Do you regret buying other chopter modules after experiencing what Apache can do? (Trick question)

[pii]

On 3/19/2022 at 6:19 PM, Devil 505 said:

Once you go VR, you will not go back.

Call me a weird-o then, while I like flying around sometimes in VR for serious missions I need the keyboard so no VR. VR for me is a just a"every now and then" thing.

Now if ED could put a virtual keyboard in VR then maybe I'd stay in VR more.  

Edited November 24, 2022 by pii

[corbu1]

Am 21.11.2022 um 23:05 schrieb Rogue Trooper:

 

I really look forward to the BO-105 and OH-58D.

 

 

 

 

Me too!!!

[pii]

On 3/18/2022 at 5:30 AM, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

In short: no

Longish: I bought some even before the excellent Blackhawk mod was born.  I learn a lot of how chopters work in the process and Russian hardware is brutal (no pun intended)

 

No, Because I already had all the others

[Devil 505]

17 hours ago, pii said:

Call me a weird-o then, while I like flying around sometimes in VR for serious missions I need the keyboard so no VR. VR for me is a just a"every now and then" thing.

Now if ED could put a virtual keyboard in VR then maybe I'd stay in VR more.  

 

I have been flying in VR for years and got use to manipulating everything in cockpit with the mouse that you would manage in the real aircraft.  Anything I do not manipulate via the mouse is done with key binds to my Thrustmaster HOTAS.  The only thing I use the keyboard for is starting OBS, external views, zoom function, and adding/removing in cockpit pilot.  VR is not for everyone for sure, but for me, its the only true way to experience DCS to its fullest and live a dream I was never able to accomplish in real life.  For this, Eagle Dynamics has made me the happiest dude around.  My friends and I are consistently hearing from our wives that they would rather see their husbands flying in DCS for a hobby rather then sneaking away to a bar or a strip club.  I always tell them, if you gave me the option between 1 or 2 lap dances and an hour in the Hornet or Tomcat, you can keep the dollar bills.

[pii]

2 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

I have been flying in VR for years and got use to manipulating everything in cockpit with the mouse that you would manage in the real aircraft.  Anything I do not manipulate via the mouse is done with key binds to my Thrustmaster HOTAS.  The only thing I use the keyboard for is starting OBS, external views, zoom function, and adding/removing in cockpit pilot.  VR is not for everyone for sure, but for me, its the only true way to experience DCS to its fullest and live a dream I was never able to accomplish in real life.  For this, Eagle Dynamics has made me the happiest dude around.  My friends and I are consistently hearing from our wives that they would rather see their husbands flying in DCS for a hobby rather then sneaking away to a bar or a strip club.  I always tell them, if you gave me the option between 1 or 2 lap dances and an hour in the Hornet or Tomcat, you can keep the dollar bills.

Oh I know but  I still can't stay in a VR headset for too long and its also not as "clear" as my three screens set up so for serious missions I'll go with my surround system and keyboard (if needed)  I also have most important stuff mapped to my devices.
I respect your right to play and love VR but with my headset, it's not the time for me. What headset do you have by the way?

[Avimimus]

Give me a key and I'll tell you

Seriously though - I doubt anything could compete with the unique flight characteristics of the Hind... the fact that it looks like a dragonfly and that one has to rely upon gunpods, rockets and SACLOS missiles... rather than Hellfires... gives it a nice primitive flare.

I just wish that the rocket fragmentation model was updated... as the Mi-8 and Mi-24 really will not be that competitive until warheads are modelled in more detail.

Honestly, I'm hoping that rocket warheads in general get revisited when the Apache gets the MPSM rocket warheads and the ability to carry partially loaded missile racks gets added to the Ka-50... if both of these features remain Apache only... well... it isn't really a contest if these other modules are being neglect, is it?

 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

IMHO , to appreciate individual type , you have to use it per doctrine, for which it was designed. Russian combat rotors , with possible exception of MI-28N, are strafe platforms, with ATGM as secondary weapon. KA-50 and Hind F , in DCS, should be used to deliver gun and rocket salvos at high speed. SMO is proof of that doctrine. As was Soviet Afganistan war, and Azeri usage of advanced Hinds in Its conflict with Armenia. Think IL-2 at Kursk 1943. So avoid 'Western' tactics of dashing from treeline to treeline at 30-50ft AGL, hover, pop up, aquire, fire, run. Fly fast to contact at low AGL , popup at speed, visually aquire , fire rockets and guns, then break and run for terrain mask. Reattack , when needed,from different azimuth, then run away to rearm and refuel. That's Russian and earlier Soviet doctrine.

With Apache , and Gazzele , fly to contact at very low AGL . Use terrain and urban features to mask. Come to slow hover, pop up have c/p aquire and fire. Then mask immediately and fly to another firing point, or leave the fight if dry. Gazelle is light attack and observation scout like KIOWA. 

Gazelle is my favorite rotary in DCS , and others are great. It is flown with pressure on cyclic ,vs deflection of cyclic in other rotary modules in DCS. It is small thus it can hide in smaller confined areas. 

AH-64D is insufficiently developed to be fairly compared to earlier DCS rotors.

 

 

[Tiger-II]

Gazelle FM is improperly modelled. They made a mistake of the flight control giving rates like a FBW system rather than disc angle. A damn shame because it would easily be my favorite.

The Kiowa is already 2 years over-due. I'm not optimistic it will be correct, and even less optimistic the Gazelle will be fixed.

I fly the 'Shark using western tactics, and it works. Just because it was designed to be flown a certain way doesn't preclude other or better ways of flying it. It was just suited to a specific way of thinking at that time. Threats change, and so must the tactics.

We are trying to compare helicopters with 6th/7th/8th gen warfare that we see today. I'm not sure anything subsonic or low level can survive now. I have my own thoughts, and they will remain that way as I don't want to violate forum rules.

If we keep things "of the period", then they are all potent weapons systems if employed correctly. The Ka-50, Mi-24, Gazelle, and Apache are all capable of killing armor. Where they differ is in survivability and the threat environment in which they can operate.

I think I'm OK to say that helicopters and tanks have no place on today's battlefield. It's either high-altitude stand-off delivery platforms, or missiles, or tiny drones. The face of warfare has I think changed for the foreseeable future. We need to forget the modern battlefield in these comparisons.

[ny3d1]

Yes.

[Poptart]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:44 AM, Tiger-II said:

The face of warfare has I think changed for the foreseeable future.

Depends entirely on what your objective is. The bad rotorcraft tactics as seen in some ongoing conflicts is not indicative of the future of helicopter warfare. 

[Tiger-II]

17 minutes ago, Poptart said:

Depends entirely on what your objective is. The bad rotorcraft tactics as seen in some ongoing conflicts is not indicative of the future of helicopter warfare. 

When weapons *are* the delivery platform, can be built in extreme numbers for less than the cost of a single manned aircraft, and can be deployed in seconds, are you so sure?