Please give us Air to Air weapons.

[Henchman14]

It doesn't matter what it is to you.

 

Why don't you just put that in plain English Gtharos = "It doesn't matter what our customers think. Its what we want to do".

[winz]

You are not costumers. You are a costumer, stop acting like you are speaking for the comunity.

And you have no say in what features should or shouldn't be available, unless you are the one paying the whole development bill, which you are not. Stop acting like you were some multinational company ordering a product.

[104th_Crunch]

Why don't you just put that in plain English Gtharos = "It doesn't matter what our customers think. Its what we want to do".

 

GG likes to says things how they are, and not sugar coat them for your feelings. The truth shall set you free! Also, GG is a tester for ED and kindly donates his free time for the betterment of ED products, not an official rep.

 

If you were to suggest something like an improvement for the mission editor, or multiplayer interface, then your suggestions might be heard. If, however, you are suggesting to change something from reality in terms of flight model, avionics, weapons, in DCS it is not going to happen. Not because ED won't listen to its customers, but because DCS is about being as close to reality as possible.

 

How many times have I heard from other game developers, if it's a choice between reality and fun, we will choose fun. For DCS it is the opposite. It is a simulator first, again, in terms of the aircraft being modeled. The design ideas about every other aspect of the simulator besides the aircraft modelling itself are open to fun. The aircraft itself is about reality.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Crunch

[Henchman14]

And this is why you have few customers. This whole post could have been a lot more pleasant if the mods and the fanboys would learn some manners, and not give snobby little remarks when being politely asked a question. Not ignoring the wishes of your customers, over and over. Nothing was being demanded. This is why people off the board have a bad opinion of DCS and its community. And I'm getting there.

[159th_Viper]

....and not give snobby little remarks when being politely asked a question.....

 

You reap what you sow ;)

[Sticky]

And this is why you have few customers. This whole post could have been a lot more pleasant if the mods and the fanboys would learn some manners, and not give snobby little remarks when being politely asked a question. Not ignoring the wishes of your customers, over and over. Nothing was being demanded. This is why people off the board have a bad opinion of DCS and its community. And I'm getting there.

 

We just prefer realism, and you dont. There is not much out there for us realism fans. But there is plenty of unreal out there for you. So dont come here and try to ruin it for us, asking for unreal stuff and expect us not to react.

[Henchman14]

You reap what you sow ;)

 

Your business.

[Grimes]

I seriously doubt giving the Ka-50 direct AA capability will improve its survivability in an A2A engagement. Against other choppers maybe, but against a fixed wing aircraft its very doubtful. I say this because anything that sees you first will likely get the kill without you even knowing they were there, ergo you didn't stand a chance to begin with. And this goes for R-73, Vikhers, guns, and any other weapon useful at A2A. And its not like the Ka-50 is at a massive disadvantage vs Mi-24, Mi-28, Ah-64, or AH-1. IMO they are all pretty equal in a A2A fight, at range I'd even argue the Russian choppers have the advantage due to the type of missiles they deploy. However the Ka-50's gun becomes a liability at closer range, its more powerful but has a more limited area of attack....

 

 

But why the hell am I even commenting on this capability? Ka-50 is made for ground attack and ground attack only. Any pylon 'spent' on a A2A missile is a waste of a2g weapons and a waste of weight.

[GGTharos]

And this is why you have few customers.

 

That is incorrect. Not even conjecture, just incorrect.

 

This whole post could have been a lot more pleasant if the mods and the fanboys would learn some manners, and not give snobby little remarks when being politely asked a question. Not ignoring the wishes of your customers, over and over. Nothing was being demanded. This is why people off the board have a bad opinion of DCS and its community. And I'm getting there.

 

You were told why there are no AAMs on the Ka-50. I would add that you too are being snobby since you are demanding a change in the DCS doctrine - and yes, you are demanding it. This is obvious every time you say 'ignoring the wishes of your customers'.

[Henchman14]

I seriously doubt giving the Ka-50 direct AA capability will improve its survivability in an A2A engagement. Against other choppers maybe, but against a fixed wing aircraft its very doubtful. I say this because anything that sees you first will likely get the kill without you even knowing they were there, ergo you didn't stand a chance to begin with. And this goes for R-73, Vikhers, guns, and any other weapon useful at A2A. And its not like the Ka-50 is at a massive disadvantage vs Mi-24, Mi-28, Ah-64, or AH-1. IMO they are all pretty equal in a A2A fight, at range I'd even argue the Russian choppers have the advantage due to the type of missiles they deploy. However the Ka-50's gun becomes a liability at closer range, its more powerful but has a more limited area of attack....

 

Well, I'm not "looking" for an a2a fight. This is all last stand defense. The problem is the vhikers are just plain useless in a2a. The shkval has a really hard time locking on to aircraft, you've got to try hard to get the targeting box over them when they are flying fast, and they are really hard to lock when they are coming at you head on. But the worst part are the Vhikers themselves. They simply cannot hit fast moving targets ( over about the speed of a fast tank). They can't turn fast enough to keep in the tunnel. They fly out and lose lock. Saying they can be employed in A2A is a bad joke. And no, the Ka-50 is not equal in an A2A fight, as I described a few posts back. Laser guided seems to be much more able in A2A than beam rider. This from experience in the sim.

[AlanHR]

The Ka-50 never carried AAM's in service, and as far as is known it is not even wired to do so.

According to this page it does. Either R-73 or Igla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

[159th_Viper]

According to this page it does. Either R-73 or Igla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

 

And...........according to the very same page in pages used as reference for the wiki, the Kamov has a Radar Warning Receiver :music_whistling:

 

 

'If it's on the Internet then it must be true' is an assumption fraught with fallacy ;)

[AlphaOneSix]

Is this the part where I toss in the obligatory sidebar that the AH-64 (U.S.) also has no AAM capability? (Despite virtual reams of information online to the contrary.)

[sobek]

Well, I'm not "looking" for an a2a fight. This is all last stand defense. The problem is the vhikers are just plain useless in a2a. The shkval has a really hard time locking on to aircraft, you've got to try hard to get the targeting box over them when they are flying fast, and they are really hard to lock when they are coming at you head on. But the worst part are the Vhikers themselves. They simply cannot hit fast moving targets ( over about the speed of a fast tank). They can't turn fast enough to keep in the tunnel. They fly out and lose lock. Saying they can be employed in A2A is a bad joke. And no, the Ka-50 is not equal in an A2A fight, as I described a few posts back. Laser guided seems to be much more able in A2A than beam rider. This from experience in the sim.

 

You are definately barking up the wrong tree. You need to adress all these complaints to the Kamov corporation for not outfitting their helos with A2A capability. See how they like it. ;)

[BaD CrC]

Guys. Let's admit that we'll never get A2A weapons on this platform. We have indeed to be careful on what we can find on internet. There was probably a lot of marketing made by Kamov at some point like promising an a2a capability in the future. I think we can trust ED who certainly had access to information not available on the internet.

Maybe we should try to solve this problem from a different perspective.

If you are flying missions with potential air threat, maybe a couple of SU-27 can be used for cover before you are entering the danger zone?

I am not sure about the AI, but if indeed they can shoot you even when hid behind hills, or get a 100% kill probability, this might be where ED should correct its code?

Just my 2 cents.

[ZaltysZ]

Yet another periodical A2A thread. Henchman14, you should try using forum search function; this topic has been discussed multiple times and in kinda great depth. The summary is as follows:

 

1) Things won't be altered just because simulation is too "hard". Compromises for sake of gameplay aren't the aim of DCS.

2) Ka-50 does not carry A2A weapons in service. It does not matter if there were experiments or plans for A2A missiles. Only production model matters.

3) Most internet sources include too much advertisement information for masses (dating back from previously popular arm races).

4) It is matter of doctrine that helicopter should not operate without adequate air cover. Ka-50 purpose is CAS/Anti-armor. Other [suitable] aircrafts should be responsible for taking care of enemy air defenses and planes.

[muamshai]

This is what you need to play, with full AA capabilities as you ask for

 

The onboard targetting system will even lock targets for you...

 

Edited February 28, 2011 by muamshai

[VAOZoky]

If A2A missiles isnt in standard payload of KA50 when it shot at chechen terrorists it doesnt mean it cant carry those. I guess some people just dont know how to think outside the box. And please stop being retarded and saying that KA50 cant carry A2A missiles. Its like saying that M4 is better than AK47. Just wrong :doh:

Edited February 28, 2011 by 159th_Viper
Political/Derogatory comments removed

[Henchman14]

If A2A missiles isnt in standard payload of KA50 when it shot at chechen terrorists it doesnt mean it cant carry those. I guess some people just dont know how to think outside the box. And please stop being retarded and saying that KA50 cant carry A2A missiles. Its like saying that M4 is better than AK47. Just wrong :doh:

@Muamshai - Stick it dude. Go find somewhere else to troll. Your not adding anything to the debate.

 

Agreed. I think ANY helicopter can carry AA if it wants to. For IR AA, all the seekers stuff (Hardware) is in the missle itself. Same for the Igla. All you need is a rail, some wiring, and some added software. You don't even really need hud symbols. Just a lock tone on boresight mode. Just make sure no friendlies are near what your aiming at :doh:. The controls for all of this have even been put in the Kamov ( both AA selection and ejection controls ). So obviously, it has been thought of.

 

For some reason, and I totally disagree with it, most militaries don't usually put AA weapons on their copters. However, that doesn't mean that they can't carry them, as has been demonstrated. As a person who is mostly interested in helicopters, I very much would want one of my team carrying AA, in case I come up against other helis, especially modern heli's, like Apaches. I don't like being helpless against AA threats and having to wait for the jet cavalry to come rescue me. I prefer to fight. And when you are a single crew member, trying to fly and fight at the same time, you need every advantage you can get. The vihkers are not very capable AA missles. They cannot turn sharply enough and lose lock. Plus, it takes extreme amounts of effort and time to lock up said fast moving targets with the shkval. The software driving the lock on system in the Su-25T is probably the same that is on the Ka-50, whether Kamov gave you that information or not. A simple boresight that you point at the target and wait for tone lock. Simple and effective. Personally, except for discharge strengths of certain rockets, I don't see why this heavy gunship couldn't carry anything the Su-25T can. Along as its within its carry weight range.

 

As for the missiles, pics of 6 vihker missiles on one hard point have been shown. I think thats excellent. Enough for one team member to carry on a hard point without sacrificing much in the way of AG load. If you think you might encounter a jet on CAP, 2 R-73's could be carried. I have fought jets in Shark by hiding behind hills and letting them overshoot me, but the shkval can rarely ( if ever ) lock them up, and the vihker simply cannot turn fast enough to hit them. Even Iglas would have a good chance of a hit in this situation. So in the end, I prefer to run AND FIGHT.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Henchman14

[Heli Shed]

=SE=Zoky:

 

Ive never had a problem with Vikhr's in A2A mode. Go practice!

 

'T'

[Pyroflash]

It's just like saying that the M82A1 is a 20mm anti-materiel rifle. Yes, there may have been experiments with higher calibers(M109), but the production rifle platform remains as it was built, as a .50 caliber weapon.

 

In so too the Ka-50 may have had experiments where it was fitted with at some point an air to air weapon or two. Does this mean that the production models had air to air capabilities? No.

 

Honestly, People come in rambling on and on with uninformed opinions they gathered from the masses of politically biased and propaganda influenced sites on the internet. They all have one thing in common too; they think they know more, are smarter, and have more general knowledge and experience than SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. That's right, common people on the internet think they know more than the people who designed, built, and FLY the machine in question. Then, if that weren't bad enough, these same people who spew uninformed, uneducated rhetoric over the internet have the gall to then DEMAND that their complaint be acknowledged like some TCP handshake going over the internet. That a company-that put in countless hours of effort, as well as their time and money; to make a game that very well could have never been released if it weren't for such a dedicated team-change their game to make it suit the wants of a small minority of players who couldn't care less for the game or the developers behind it.

 

Honestly it just makes me nauseous thinking about how people can be so stuck up and thickheaded sometimes.

 

How about showing some respect for a team that YOU CHOSE to purchase a game from.:doh:

Edited February 28, 2011 by Pyroflash

[Henchman14]

Honestly it just makes me nauseous thinking about how people can be so stuck up and thickheaded sometimes.

 

Oh, I could say that about most of the people on this board, including you. In fact, from what I've seen, most of the internet thinks that about the people on these boards.

[DTWD]

Oh for gods sake give it up man, your fighting a loosing battle, at least have the decency to go quitely. You don't have to leave the boards and go cry in the corner, but just accept your wrong and regain your honour.

 

The long and short is:

 

Your wrong on virtually all counts

 

&

 

The attitude you have used stinks

[mvsgas]

Come on guys, this happens every time. If ED team changes the sim so be it. If they don't they don't. Everyone is going to have their opinion. Arguing about the difference never helps, it never help me.

[garengarch]

most of the internet thinks that about the people on these boards.

 

Screenshot or it didn't happen....