

[zerO_crash]

18 hours ago, StevanJ said:

B) I was born in Stockport, Manchester, England.
If it never gets finished how the heck are we going to keep you from complaining?

C) Honestly, it seems (with youre condescending tone) like youre on edge about this NVG conversation. It seem like if we get the NVG you might further complain and come across as more 'miserable' (difficult i know) because you arent happy you arent getting your own way.
Alot of my work involves reference books and report writing, im not gonna come home and stay tuned in to that kind of lifestyle.

I prefer to 'switch off', and enjoy my spare time..

When i choose to play the game, its alot more fun to me to stick a video on one screen, and replicate it on the other.
You do you.
You read books, and enjoy spending your evenings jotting notes down on your sim pit knee pad for all i care.
Its not personal, but im not taking you too seriously due to your profile name, and profile picture. Im just taking you in jest.

Im sticking up for the people that want it.
Im also looking to see which way it goes. When eventually its out of EA, ill love nothing more than speeding around the valleys, both in the day and the night.
Im not too sure how id spot things, or see things at night without the NVG's but knowing that the Mi24p has been used at night with NVG's as mentioned and re-linked here.

I can look forward to flying at the tree tops and enjoying the module the way i choose to play it. Which is why i personally love this game, the choice to play it my way.
Isnt it great?

Ive proved you have no argument, and yet youre still here.. Thats the great thing about this game, we can still converse together and socialise on a platform where everyone gets to say his peace.
Ironically, I came here to argue that the Hind shouldnt have the NVG's, but then i found out NVG's were being used in the hind. So i brought it to the forum. And realised, who am i to say wether or not a module should have its limitations- especially when its in print that they have been used..
Then you started arguing with me, being rude and condescending and i thought 'hmmm, maybe just maybe, with all this manual reading- this guy doesnt get chance to actually read the news..'

Do i even read whats written? What?!?

I come here to discuss a module, and to report bugs. Im not like you in that i cant argue nonsensically, i bring news, videos and support the active discussion.
So far youve brought a bad attitude, but its ok. Because we both know if you dont like NVG's on the Hind, you can make sure you dont make them available in the Mission Editor.

Lack of meaningful activites? Oh.. Youre saying i have no life..
Well you can be as eristic as you wish, but im kind of sensing you need a friend in your life, so all you gotta do is keep talking and ill talk back..

 

I am condescending because you are rude in being non-receptive to what is being written to you. Your whole post is about "wanting". You present nothing factual, except an article from 2020!, that is talking about "testing" the NVGs on the helicopter. 2020! I refuse to believe that you work with what you state, because even when "switching off", one doesn´t go completely "off". Your grammar makes me doubt it even more, but that is neither of my interest nor on topic. The Mi-24P that we have, is not from this millennium, I hope that you can comprehend that. Thus, that is not an argument at all. More so that I stated explicitly the following: 

 

"ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs." - Coming back in 2021 and talking about tests being done with NVG in 2020!... (actually, NVG has been used before already on these helicopters, but newer versions, the article talks about adapting NVG to Mi-24P, but it´s again, 2020! some 42 years later than our simulated Mi-24P).

 

You haven´t proved anything, only that you are oblivious to what is being told to you. You are flat out refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Mi-24P that we have, being simulated from a specific period, never had the capability for NVG. Your stubbornness is that of a masochist. You have presented nothing but a whole wall of text written in the format of "I want". There is no proof in that. It´s you who is rude, to even make a statement that you have decided for yourself and nothing is going to change that. What are you doing here with that attitude?!

 

"Do i even read whats written? What?!?" - Read above, your link of a webpage regarding tests being done in 2020 does not happen to show any relevance to a helicopter simulated from the period of 1979´s. Do you understand what is being written to you, or are you flat out "shutting off"?

 

You are not arguing with anyone, you have nothing to argue with, because you haven´t presented anything relevant so far. There is not one source showing that the Mi-24P in 1979-1980s was using NVG as standard. Having repeated myself 4 times in the single response, I hope something gets through.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pipok said:

https://wzl1.mil.pl/helicopter-upgrades/

... and the last position from the list.

 

 

"Moreover, the "WZL 1" has "modified" the following helicopters to enable them performing a broad variety of missions"

What does this have to do with our Russian version of the Mi-24P from 1979-80s? No one is arguing that one couldn´t install lasers, but we are talking about representing a helicopter from a specific period. Why post something on Polish helicopter modifications, and from way later? What is your argument?

Edited September 16, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Amarok_73]

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

What is your argument?

Against you and your little crusade? None.

Let's treat it as the "WZL 1" modification: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3317035/

Edited September 16, 2021 by Pipok

[zerO_crash]

Just now, Pipok said:

Against You and Your little crusaide? None.

 

*you, *your, *crusade.

 

I am not performing any crusade, last I checked. I still see nothing relevant pro-NVG on a Cold War Mi-24P.

[BIGNEWY]

Guys, chill please. 

 

Keep the discussion civil 

 

thank you

[QuiGon]

29 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

I am not performing any crusade, last I checked. I still see nothing relevant pro-NVG on a Cold War Mi-24P.

 

Neither do I! It's totally beyond me why ED decided to provide the Mi-24P with NVGs...

[zerO_crash]

42 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Neither do I! It's totally beyond me why ED decided to provide the Mi-24P with NVGs...

 

 

Pleasing the crowd has its advantages you see.

Edited September 16, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Enduro14]

Seems odd that it has NVG, was actually surprised it did when i first saw it.  But what they did do is put the options in the Mission editor to Enable or Disable the feature.  Having worn nvg's in vehicles not nvg capable its a blinding experience.  But anyways I don't use them in dcs in the Hind.  Currently I am more interested if they will add The Ispanka IR jammer as that was on our Hind.....

[Enduro14]

16 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

The IR jammer is not going to be in. We don't have anything in DCS missile wise that would care for anyways

 

-> https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/new-dcs-mi-24p-information-translated-from-russian-interview/

Well if we are doing period correct aircraft, we should be doing period correct weapon systems and defensive system yes?  Especially important for Syria and Afghanistan scenarios but well that's another discussion.   From that article as ive never read it, also in regards to the Ispanka Ir jammer, well his answer shows the faults of dcs having no period correct weapon systems in dcs......

 

 

Q: Will there be NVGs?
A: Not right away. Maybe later, but that would require changing the lighting and textures. We might do it, but no promises. On the actual Mi-24 that’s not a thing.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Enduro14

[StevanJ]

4 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 

I am condescending because you are rude in being non-receptive to what is being written to you. Your whole post is about "wanting". You present nothing factual, except an article from 2020!, that is talking about "testing" the NVGs on the helicopter. 2020! I refuse to believe that you work with what you state, because even when "switching off", one doesn´t go completely "off". Your grammar makes me doubt it even more, but that is neither of my interest nor on topic. The Mi-24P that we have, is not from this millennium, I hope that you can comprehend that. Thus, that is not an argument at all. More so that I stated explicitly the following: 

 

"ED stated that they are making the most common variant of the Mi-24P. The most common variant of Mi-24P never had NVGs." - Coming back in 2021 and talking about tests being done with NVG in 2020!... (actually, NVG has been used before already on these helicopters, but newer versions, the article talks about adapting NVG to Mi-24P, but it´s again, 2020! some 42 years later than our simulated Mi-24P).

 

You haven´t proved anything, only that you are oblivious to what is being told to you. You are flat out refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Mi-24P that we have, being simulated from a specific period, never had the capability for NVG. Your stubbornness is that of a masochist. You have presented nothing but a whole wall of text written in the format of "I want". There is no proof in that. It´s you who is rude, to even make a statement that you have decided for yourself and nothing is going to change that. What are you doing here with that attitude?!

 

"Do i even read whats written? What?!?" - Read above, your link of a webpage regarding tests being done in 2020 does not happen to show any relevance to a helicopter simulated from the period of 1979´s. Do you understand what is being written to you, or are you flat out "shutting off"?

 

You are not arguing with anyone, you have nothing to argue with, because you haven´t presented anything relevant so far. There is not one source showing that the Mi-24P in 1979-1980s was using NVG as standard. Having repeated myself 4 times in the single response, I hope something gets through.

 

 

 

"Moreover, the "WZL 1" has "modified" the following helicopters to enable them performing a broad variety of missions"

What does this have to do with our Russian version of the Mi-24P from 1979-80s? No one is arguing that one couldn´t install lasers, but we are talking about representing a helicopter from a specific period. Why post something on Polish helicopter modifications, and from way later? What is your argument?

 

Ah, 'Im being an awful human being because you arent agreeing with me..' That old chestnut.
Well we had a person just like that during the latter part of the 1940's.. He's the reason we can enjoy the 'Warbird game'..
Thanks for attacking me on a personal level too. Although discriminating against me because you dislike my grammar and mainly because i dont agree with you, is in poor taste- even for you..
Surely you could manage to be at least a little respectful, my good friend?

So, Ive just checked the shop..
I dont know how to tell you this, but the shop doesnt say its not a Mi24P from 2001, and our model is actually from 40 years ago.
It only says that the 'variant' was introduced in 1972. Maybe youve not read the shop properly?

 

The most common Mi-24p didnt have NVG's? How can we actually and factually know every detail about this module, when we cant access the specifications considering they are STILL classified? Do you have classified information we dont?
I think its important you realise, that this game cant go FULL sim. Its never going to happen, and you need to let go.

We already have information that suggest we can have features on modules that dont exist - See this page for example.
And any feature that is beneficial in generating interest to a larger market, is always welcome..

I think its about time, you calmed down. Had a bowl of ice cream, and realised that anything is possible..
Anything.. We know this from the delightful way the F16 HARM issue was handled..

Now stop talking down to people and relax.

 

[Enduro14]

The Vr thing for Apache eye piece is just for comfort for VR users.  I am right eye dominant and use the right eye projection.  Its a comfort thing not a capability thing....  The Dev of the Hind who by the way flew it in combat.... has already confirmed the Hind we have NVG was never a thing,  He also Confirmed that the Ir jammer wont be put on because the current Environment in DCS aka weapons modeling, it would be pointless as it was used for older gen Heat seeking missiles.  

  Point is Our hind should not have NVG, in the mean time its optional via the Mission Editor....

 

  Now i personally don't agree we wont get the Ir jammer,  As it just forces the mi24 into the modern scenario and not the Russia in Afghanistan Scenario.....  So i can concede it seems some developmental time period liberties is happening....  its not the only airframe suffering this.

[StevanJ]

10 minutes ago, Enduro14 said:

The Vr thing for Apache eye piece is just for comfort for VR users.  I am right eye dominant and use the right eye projection.  Its a comfort thing not a capability thing....  The Dev of the Hind who by the way flew it in combat.... has already confirmed the Hind we have NVG was never a thing,  He also Confirmed that the Ir jammer wont be put on because the current Environment in DCS aka weapons modeling, it would be pointless as it was used for older gen Heat seeking missiles.  

  Point is Our hind should not have NVG, in the mean time its optional via the Mission Editor....

 

  Now i personally don't agree we wont get the Ir jammer,  As it just forces the mi24 into the modern scenario and not the Russia in Afghanistan Scenario.....  So i can concede it seems some developmental time period liberties is happening....  its not the only airframe suffering this.

Well, lets leave it for ED to decide..

[Harlikwin]

13 minutes ago, Enduro14 said:

The Vr thing for Apache eye piece is just for comfort for VR users.  I am right eye dominant and use the right eye projection.  Its a comfort thing not a capability thing....  The Dev of the Hind who by the way flew it in combat.... has already confirmed the Hind we have NVG was never a thing,  He also Confirmed that the Ir jammer wont be put on because the current Environment in DCS aka weapons modeling, it would be pointless as it was used for older gen Heat seeking missiles.  

  Point is Our hind should not have NVG, in the mean time its optional via the Mission Editor....

 

  Now i personally don't agree we wont get the Ir jammer,  As it just forces the mi24 into the modern scenario and not the Russia in Afghanistan Scenario.....  So i can concede it seems some developmental time period liberties is happening....  its not the only airframe suffering this.

 

It shouldn't have NVG's

 

As for the Jammer, well, I'd love to see some older IR threats for older time periods, and hopefully IF/when they do that they add the Lipa back.