But Ka-50 in DCS has no tail rotor

Ahhhh, so this was about?, i really can not get to this conclusion by reading your questions firebird :P, i may have to develop a proper answer, but most of what has been told here also represents my opinion.

That's a broad subject but it usually comes down to the quality of the game and the amount of available free time.


- Graphic stability and compatability.
Not so much about the eye candy but just fewer issues. (If we can't keep it running on new GPUs, then the community will eventually die.)

- The ability to have cities and structures draw further out and not clip. (i.e. no last minute "pop ups")

- A decent Alt Hold system. Maybe with AGL and baro modes.

- 2 pilots in 1 helo!

- Better MP.


Although, if I were being totally selfish....

- A Comanche HUD that properly fills the screen and has the correct aspect ratio.

- To be able to see the rotors spinning in the "no cockpit" view.

- All of the warning/status lights sending data to CommServer.

Exactly and from what I've read, it has been highly reported of having better control of rotation in the Ka-50 than a tail rotored helo.

You can increase buildings' draw distance
cbar= parameter in eech.ini
And then use
high_lod_hack=1
For them to look better at a distance


The only big improvement from tail rotor scheme I see is that wind direction doesn't matter for co-axial helos.

Thanks, I know. I've tried all kinds of numbers from 0 to ridiculously high and they still tend to pop in. Also I've used high lod since it has been there.

Also, an ongoing oddity is the landing pads flickering (regardless of the various .ini settings) and the only thing that seems to prevent it is if I land with the FLIR on. As soon as I turn it on (whether the MFD is onscreen or not), the pads stop flickering?...wierd!

Could you please give examples of such behaviour in avia simulators?
Does it mean that ruling helicopter is easy? Should environment be more hostile (more infantry with chainguns and personal SAMs, long range antiaircraft systems for higher altitudes)?
Does it mean that there are too many helicopters (or flights) and too less ground units (and their average speed is too little)?

How much (as percent of screen size) is suitable? (in another topic or by PM, please)
What should they do? Should their formation be more sparse? It's one unit after all.
I see no answer for the first question. Is this graphics you play games for?
What is the "quality of the game"? Are there any reference marks?
Could you please post a couple of screenshots (current and expected) for points one and two? (in another topic or by PM, please) And I haven't got a point about the third issue.


More active! More active! Come and answer! Come and answer!

While I do think more ground units would help, I would also like to see some more determined attacks. Now you have single platoons driving a little further every few hours (if they're able), until they're eventually destroyed. They don't seem to have much purpose, and they don't do much.

I would like to see more coordinated attacks. Larger concentrations of units which makes an effort to acchieve some specific goal, like to take some base. And then other units reacting by trying to defend when they detect the attack, or counter attack, and reserves being sent in where it's needed. And of course requests for air support, and recon to figure out what the enemy units are up to.

And if units discover that they're losing the attack, then retreat, don't just sit there waiting to be destroyed.

But that's a lot which needs changing, and something which is hard to do in a dynamic campaign.



If I remember correctly, the smaller MFDs were unreadable when the resolution of the MFDs was increased. So they had to be made bigger to be readable.





Preferably dig in in defensive positions. But find something which is worth to defend, not just some random junction




Not sure what's wrong about the aspect... Is it something specific which happens in widescreen resolutions?
But making a HUD which has the same size no matter what resolution is being played at shouldn't be that hard. It's already done for the Hokum's periscope view, and the Apache's fullscreen ORT view. The same method should work with helmet sight too.

While it's nice with better graphics, it's not what makes or breaks the game.



Personally I don't care much about the units' 3D models. Most of the time when actually playing (instead of just admiring graphics) I'm too far away to notice all the details of a high detail model. The cockpits and terrain however I do like that looks nice, because that I do spend a lot of time looking at



Black Shark has raised the bar quite a bit for helicopter flight models, so yes EECH doesn't quite feel the same anymore...



Would be nice, though most of the current EECH cockpits are good enough.




I would rather have a few models with good and realistic modelling than a ton of helicopters which all use the same general flight model and system modelling.




There are some units which are lacking (and some somewhat weird inclusions...), but it doesn't matter too much, what exist suffice for me.




More infantry would certainly enhance EECH quite a bit!




Indeed, more realistic battles would be one of the biggest improvements which can be made.





Flying 20 minutes to reach the target doesn't bother me. Real life missions usually fly longer than that.





Personally I don't play online, but I do know that this is a high priority for many others.

Could not be posible to make the ground units participate of ofensives, incursions and to help in general to achieve the rest of the goals?, do they "live" in the same level as, for example, the choppers and planes?.