KA50 MWS

[Fri13]

I Just don't care anymore

I'm tired listening to all those "Realism" junkies ....

 

They don't realize that half of the stuff in DCS isn't close to realism but educated guesses and they start throwing fits if they think otherwise

 

W/e ...

 

Remember, it is realistic that KA-50 doesn't have a working windshield wipers.... Because it is realistic that rain doesn't hit the windshields in any aircraft.

[MAD-MM]

I dont know why you Fly DCS but for some reason i skipped

Ace Combat XXX.

I gues how a System work thats is installed in airframe is far from we make A10 RWR in to a Ka-50 Helicopter.

So far Ka-50 never recived this system, how should cockpit layout look? make the RWR next to Temperature gauge on the roof top and thats is? i would immediately sell my copy.

This layout see's still combat action cechenya it's not only test frame thats never used and protoype helicopter.

Edited October 20, 2016 by MAD-MM

[Fri13]

I dont know why you Fly DCS but for some reason i skipped

Ace Combat XXX.

I gues how System work in thats is installed in airframe is far from we make A10 RWR in to a Ka-50 Helicopter.

So far Ka-50 never recived this system, how should cockpit layout look? make the RWR next to Temperature gauge on the roof top and thats is? i would immediately sell my copy.

This layout see's still combat action cechenya it's not only test frame thats never used and protoype helicopter.

 

Or how about just using the existing warning systems there are installed? Like the LWS panel or just the master alarm? After all the MWS should be able to tell did tha launch happen from left side or right side. Or maybe even is it from front right section or rear left section. And there are photographs from the cockpits, and ED has (had) contacts at Kamov that definitely would clear it out.

 

Maybe you didn't get the point.

 

The MWS is in the cockpit, right now, modeled in there. But what is the thing that isn't? It isn't activated by the code. The same functionality is in the A-10C, just a switch and light that comes On on specific pre-defined rules (triggers).

The modelers even went and put a label on that switch "Not functional" and system designers even went and put that to manual:

 

17. Missile warning system with laser jammer, self protection system mode of operation select, No function

 

Same thing is with Vikhrs, in the manual is written:

 

To use the Vikhr’s proximity fuze that will detonate the warhead with a near miss, turn on the “ВЦ” (Airborne target) button from the Targeting Mode Control Panel. Depending on the target’s aspect (attack hemisphere), it may be necessary to adjust the missile’s proximity fuze delay. If performing a pursuit or side attack, fuze adjustment is not required. If attacking at high aspect (in the Head-on hemisphere) it is necessary to decrease the fuze delay in order to increase hit probability. From the Targeting Mode Control Panel, press the “ППС” (Head-on hemisphere) button to do so.

 

But that doesn't work! It is non-functional! The whole Vikhr A-A mode ain't functional by the code!

 

Manual says (and manufacturer manuals etc):

 

The combination of impact and proximity fuzes with a powerful shaped charge/fragmentation warhead enables the Vikhr to be used to kill both armored ground vehicles and aerial targets.

 

But do we have the proximity fuze enabled? No....

Do we have fragmentation warhead enabled? No...

 

What else does the manual say?

 

In addition to the ATGM and cannon systems, the Soviet military also wanted to equip the new helicopter with a large array of other weapons. As a result, the V-80's weapons suite was bolstered with rocket pods, UPK-23-250 cannon pods, bombs, KMGU canisters, and the possibility to mount air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles in the future.

 

 

And if you look the photos of KA-50 manual, it has a KA-50 with MWS sensors all over it.

There are photos of KA-50 in production line, with MWS sensors on it!

The manual has KA-50 with IR Laser Jammer as well!

 

And lets talk about things like PVI-800 and AMMS (ABRIS).

They ain't linked, but should they be linked? I bet so.

If the autopilot computer use PVI-800 for the navigation, why it ain't linked with the ABRIS that is used for:

 

- Programming, editing and saving of waypoints, runways, radio beacons, target locations and the ability to study terrain along the flight route, etc.

- Ability to alter flight plan during mission

- Display of aeronautical information and flight plan required for navigation during all stages of a mission

 

-

 

So why to program, edit and save waypoints on ABRIS, when it can't be used with the flight computer? Why does the pilot need to start reading the coordinates, calculate the seconds for mean average and then input those manually to PVI-800, that doesn't suddenly have a feature to delete waypoints in first place (and can store only 6 waypoints)? Very likely the systems would be linked, so that PVI-800 would be used to input data quickly (speaken over radio to you) or in case of emergency (ABRIS is down) than play with a ABRIS then, but anyways the data inputed could be put in the new flight plan in ABRIS memory (why you can have multiple ones) and ABRIS to be used load the flight plan to the computer (or anyways somehow both being there). This would as well make sense as you could then use ABRIS to store multiple sections of the flight plan, like entry, combat and return, that would feed the 6-waypoint plan to PVI-800 etc.

Currently it doesn't make sense that when you make a mission PVI-800 and ABRIS are synced, but if you want to change waypoints or target points or so on flight, you need to do that for both systems separately and only PVI-800 is used (rendering ABRIS useless for it, unlike the manual says).

 

Seriously, if we go and we start looking at the KA-50, it is totally half-baked simulator that was left hanging for some reason. It could have been finalized, but likely reason was that NTTR was required to be done, A-10C was order from USA Army and effort was put there.

 

There are many other missing features like example:

The laser range finder / laser designator mode toggle “ЛД-ЛДП” switch is located directly below the HSI and is set to the “ЛД” laser range finder position by default. [LSHIFT + O] When set to the “ЛДП” laser designator position, the laser can be used to designate targets for weapons such as the Kh-25ML, Kh-29L or laser bombs. The Ka-50 can search for a target and illuminate it for 20 seconds by a second press of the ENTER key. This switch does not affect “Vikhr” employment.

 

Can we guide Kh-25ML or Kh-29L or future (prototype) laser guided bombs like KAB-250L or KAB-500L that has been widely exported? No... We can't even know the laser codes for KA-50 and Su-25...

 

 

So maybe you skipped the Ace Horizon or what ever those games were, but DCS isn't at all so hard core simulator as you believe it is. It wasn't not far until 1.2.14 or something (just a year or two ago really) when DCS got a so critical but simple radar feature like horizon.... Meaning when a ship at sea was having radar on, it could spot you at the coded radar max range no matter how close to the sea waves you were flying. Resulting to that you were incapable to fly close to ships that had radar on. Same thing was if you were flying from the sea to the beach where SAM system was, it could detect you from max range.

 

Our radar "simulation" is nothing else than a circle with two values, a max detection range and max lock range. There is no any other simulation. Once you enter to those circles, you are "simulated" to be seen and detected. What does the ECM does? It has only a multiplier like "0.86x" that is then used against those two max ranges. So example if the SAM has max detection range 15km and max lock range 8km, then with ECM On, the ranges are now "magically" 12.9km and 6.88km. Doesn't it sound just so marvelous hard-core simulation in its pure sense? No matter what direction, what altitude, what weather, what speed, what loadout or anything like that, those are the radar functions how it is simulated. And how is the ECM simulated? Well, it is just a joke really.

 

Once the believers of "real life simulator" starts to find out the truth how the DCS works and functions, their dreams crash. They ain't sitting in a simulator but just a fancy flight game made with unique goal.

 

"Simulation" doesn't mean things are realistic, it just means something is done without actually doing it, and it can be totally different from real thing. It is like a theory... And everyone should already know after few grades in school, that theory is nothing else than a theory until it is validated and even then things works always in theory, but not so much in real world.

 

And lets throw there some mumbo jumbo like NDA and State Secret and pure old fashion laziness. Why to try simulate a radar, when people just want to see the launch permission at the max range as manual say? Why to simulate IFF, when we already know who is on the other end and just say it is enemy/friend? Why to simulate fragmentation when you can just make a range that has X damage amount at given linear range? So you just play game "Armor value 85 vs Damage amount 113 -30% by its minimal range = 79.1. That leads 85-79.1 = 5.9 HP! Good, now you just didn't destroy that ground unit but it stays a live with just less than 5% and fully operational to kill your troops!

 

And here we are again hearing "DCS is hard code simulator for military purposes". Oh please... Even at military the people know that simulator is not there to have fun, it is there to teach the procedures and co-operation. It is there to teach to pilots that when you are landing keep this speed, this angle of attack, this altitude etc.

 

Just wishing something from unfinished module to be so it would be finished, and people jump on "It ain't realistic because you don't know what it really should to be!". There is difference to ask a photon torpedos than ask a features that manual say and shows, the real thing has and simply logically using it, should have.

 

But just like I said, in reality there ain't rain that wets the windshields or cockpit air rotors to keep pilots conditions cooler.... That's why we don't have working windshield wipers or cockpit rotors.... If you are so much for the hard core simulation, why doesn't even Mi-8 cockpit strings obey the laws of gravity? Isn't the real simulator all about the small details? So a button wasn't wired in the prototype unit for R-73 missiles? So what, it was designed to carry those! That MWS switch is located there but wasn't wired? Who cares? Does the the thing stop there because the 3D modeler can't actually model the virtual wire inside the fuselage correctly?

 

I would totally agree if KA-50 was never meant to have MWS. Never meant to carry R-73. Never meant to have working navigation suite and never meant to have windshield wipers... But it did and does in reality. Bad luck....

Edited October 20, 2016 by Fri13

[Flagrum]

*wall of text shortened*

 

I would totally agree if KA-50 was never meant to have MWS. Never meant to carry R-73. Never meant to have working navigation suite and never meant to have windshield wipers... But it did and does in reality. Bad luck....

The thing is, we don't have "a Ka-50" or "the Ka-50". Instead we have a very specific (ptototype) model of a Ka-50.

 

It is a snapshot, a single point in time of the development of the (real) helo. Yes, there were intentions and plans and whatnot for this airframe. But this is not relevant, as the design choice by ED was to pick up this model.

 

(disclaimer: yes, I, too, would be more happy with our BS if it were meant to replicate a generic exemplar of the production line ... but. it. is. not.)

Edited October 20, 2016 by Flagrum

[Weta43]

It's true.

 

It. Is. Not.

 

but in an equally arbitrary way

 

It. Could. Be.

[Weta43]

Incidentally - on the subject of 'there were hardly any Ka-50 built', there were nearly 50% more Ka-50 built than B-2 Spirits

[Flagrum]

It's true.

 

It. Is. Not.

 

but in an equally arbitrary way

 

It. Could. Be.

:doh:

And there could be glittering unicorns, puking rainbows ... could be, couldn't it?

 

Incidentally - on the subject of 'there were hardly any Ka-50 built', there were nearly 50% more Ka-50 built than B-2 Spirits

And we have 100% more Ka-50's in DCS than B-2's ... so what?

[Slazi]

Why stop at RWS, lets add a stealth upgrade that that makes it totally invisible to radar.

[Fri13]

The thing is, we don't have "a Ka-50" or "the Ka-50". Instead we have a very specific (ptototype) model of a Ka-50.

 

It is a snapshot, a single point in time of the development of the (real) helo. Yes, there were intentions and plans and whatnot for this airframe. But this is not relevant, as the design choice by ED was to pick up this model.

 

(disclaimer: yes, I, too, would be more happy with our BS if it were meant to replicate a generic exemplar of the production line ... but. it. is. not.)

 

Yes, as I wrote it makes it just one that doesn't fit at all the the DCS as it is a prototype and it is one with a missing features that the prototype likely got after ED got to measure it.

 

And as I wrote, it is likely a inner circle joke at ED about being DCS World prototype module, using a prototype of helicopter to be in production line (just like the ones the ED own KA-50 manual shows and explains).

 

That puts KA-50 always to the position "DCS World ain't about realism, it is about fun" and it places it just so that no one should expect realism from DCS World what so ever, just some experience of good educated guesses and "What if....?".

[Isegrim]

They have all been Prototypes.

There has only been some "one like the other" KA-50s.

 

Oh and not that you guys think iam against an MWS or RWR or R-73.

 

The only thing iam trying to do is to make clear to you guys that this Discussion will lead into nothing...its simply a waste of time to write more on this Topic.

 

There will be no further changes to the KA-50 this is what ED said to this theme. And this is what is happening. No matter how loud peole try to Blow the Horn here.

 

Check just those Pictures of the Cockpits and that are just some. For sure they have also been modified and updated over time,but not all (or just some) in the same way.

 

 

Left side for sure...right side is early KA-52

 

Ahm ...can we have this mirror Please:music_whistling:

Edited October 21, 2016 by Isegrim

[Jafferson]

We dont get MWS... but whats about Chaff???

[Weta43]

And there could be glittering unicorns, puking rainbows ... could be, couldn't it?

Except that I've shown you a photo of a Ka-50 with MWS sensors. Show me a photo of a Ka-50 puking rainbows, and then we'll be talking about the same thing.

(& seriously buddy - in what way is that post supposed to add anything constructive to the discussion ?)

 

So what it boils down to is:

There's ample evidence the MWS system is added to some aircraft.

 

The assumption that the systems modelling in the DCS.blackshark represents a specific aircraft is less true than it is false. Some, and only some aspects represent a specific airframe. Much of the Ka-50 system modelling (as for all DCS aircraft) is generic for this aircraft type.

If much of the modelling is generic (You think they really destruction tested Ka-50 #24's gearbox in stationary hover ? or destruction tested 24's undercarriage, or how hard you have to hit the ground before the tail falls off ? Also see the very long thread about how the A-10C engines are modelled from factory supplied information on the generic behaviour of the engine type, not the performance of any specific engine. The treatment of engines on the Ka-50 can only have been approached similarly), then that means there is no principled approach to modelling specific aircraft or generic types being applied here, just pragmatism. It is simply a case of where E.D. thought it best / easiest to model information on a specific airframe, they did, and elsewhere they used generic information.

 

That means there's no principled reason not to model a MWS on the Ka-50 simply because it would represent a generic capability.

It's not the same thing as asking for R-73 or a stealth upgrade, as no-one has any evidence that these can actually be fielded. There is evidence that the MWS system is fielded on some Ka-50.

 

As the airframe used for a template by E.D. has a switch but no visible warning display (unless the LWS shares a display, but that would be dangerously confusing), It would be reasonable to say there isn't one in the airframe. I've had a quick look, and there are pictures of the Ka-50 LWS display, CMS interface and datalink panel all over the internet (each mounted in a variety of different places in the cockpit), but nothing that appears to be a MLS display. The only thing that the Russians seem even vaguely cagey about showing is the thing circled in the image attached below (& covered up in the other angles). If that's the MWS, it doesn't have a graphical display.

 

So how to model it without details on it's operation?

Ideally don't give it more capability than you know it has.

You know it detects missiles and informs the pilot of the information.

Maybe it triggers the CMS or maybe it just tells the pilot. Just telling the pilot is more 'minimal' so with no other evidence that's what you'd have to start at.

If there's no evidence of a graphical display, don't model one. Model the minimum information that it must deliver - that there's been a missile launch detected, and if the information isn't presented visibly, it's reasonable to assume that it's presented audibly, and the minimum possible information that could be used is a simple tone.

Model that.

If the system is on, and there's a missile launch, you get a tone.

That's the absolute minimum that an operating system could do. It then has to be representing, but under-modelling, a system that is known to exist.

Will the information be delivered exactly as it is in the real aircraft ? No.

If you don't like that idea, don't turn it on. People that do turn it on can only be getting less, not more, information than the real system delivers, so no-one's getting some magic 'cheat'.

What's more, the same is true of the Su-27, MiG-29 & F-15 HUD, RWR, TEWS & F-5 counter-measures systems, which is in part why they continue to 'evolve' over time.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Weta43

[Isegrim]

OK and what will happen in DCS now?

After you have wasted time while writing this genuine Text?

 

You are ED tester.

 

Write a request or Bug report or whatever.

 

You will get the answer.

[Weta43]

I already said what I think will happen:

"I don't think that we're likely to get an MLWS in the DCS.Ka-50"

So in other words, the time I spent writing my post will have as much effect as the time you spent writing yours :)

 

The purpose of the post was to point out to those people that equated the original request for a MWS to asking for AMRAAMs, stealth devices and photon torpedoes, that the request was reasonable, and in keeping with the general modelling in DCS.

 

That said, it's not likely to happen.

The Ka-50 is a feature complete module that is well out of development, any feature additions are not going to add to sales, so are paid for out of E.D.'s pocket...

Edited October 22, 2016 by Weta43

[Flagrum]

(& seriously buddy - in what way is that post supposed to add anything constructive to the discussion ?)

It was meant as some sort of rhetorical question with an very obvious answer ("No."). A specific airframe can not have all kinds of generic features of that family - if there is no family but only a bunch of prototypes.

 

Except that I've shown you a photo of a Ka-50 with MWS sensors. Show me a photo of a Ka-50 puking rainbows, and then we'll be talking about the same thing.

 

 

Ok, I give up...

 

 

[Weta43]

:

[BodyOrgan]

:

My hero!

[Amarok_73]

Come on, guys, reading all that (somehow interresting) statements and more or less camouflaged cynic-ironic expressions, I have feeling, that most of You who negate my idea of returning MWS to use, didn't spent even 10 seconds trying to fully understand what lays behind what I wrote. Instead You just spotted another oportunity to highlight how advanced elitary club of ProKA-50Pilots You represent. And all this effort while there are so many servers where You can show off all what You can do with KA-50 without being the same time offensive to some.

Anyways, what I am "working" with now is bunch of newbies, who would gladly buy KA-50 and enjoy it for sure, but for them it's just a bit too tough. This bit i is the fact, they must focus on so many things around, so many switches and procedures for spotting, targeting, navigation and enagaging enemies so scanning constantly windows for smoke from missile flying towards them is just too much. I have that comfort, that having more than 1200 hours in KA-50, most of time, flying this machine is just boring for me (and still fun), but I am in minority for sure, so what I am asking is just simple functionality that was already implemented in older versions of this platform, that for these "youngsters" will offer a chance to participate in enjoyment instead of frustration. And that's why I've asked to make it as optional, so all who call themself "pro" will be able to force on their servers this "cheat" to be turned off.

I'd really preffer to see squadrons/wings of KA-50 running on enemies and "dancing" in the sky in effort to avoid missiles and spot shooters before they'll reload and shoot down them in enviroment packed with MANPADS, instead of seeing just few of them (at most) crawling in constant fear then eventually going down in frustration just because they "missed the smoke. And YES - I KNOW IT'S HOW IT LOOKS IN REALITY, but first of all, scenario can be prepared that way, so all these processes will be employed having requiring more diversity in regards to behaviour and procedures. Then, some of us just differently defines enjoyment, so that's where I think it's good idea to implement MWS with parameter that will add scalability.

And to precisely specify what kind of system I'm talking about is - as Weta43 mentioned above - minimal version as it was available in standalone version of simulator, where vocal alert was sounded when missile was in the air. The same mechanism as is in Su-26T functioning now. No additional switches needed, no specific sounds as the ones currently available can be used, no changes in cockpit design. Just "pакета впереди выше" and others for other directions.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Pipok

[Schmidtfire]

It would be quite easy to do a simple mod and put in the MWS. Delete all sounds for Radio Assist, except missile launch warnings. Swap those "Betty" sounds for RWR launch sounds. You can also edit the sounds so missile launch from the left hemisphere would only be played in the left speaker etc. The downside is that you need to fly with Radio Assist enabled.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Schmidtfire

[Devrim]

...The downside is that you need to fly with Radio Assist enabled.

I wonder, what about multiplayer, if I make a mod?

 

Some servers can disable Radio Assist option?

[Flagrum]

Instead You just spotted another oportunity to highlight how advanced elitary club of ProKA-50Pilots You represent.

That is *insert a synonym of your choice here for fecal matter*.

 

It is just so that this discussion goes on since, dunno, probably even _before_ the release of the module. How long ago is that now? 8+ years? And what good did all these arguments and good reasons and whatnot to extend the module? Can't you people understand that this is tiring and boring and, well, just pointless?

Edited October 25, 2016 by Flagrum
holy batman ... PHRASING ...

[Fri13]

That said, it's not likely to happen.

 

Exactly.

 

The Ka-50 is a feature complete module that is well out of development, any feature additions are not going to add to sales, so are paid for out of E.D.'s pocket...

 

Actually IMHO the sales would raise by that I think, at least if it would come as BS3 upgrade or so on. Of course the DCS World is now out and I don't think ED has any changes to make same error as BS1 -> BS2 was, requiring a upgrade module or whole new BS2 license.

 

But I personally see there a potential to increase sales by doing upgrades for every module. Meaning that developers could start with a aircraft module that is a base model. And then later offer a upgrades as DLC for that.

 

So it could be more like a:

Su-27S > Su-27SM > SU-27SM-2

Mi-24D > Mi-24V > Mi-24P > Mi-24VP > Mi-24PM.

 

But would it make sense? In the years to come developers could improve the module by adding a new variants for small extra charge, like I liked what ED did with the L-39 and what Polychop Simulations did with Gazelle, releasing L-39C and L-39LZ and then L and Mistral versions of the SA-342M. Ie. Make those extras to cost like 10-15€ each after the base model. That way in time everyone would need to buy a base model + wanted upgrade version and still things would not be "pay to win". But it is true that it would make more complex the payware campaigns as can be seen with "Historical Relic" that requires Mig-15Bis and F-86F to be both owned, instead just other one.

But there would be people who want to fill their virtual hangar and experience the different kind variants from different era.

 

So KA-50 upgrade that would add things? If it would be free, it would at least bring back some KA-50 pilots and definitely generate some buzz to get more buyers for that when suddenly there would be working MWS and even R-73 (yeah yeah ;)).

 

 

If there would come "BS3" kind upgrade that cost 10-15€, at least I would be more than glad to pay that to get MWS operational with the IR Jammer, just like in the photos from KA-50 manual:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a very rare system, ED had plenty of photos of KA-50 production line with MWS installed and flying and even at least one extra unit with a IR Jammer (nicely smudged btw).

In the photos there is at least #25 that ED had access, but as can be seen, very carefully all the sensitive parts of the IR jammer is hided and the photos selected by the manufacturer that all of them ain't shown.

 

So more likely the whole thing is just that the MWS and IR jammer were just disallowed to be simulated/operated, simply just leaving the MWS switch in the cockpit just as mentioned in manual its function and being not functional even when you can flip it up/down.

 

And comparing that KA-50 unit to KA-52 that has the IR jammers under, the rear visible of MWS sensors (that are behind the tail wings in KA-50 DCS manual) it just shows it that ED had access.

 

[Fri13]

And to precisely specify what kind of system I'm talking about is - as Weta43 mentioned above - minimal version as it was available in standalone version of simulator, where vocal alert was sounded when missile was in the air. The same mechanism as is in Su-26T functioning now. No additional switches needed, no specific sounds as the ones currently available can be used, no changes in cockpit design. Just "pакета впереди выше" and others for other directions.

 

I could think that there would be two different ways to add it.

 

1) Just combine it with the LWS panel so you get to know the quarter and even altitude (like how many is lasing above you?) and then you just see a light to hemisphere and if it is a laser you get the two bottom lights to lit up for laser modulation or strength.

So that way you can separate is the threat a laser homing/guided or just a missile launch.

 

2) As the MWS switch in the cockpit is already next to right of rotor RPM warning push-light (as the manual says) and under "Warning, Cautions, and Advisory lamps test button" and close-by the "Master caution push-light" it just makes it odd that there would have been planned any other panels in first place as the switch was already located near three light-buttons and there is a directional warning system as well on left side.

So I could think that the "Warning, Cautions, and Advisory lamp test button" is suppose to be a MWS warning button for a "heads up!".

 

For the IR Jammer I would think it should anyways to be automatic like in Su-25T, that you just enable it and then works automatically:

 

 

${1}

 

So I think I would go for combination of those.

 

When missile launch is detected, lit up the lamp above of the switch and then simply show the direction with the LWS panel lights and auto-trigger the pilot programmed UV-26 dispenser program. And that would be reason why the UV-26 panel is on right (cyclic) corner that you can't operate while you maneuver helicopter, but if it would be on top left corner, you could operate it with a left hand. (And this is one thing I don't really get with the KA-50 as so important as flare dispensing is set so far from the HOTAS....)

 

Would it be realistic? As realistic as we have our flares, chaffs, radars and vision systems....

 

The system would not require any cockpit 3D model changes, only a external model to add those sensors and IR jammers, after mission editor/pilot has added them to loadout, just like you can add/remove IR suppressors, dust collectors, Flare dispensers, booster rockets etc... If Mission designer doesn't want those to be applied, then they ain't available from the airfield or for the loadouts...

 

Ain't that simple?

 

Would people scream "It ain't realistic!"? Sure.... But do they about radars and chaffs? No....

Edited October 25, 2016 by Fri13

[Isegrim]

I like to have a second 2A42 on the left side of the fuselage. I would pay for that aswell.

 

Thats not realistic but hey it looks cool. /// Ironics off

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Seriously do you really think that anything of what you guys try to get here will ever happen???

 

Especially by raging (Why is there no MWS and no RWR and no R73).

 

Ok OK that are nice tools but they just will never be added to the KA-50 Module.

 

Also posting pictures of that systems off the successor of the KA-50 will not help.

 

The KA-50 was testbed for many of the KA-52s systems thats for sure.

The systems tested where very new in 2008 or even not in existence and top secret for sure aswell. So you will maybe get a license to model one of those systems in 20-30 Years but never today

 

The KA-50 is what it is in DCS a Complex to learn but very fine module which needs some time and love to get into it.

 

If some like a MWS in the KA-50 module>Switch on the Radio assist....thats why it is there.

[Amarok_73]

Fri13, I am quite sure that such changes we can't expect, as it would make this platform too desirable, so it can cause drop in sales of other "not-so-attack chopters" :D

But if this what You described would be implemented as... let's say another variant of Ka-50, I'd not hesitate to buy it for few of my friends, because I'd feel safe that they'll not turn away from this module and money will not be wasted.

But -sadly- observing current trends in sales strategy, I doubt that we can expect any good will from developers to have it implemented so completely as You described it.