Night Vision?

[Enduro14]

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

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. 

  Funny though how they are being used in syria since 2015...... Jammer that is

[SspectrumM]

I don't think that having night vision goggles on the helicopter is a big deal, first of all because it is optional and second because it seems to be practical, at least for low-level navigation, but not for combat operations.

 

 

Keep in mind that the fact that the helicopter is a model produced since 1972 does not mean that you have to use it in a mission based on 1972. This helicopter is still flying today, with almost no modifications in some cases. Each country has made its own improvements, such as adding modern communication systems or GPS systems (just plugging it in some place), but it remains almost exactly the same.

 

So being able to use any accessory from the modern world should not be seen as a crime or a challenge to reality, because it has been shown that despite not being designed for that, they can be used.

 

I agree that it is unrealistic to have nvg in a mission set in the 70s or 80s, because that technology was not yet available and there is no precedent for that to happen, but we also do not have a scenario based on the 70s in DCS, so you decide. 

 

"Mi-24P

(Hind-F) The gunship version, which replaced the 12.7mm machine-gun with a fixed side-mounted 30mm GSh-30-2K twin-barrel autocannon. Often fitted with night vision goggles for use in the Hunter-killer Role."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mil_Mi-24_variants

 

[StevanJ]

16 minutes ago, SspectrumM said:

I don't think that having night vision goggles on the helicopter is a big deal, first of all because it is optional and second because it seems to be practical, at least for low-level navigation, but not for combat operations.

 

 

Keep in mind that the fact that the helicopter is a model produced since 1972 does not mean that you have to use it in a mission based on 1972. This helicopter is still flying today, with almost no modifications in some cases. Each country has made its own improvements, such as adding modern communication systems or GPS systems (just plugging it in some place), but it remains almost exactly the same.

 

So being able to use any accessory from the modern world should not be seen as a crime or a challenge to reality, because it has been shown that despite not being designed for that, they can be used.

 

I agree that it is unrealistic to have nvg in a mission set in the 70s or 80s, because that technology was not yet available and there is no precedent for that to happen, but we also do not have a scenario based on the 70s in DCS, so you decide. 

 

"Mi-24P

(Hind-F) The gunship version, which replaced the 12.7mm machine-gun with a fixed side-mounted 30mm GSh-30-2K twin-barrel autocannon. Often fitted with night vision goggles for use in the Hunter-killer Role."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mil_Mi-24_variants

 

This guy gets it..

[jubuttib]

That wiki article is in real bad need of citations.

[Harlikwin]

22 minutes ago, jubuttib said:

That wiki article is in real bad need of citations.

 

Wiki is garbage most of the time. So are Mi24 NVG posts.

 

[zerO_crash]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Wiki is garbage most of the time. So are Mi24 NVG posts.

 

Don't ruin their faith, not everyone received education enough to understand the difference between primary-, secondary-, tertiary-, etc... -source. As is with the quality a "source" presents. It's pointless to explain @Harlikwin.

Edited September 17, 2021 by zerO_crash

[QuiGon]

14 hours ago, StevanJ said:

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?

 

So the shop literally says this is a variant from 1972 and for you this means it is a 2001 version with 21st century equipment? Man that's some interesting logic right there...

[Lurker]

Why is this discussion still going strong? 

 

There are so many things the Hind needs to get before these NVG should even be considered. It's a fantasy loadout on the P version, for fantasy players so yeah, why not give us Hellfiers on the Hind? Yeah give us Hellfires. There is NO evidence that they were NEVER used on the real Hind right? 

 

/s

Edited September 17, 2021 by Lurker

[zerO_crash]

14 hours ago, StevanJ said:

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.

 

 

Not everything is stated on the product page. I told you what stand ED had on the Mi-24P, and what era it is from. If you need a source, ask for it. It does however state that the model was introduced in 1972, doesn't it? If you continue to refuse acknowledging what's written to you, you will go to ignore-bucket. Suit yourself.

Mi-24P is not classified. Information is readily available. What is classified is IFF and a few smaller irrelevant functions (not simulated). I have information yes, where from? For sure not from videos. I got a couple Russian manuals, but I doubt you read Cyrrylic. There are also Ukrainian, Polish (only Mi-24W) and Czech manuals to name a few.

 

If I need any help, advocate, in realising what this sim can and cannot be, I'll tell you.

 

What you link, is a feature meant for people with bad eyesight or other issues with vision. There are quite a few older people flying DCS, so obviously it's meant to help them enjoy the product. It still doesn't provide any more capability to the aircraft, like flying at night. Irrelevant point.

 

And HARM-amount on F-16 was fixed, although western modules are not of my interest, I don't really follow those threads.

 

Yet again, calm yourself down friend, everyone else here is already.

 

EDIT: To the ignore-bucket, you little rebel.

Edited September 17, 2021 by zerO_crash

[StevanJ]

5 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

Not everything is stated on the product page. I told you what stand ED had on the Mi-24P, and what era it is from. If you need a source, ask for it. It does however state that the model was introduced in 1972, doesn't it? If you continue to refuse acknowledging what's written to you, you will go to ignore-bucket. Suit yourself.

Mi-24P is not classified. Information is readily available. What is classified is IFF and a few smaller irrelevant functions (not simulated). I have information yes, where from? For sure not from videos. I got a couple Russian manuals, but I doubt you read Cyrrylic. There are also Ukrainian, Polish (only Mi-24W) and Czech manuals to name a few.

 

If I need any help, advocate, in realising what this sim can and cannot be, I'll tell you.

 

What you link, is a feature meant for people with bad eyesight or other issues with vision. There are quite a few older people flying DCS, so obviously it's meant to help them enjoy the product. It still doesn't provide any more capability to the aircraft, like flying at night. Irrelevant point.

 

And HARM-amount on F-16 was fixed, although western modules are not of my interest, I don't really follow those threads.

 

Yet again, calm yourself down friend, everyone else here is already.

 

 

Look at the way my name is spelt- does that look like an English spelling', just because I was born in Stockport, doesn't mean I only speak English.

 

I don't need a source, we have lots of sources listed towards why we SHOULD have NVG's..

And no real sources to suggest we shouldn't.

 

If the Mi24p is not classified, link your information against NVG's here. X

27 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

So the shop literally says this is a variant from 1972 and for you this means it is a 2001 version with 21st century equipment? Man that's some interesting logic right there...

 

It's says the variant was introduced in 1972.

If that's the same variant used today' then we have information linked FOR NVG's.

[StevanJ]

21 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

/thread

I'm not the one arguing against them, I'm arguing for them and provided various sources.

 

Why would I need to put forward a source against that idea. 

 

Perhaps I'm not the master debater like yourself? 

 

 

[QuiGon]

49 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

provided various sources.

 

For NVG testing in 2020!

[StevanJ]

33 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

For NVG testing in 2020!

On the same Mi24p variant that was in introduced in 1972..

[admiki]

I was searching for confirmation, but wasn't able to find it. Where did you guys find information that DCS version we have is from 1979-1980?

[SspectrumM]

6 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

For NVG testing in 2020!

 

Speaking of realism, it's funny that some people worry about the helicopter's manufacturing date, but not the fact that they expect it to be used on missions in Afghanistan in the 80s, folks, we don't have an Afghanistan scenario in DCS, we also don't have a scenario from the 80s or 70s, you criticize the lack of realism in the implementation of the helicopter, and at the same time pretend to imagine that Dubai in 2010s is Afghanistan in the 80s, are you serious?.

 

Most of the scenarios we have in DCS are from 2000s+, the oldest is Caucasus, which is based on the mid-90s, even the liveries of the mi-24 are contemporary!, people don't realize that the helicopter that we have in DCS is still flying today by some countries, almost exactly the same, with small modifications, we have to think about the Hind, as a vanilla version of what several countries fly today.

 

I'm sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when you demand realism and pretend to fight the mujahideen over nevada casinos, if we really want realism, we must understand that DCS offers us possibilities between 90s-2010. (or WW2)

 

 

This is the realism you want?

 

[Enduro14]

Syria 2015 until present and our Hind is over their operating.  With Ispanka's and from looks of it no NVG....  could be wrong as i am not looking on a Red drive anymore

[StevanJ]

7 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Shit getting more and more surreal on gamers front Love it, keep it coming.

I always feel like the guy behind the counter in this video when speaking to 'simmers' here..
 

[Northstar98]

On 9/17/2021 at 11:45 AM, admiki said:

I was searching for confirmation, but wasn't able to find it. Where did you guys find information that DCS version we have is from 1979-1980?

 

It's not.

 

The Mi-24P is from somewhere around the 80s (I want to say mid 80s).

 

Ataka (which we're getting) was integrated from the mid 90s onwards, and the removal of the IR jammer is something more recent (though you can still find examples with them).

 

However take away Ataka and we've got an 80s Hind, just missing the IR jammer (which will only be effective against the SA-9 in DCS AFAIK - missing 1st gen Cold War MANPADS).

 

On 9/17/2021 at 4:19 PM, SspectrumM said:

Speaking of realism, it's funny that some people worry about the helicopter's manufacturing date, but not the fact that they expect it to be used on missions in Afghanistan in the 80s, folks, we don't have an Afghanistan scenario in DCS, we also don't have a scenario from the 80s or 70s, you criticize the lack of realism in the implementation of the helicopter, and at the same time pretend to imagine that Dubai in 2010s is Afghanistan in the 80s, are you serious?

 

My god, this argument again.

 

Seriously, the whole point of DCS is that building blocks (the modules, the assets and the maps) are as realistic to their real-world counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you build out of them and how you use them are up to you. Exactly the way it should be.

 

So no, turns out people can complain about the lack of realism in a module but not in a fictional scenario (clue's kinda right there isn't it? Kinda silly making a fuss about historical accuracy on a wholly fictional scenario), because that's the whole point of the game.

 

Not only is this the best compromise between realism and sandbox, not only is it DCS mission goal and design, we literally can't do it any other way because nothing fits perfectly together, so you have no choice but to fictionalise the scenarios, in some way shape or form. I mean, case study number 1, the Viggen, what missions am I going to use it in? The only theatre it was present in was the Baltic, which none of our maps go anywhere near, and given that you either compromise and make your mission less realistic, or you don't use it at all.

 

See the spoiler for my breakdown:

Spoiler

• Early WWII has a single aircraft and absolutely nothing else (I-16)
• Late WWII is possibly the most flushed out era in DCS with:
  • A fairly equal number of peer-to-peer BLUFOR and REDFOR modules, done to a similar level of quality, with more on the way.
  • 2 dedicated maps, with a 3rd on the way (though hardly anything for that map as of yet).
  • A dedicated asset pack, with plenty of vehicles and air defences, of course there's stuff missing (especially ships, but also a few US air defences)
  • The era where numerous new technologies came to first:
    • VT AA shells.
    • Completely overhaulled damage model.
    • Torpedoes (both aerial, surface and submerged launch, even if the latter 2 are somewhat broken).
    • Submerging submarines.
    • Enhanced AI (ditching)
• Early Cold War (1946 - 1960):
  • For full-fidelity modules you've got the F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P and a G.91R on the way.
  • Only ground units are exclusively REDFOR, with 2 air defences units (AZP S-60 and the ZSU-57-2), 1 tank (PT-76B) and 1 APC (MT-LB). That's it, there's absolutely nothing else apart from what you can recycle from WWII.
  • No map.
  • No naval assets.
• Mid Cold War (1961 to 1975):
  • Only has 3 full-fidelity modules, 1 of them a trainer (F-5E-3, MiG-21bis and L-39C), though there is also the F-8J on the way.
  • Maybe a couple of AI aircraft (F-4E).
  • Quite a few REDFOR air defences, with the S-75M/SA-2d, S-125M/SA-3b, the upcoming S-200V/SA-5b, the 9K33/SA-8a and the 9K31/SA-9a. There is also Rapier (though without Blindfire for the UK).
  • We have a couple of REDFOR vehicles, though hardly any BLUFOR vehicles (can only think of the Land Rovers, maybe the Chieftain Mk.7/L and the Leopard 1A3), there are however a few REDFOR vehicles (T-55A, BMP-1, BMD-1, BTR-RD, BRDM-2).
  • No map.
• Late Cold War (1976 to 1989):
  • Only the Mirage 2000C as a full fidelity module (and only just, our 2000C is 1989 at the earliest), though there is an early F-14A (suitable for pre 1994 missions) in the works, as well as an A-6E (variant depending, TRAM and WCSI fit here) and an A-7E. There is also a 9-12 MiG-29 in a 'hope-to' state. Here is where we also have the C-101, L-39ZA and the Mi-8MTV-2 and (without 9M120), the Mi-24P too (though it has Lipa removed). Finally, there's the Christen Eagle 2 and Yak-52 (though both unarmed).
  • All of the FC3 aircraft apart from the F-15C, and if you exclude R-77, the 9-13S MiG-29S.
  • There's a few more AI aircraft (mostly REDFOR - Tu-22M3, MiG-23MLD, MiG-25, Su-17M4).
  • The majority of air defence systems: MIM-23B I-HAWK PIP Phase 1, Rapier FSA for the UK, Roland 2, Gepard, M163A2 (?) and MIM-72G for BLUFOR; for REDFOR we've got the 2K12M3/SA-6b, S-300PS/SA-10b, 9K35M3/SA-13, 9K37M1/SA-11, the 9K38/SA-18 (though uses the 9M342 missile of the 9K338/SA-24 from the mid 2000s) and the 9K330/SA-15a.
  • The majority of REDFOR ground vehicles, and a few BLUFOR ground vehicles.
  • 1 map (Caucasus) (?) - though is wholly unsuitable for BLUFOR vs REDFOR Cold War missions.
  • The majority of REDFOR naval assets, but only HB's unreleased (so far) Forrestal.
• 90s:
  • Heatblur's current offerings: the AJS 37 and the current Tomcats (though with LANTIRN the Tomcats are late 90s/early 2000s), there's the J-11A too and there's also possibly the A-6E (depending on what variant HB does) as well as a few more AI aircraft (namely the Tu-160). Here's is also where the Ka-50, Gazelle and the WIP Bo-105PAH-1A1 fits.
  • There's a few more air defences present (MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2, 2K22M/SA-19).
  • Probably the majority of BLUFOR ground vehicles as well as a few more REDFOR.
  • We finally have a map (Caucasus) but it's only really suitable for the 1991-1992 South Ossetia War and the 1992-1993 War in Abkhazia.
  • The remaining REDFOR naval assets (excluding the CAP naval assets, and the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo). There's also the Type 148 Tiger [La Combatantte IIa] given that it's in the later fit.
• 2000s:
  • For modules we have the most popular BLUFOR modules: A-10C, F-16CM and the F/A-18C (the F-14A/B reaches into here too). The F-15C fits here, and so does the 9-13S MiG-29S with the R-77, the AH-64D Block II and the MB.339A MLU will also fit here.
  • There's a couple more AI aircraft (namely the F-15E).
  • There are only 3 more air defence systems, that being NASAMS II, the HQ-7b Self-Propelled and the 9K338/SA-24.
  • The rest of the BLUFOR naval assets, as well as the CAP naval assets.
  • As for maps from a purely pedantic perspective, there aren't any that strictly fit here, though most payware terrains could be made to fit around here as well as the Marianas, even if they are generally newer (only one I'm unsure about is Syria).
• 2010s:
  • For modules we have the later A-10C, AV-8B N/A, the Eurofighter Typhoon(?) and the GREENFOR JF-17. There's also the OH-58 and technically the Mi-24P but only due to the removal of Lipa, otherwise we would have a Mi-24P from the 90s (though only from 9M120 Ataka, without 9M120 we would have a mid 80s Mi-24P, just missing Lipa - this aircraft is rather unique in that it really hasn't changed much since it was produced, only thing I'm unsure about is engines).
  • We have maybe a couple more AI aircraft (namely the Su-34)
  • A few more ground vehicles (ZTZ96B, ZBD-04A, T-72B3 and BTR-82A).
  • Here are where the SoH/PG, Syria and Marianas map strictly fit around, though this is arguably more pedantic.
• And finally onto the 2020s:
  • Only the Eurofighter Typhoon (seeing as it's a Luftwaffe Typhoon, but being heavily teased with the MBDA Meteor, which only entered Luftwaffe service in 2021) and absolutely nothing else.

Obviously succeeding decades/eras will carry-over plenty of assets and modules from previous decades/eras, but hopefully you can see the problem.

 

Arguably, the Hind's most famous conflict was the Soviet-Afghan war, so naturally people are going to be interested in it. And rather wait years and years to get an appropriate map, (let alone the rest of the assets) they're making a compromise, which is unrealistic but the only thing they can do.

 

And if you want to go down this route, feel free to ask ED to delete the mission editor, which is what you'd have to do, sounds like it would be a hugely popular decision (not).

 

On 9/17/2021 at 4:19 PM, SspectrumM said:

Most of the scenarios we have in DCS are from 2000s+, the oldest is Caucasus, which is based on the mid-90s, even the liveries of the mi-24 are contemporary!, people don't realize that the helicopter that we have in DCS is still flying today by some countries, almost exactly the same, with small modifications, we have to think about the Hind, as a vanilla version of what several countries fly today.

 

It's an RuAF Hind from around modern day, though only due to removal of the IR jammer. Ignoring that it's a RuAF version from the mid 90s (only owing to Ataka, when we get it).

 

If you ignore the fact that the IR jammer is removed and don't take Ataka, then it's almost identical to a baseline Soviet version from somewhere around the mid 80s. The pilot's cockpit for one certainly hasn't changed from when the Mi-24P was first introduced.

 

On 9/17/2021 at 4:19 PM, SspectrumM said:

I'm sorry but it's hard to take you seriously when you demand realism and pretend to fight the mujahideen over nevada casinos, if we really want realism, we must understand that DCS offers us possibilities between 90s-2010. (or WW2)

 

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, kin of all phyla, I present to you, the no true scotsman.

 

Where you can only care about realism if you're a fundamentalist purist, in absolutely every single way, and if you're okay with anything even remotely unrealistic, realism arguments are irrelevant and hypocritical, even if they're fully in line with the whole point of the freaking game. I've even heard that if people care about realism they should quit the game if their pilot dies once, because that isn't unreasonable at all/

 

On 9/17/2021 at 4:19 PM, SspectrumM said:

This is the realism you want?

 

No the realism I want, and what the realism the game's core design principles are gunning for, is that the building blocks are as realistic to their RL counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you make are up to you.

 

I find it amazing that so many people pick up this game failing to understand what it's design goals are.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[SspectrumM]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It's not.

 

The Mi-24P is from somewhere around the 80s (I want to say mid 80s).

 

Ataka (which we're getting) was integrated from the mid 90s onwards, and the removal of the IR jammer is something more recent (though you can still find examples with them).

 

However take away Ataka and we've got an 80s Hind, just missing the IR jammer (which will only be effective against the SA-9 in DCS AFAIK - missing 1st gen Cold War MANPADS).

 

 

My god, this argument again.

 

Seriously, the whole point of DCS is that building blocks (the modules, the assets and the maps) are as realistic to their real-world counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you build out of them and how you use them are up to you. Exactly the way it should be.

 

So no, turns out people can complain about the lack of realism in a module but not in a fictional scenario (clues kinda right there isn't it), because that's the whole point of the game.

 

Not only is this the best compromise between realism and sandbox, not only is it DCS mission goal and design, we literally can't do it any other way because nothing fits perfectly together, so you have no choice but to fictionalise the scenarios, in some way shape or form. I mean, case study number 1, the Viggen, what missions am I going to use it in? The only theatre it was present in was the Baltic, which none of our maps go anywhere near, and given that you either compromise and make your mission less realistic, or you don't use it at all.

 

Arguably, the Hind's most famous conflict was the Soviet-Afghan war, so naturally people are going to be interested in it. And rather wait years and years to get an appropriate map, (let alone the rest of the assets) they're making a compromise, which is unrealistic but the only thing they can do.

 

And if you want to go down this route, feel free to ask ED to delete the mission editor, which is what you'd have to do, sounds like it would be a hugely popular decision (not).

 

 

It's an RuAF Hind from around modern day, though only due to removal of the IR jammer. Ignoring that it's a RuAF version from the mid 90s (only owing to Ataka, when we get it).

 

If you ignore the fact that the IR jammer is removed and don't take Ataka, then it's almost identical to a baseline Soviet version from somewhere around the mid 80s. The pilot's cockpit for one certainly hasn't changed from when the Mi-24P was first introduced.

 

 

Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, kin of all phyla, I present to you, the no true scotsman.

 

Where you can only care about realism if you're a fundamentalist purist, in absolutely every single way, and if you're okay with anything even remotely unrealistic, realism arguments are irrelevant and hypocritical, even if they're fully in line with the whole point of the freaking game. I've even heard that if people care about realism they should quit the game if their pilot dies once, because that isn't unreasonable at all/

 

 

No the realism I want, and what the realism the game's core design principles are gunning for, is that the building blocks are as realistic to their RL counterparts as possible, but the scenarios you make are up to you.

 

I find it amazing that so many people pick up this game failing to understand what it's design goals are.

 

 

I agree with you in almost everything you said,  I said all about the lack of realism about the scenarios just to demonstrate how absurd it is to make a drama about the date of manufacture of the module, or the realism in having nvg, when we have in DCS a lot of even more controversial situations. I have years designing missions in dcs, I know very well that it is necessary to bend reality a little from time to time. This is why I do not understand or justify the controversy with the implementation of nvg in the hind, nobody forces you to use it, it is optional, it can even be deactivated.

 

We know that it is common for each country to implement its own modifications to these helicopters and experiment with new technologies, even if it wasn't designed for that, so it is not a break with reality to allow it, as long as you experience the problems that you should have in a cockpit not adapted for nvg, and YES, you will experience that. You need to turn of almost all the lights, lower the hud brightness and you'll be blinded every time you shoot something, but i think it is useful for navigation (specially at low altitude), and this is VERY important for any attack helicopter in modern scenarios. 

 

So people who like extreme realism can lock the NVGs in the editor and fight the Mujahideen in Afghanistan around the Burj Khalifa in the 80s.

 

 

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, SspectrumM said:

I agree with you in almost everything you said,  I said all about the lack of realism about the scenarios just to demonstrate how absurd it is to make a drama about the date of manufacture of the module, or the realism in having nvg, when we have in DCS a lot of even more controversial situations.

 

But it isn't absurd, at all.

 

The Mi-24P should be accurate to whatever Mi-24P ED are trying to represent, which is a relatively modern day RuAF version (but only due to the removal of Lipa), ignoring that though and with Ataka we've got a post mid 90s Mi-24P

 

13 minutes ago, SspectrumM said:

I have years designing missions in dcs, I know very well that it is necessary to bend reality a little from time to time. This is why I do not understand or justify the controversy with the implementation of nvg in the hind, nobody forces you to use it, it is optional, it can even be deactivated.

 

Because NVG compatibility is wholly unrelated to the scenario, and is solely an issue with the aircraft.

 

Here, I'm interested in what was done, were NVGs used in Hinds without cockpits designed to use them? Or didn't they? The cockpit certainly isn't NVG compatible.

 

13 minutes ago, SspectrumM said:

We know that it is common for each country to implement its own modifications to these helicopters and experiment with new technologies, even if it wasn't designed for that, so it is not a break with reality to allow it,

 

Only that doesn't really matter when we have an RuAF spec aircraft.

 

"But what about the other countries?"

 

It's used as a stand-in, it's still RuAF spec, and ideally we'd overhaul the whole countries/coalition thing to something more fit for purpose, where this issue doesn't arise.

 

Same with every other aircraft, like the F-16CM to name one.

 

"But what about the liveries?"

 

Liveries don't change an aircraft into a country specific modification or a variant operated by that country, and enforcing it would necessitate doing to the liveries what they did to all those .lua files.

[SspectrumM]

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It's used as a stand-in, it's still RuAF spec

 

Is this RuAF spec? 

 

 

 

https://newsbeezer.com/vietnameng/russian-pilot-bombed-syrian-rebels-with-us-gps/

[Northstar98]

29 minutes ago, SspectrumM said:

 

Is this RuAF spec? 

 

 

 

https://newsbeezer.com/vietnameng/russian-pilot-bombed-syrian-rebels-with-us-gps/

 

That's a funny looking Mi-24P cockpit...

Edited September 17, 2021 by Northstar98

[IcedVenom]

I'm OP and I just wanted to say that despite what people are saying, I'm glad that you gave us night vision functionality for those who want it.

 

If you don't want it then don't use it.

[StevanJ]

8 hours ago, IcedVenom said:

I'm OP and I just wanted to say that despite what people are saying, I'm glad that you gave us night vision functionality for those who want it.

 

If you don't want it then don't use it.

YES!!! WE GOT NIGHTVISION!!

 

Awesome work guys! Thankyou very much..

 

[Mars Exulte]

It's like some people, in this very thread, just discovered this is a very advanced video game or something.