Dr.SquirrelBoy12

I wonder if you could get a L shaped USB to use for the throttle? Something like this:

I have it on mine, seems to work alright. Gonna build a wooden stand for it to sit between my legs. I already have something to set the throttle on.

I love the update, but some feedback on the presentation: while I think using boards is great (I use Trello all the time as a Software Dev), the presentation here isn't really that great. I get that this is supposed to be a public facing thing and you probably want to keep it simple and easy to understand, but I think a kanban board with "Planned", "In Development", "Released", and then maybe color coded by what product (AJS-37, F-14, Sekret Module, DCS Core, etc) would have been better. Not trying to complain too much, always appreciate the update posts, but wanted to throw in my 2¢.

All I will add is that if a 2002 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter as operated by the US Army could mount the Stinger ATAS without any software or hardware modifications, then it should be able to. Just because they were not used doctrinally shouldn't mean they can't be used in the sim. I mean it isn't like doctrine cannot change. That said, if a software change would have been necessary to allow Stinger ATAS to be used on the airframe then I think it is perfectly reasonable to exclude the option. Military doctrine should not be a limiting factor for the sim, only available documentation & airframe / software limitations intrinsic to the aircraft being modeled. Just my 2¢...

I think this would be awesome to have in DCS, but frankly I don't really know if it is practical for them to implement given how pointless it is to use anti-infantry weapons in DCS. It's not like ARMA where the infantry AI is at least decent...

Why would I be this low and this fast at that dive angle in DCS? You are taking this way too seriously, all I am implying is that a top down attack is perfectly valid against helicopters, in both an arcade game like BF4, and a sim like DCS... You are acting like BF4 is some fantasy game that is completely disconnected from reality. Obviously I couldn't use magic as a tactic in a game or sim that doesn't have magic. But all I am implying is that position matters, and positioning is just as valid and important in BF4 as it is DCS. Also you conveniently left out from your excerpt (that you never sourced) that the fighter is only vulnerable if it drops down to the chopper's altitude. Why would anyone do this and put themselves in the choppers WEZ? This conversation has already derailed the thread enough and if you don't understand my point now you never will so I am going to leave it at that. Btw the pilot in that youtube video you linked is bad if he is using missiles rather than the gun to take out a helicopter with the stealth jet in BF4.

BF4 is an arcade game with arcade missiles and arcade damage models. Doesn't change the fact that the same tactic will work in DCS. If I fly above you and come down from above, it is extremely difficult for you to attack me because I am outside your WEZ. Please point to where I said BF4 is comparable to DCS with regards to things like systems modeling or flight model? All I said is that I'd use the same tactics I used in that game. You are acting like just because one is a game and another is a sim, the same tactics can't apply. IRL if I am firing a rifle I have to compensate for bullet drop, in a game like BF4 I have to do the same thing. Does this make BF4 a rifle / bullet simulator. Absolutely not, but the same tactic applies. Also DCS Airquake servers are not realistic environments, choppers are frequently outside of their friendly SAM net. Didn't think that'd rustle as many jimmies as it did smh.

I'll literally use the same tactics I used in Battlefield 4... Instead of flying around the chopper and engaging it at co-altitude, come down on it from above and take it where it can't point it's weapons. I would LOVE to get an Mi-28 in DCS, doubt we'll see that for another 20 years though...

The B-52s launched their cruise missiles first but they took time to fly to their targets. The AH-64s were the first to score kills since the cruise missiles were still flying to their targets when the AH-64s engaged the SAM sites.

The Apache was literally built as a Tank killer in the Fulda Gap. I think the Hind depends a lot more on good infantry AI to fight against than the Apache.

The AI for ground units, specifically infantry is awful and ruins the gameplay experience. I have already purchased the Hind since it is the best simulation available, but aside from killing tanks, the only infantry interactions that make sense in DCS would be dropping an igla squad off somewhere or capping an airfield. Fighting against infantry is pointless in DCS, I think back to that one A-10C mission where the infantry just stand there and let you gun them down. It totally ruins any sense of immersion, and as I said before, I believe ED knows this, hence why they did the P model instead of a more iconic model like the D. If you are fine killing AI robots that just stand there waiting to die then so be it, I'll stick to killing vehicles since they are at least somewhat believable.

I think this is a misrepresentation and I think most people in this thread (through what I have read so far) don't understand what OPs point is. He is not arguing the Hind is inferior because it doesn't have as many weapons or is not as modern, like would be the case with the Sabre vs the Eagle. He is saying the Mi-24 isn't able to perform one of it's primary roles in DCS since DCS has mundane infantry gameplay, to put it lightly. About all you can do that I have seen is drop off Stinger/Igla teams or squads to "capture airfields". Infantry is just a joke to fight against right now. I am pretty sure this is why we are getting the P variant with a fixed cannon instead of a turret machine gun. I've already pre-ordered the Mi-24 but I am also concerned that the chopper just won't have a place in the sim because of how bad infantry gameplay is. Choppers make way more sense in games like ARMA or even Battlefield (lmao) since there they can support the boots on the ground more realistically (since it's just not very possible in DCS). Frankly, you'd need ground gameplay along the lines of ARMA for a lot of choppers outside of those primarily meant to take out vehicles (The Apache was literally intended to do this in the Fulda Gap, same of the Bo-105) to make sense. I would love to have a Blackhawk in DCS, but I honestly don't think I would get it unless the ground game improved vastly. Rising Storm 2 Vietnam Huey gameplay is honestly way more fun than the DCS Huey, but it is also really dull since it's just arcade controls to fly. I know it has been said before but DCS is an amazing and unrivaled sim, but it just doesn't have super compelling gameplay in many areas. /rant Also btw War Thunder checks neither box, it doesn't have any infantry gameplay (that I am aware of) and it is super arcadey.

Thanks for the update IronMike. Keep up the good work! Speaking of other things to finish though, any update on the Draken AI?

I know you're a SME and I'm not sure if it has any relevance, but Klarsnow, a Mudhen WSO in the Razbam discord mentioned how there is often a mishmash of panels and where they are located in the jet. Here's an excerpt of what he said:

AH-1 is slated for development by Belsimtek / Eagle Dynamics, probably around the time they get to their F-4E module.