Mi-24v Hind-E Full feed back

[blayas]

nerfed? maybe the devs are just making Hind versions more like their real homologous, and there is more than one version, if the mapper find Hind that one needs more power in a given map, it may substitute to another version.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

Optics, ammo, firerate values has been changed as much as possible to real one.

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

Was it?

>Updated Mi-35 and Mi-24V gunner to have no zoom or thermals.

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

Optics, ammo, firerate values has been changed as much as possible to real one.

what are the sources of this?

[rPoXoTauJIo]

http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/eng/mi24.htm
??-30?
??-24 ? ???????????
Attack Helicopter MI-24 Hind
Mi-24 HIND (MIL)
Mil Mi-24 helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-30-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-B_12.7mm_machine_gun

That's like for example.

You have to keep in mind that flight physics still the same(yet )

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/eng/mi24.htm
??-30?
??-24 ? ???????????
Attack Helicopter MI-24 Hind
Mi-24 HIND (MIL)
Mil Mi-24 helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-30-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yak-B_12.7mm_machine_gun

That's like for example.

You have to keep in mind that flight physics still the same(yet )

were is about the zoom and thermals?

[X-Alt]

what are the sources of this?

Basically anything pre-1998 and Soviet doesn't have Thermals.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

were is about the zoom and thermals?

Those refs were mostly required for ammunition and firerates, but they do have some info bout optics too.

The Mi-24V using КС-53(KS-53) collimator sight, which is doesn't have any zoom nor thermals.


If you have any multiple soruces proving that mi-24v in common used thermals&optics, we're gladly will 'anti-nerf' it back

[[F|H]Zackyx]

Was it?

Funny because the picture you used feature a Mi-24V(Mi-35) using a GOES-342 which has all the latest tech Lowlight,IR,TV,laser... Most of the Mi-24V have been upgraded ( to this standard i think the upgrade program is still ongoing. And the upgraded versions were the one used in Crimea last year, so they should be featured in game since Russia used for a real operation.

GOES (Gyro Stabilized Electro-Optical System) −342 provides round-the-clock surveillance and the aiming capability to fire guided missiles. It incorporates a field-of-view stabilization system, a TV channel, a Module-Avia thermal imaging channel, a laser rangefinder and a direction finder.

The GOES-342 system weighs 185 kg and its EO device measures 460 mm x 613 mm. It incorporates a field-of-view stabilization system, a TV channel, a Module-Avia thermal imaging channel, a laser rangefinder and a direction finder. Sighting in azimuth is provided in a range of +/-230 deg., in elevation -from -115 deg. to +25 deg.

GOES-520 is a day/night surveillance system intended for terrain surveillance, search and acquisition of landmarks and obstacles. The system weighs 45 kg and its EO device measures 350 mm x 500 mm. It includes a low-level TV and a thermal imaging channels and provides sighting in a range of +/-180 deg. in azimuth and from -85 deg. To +35 deg. in elevation.

More funny is the second picture you posted has also feature a sight with ZOOM , the PTUR sight ocular is located on the starboard side of the operator?s cockpit witch indicate that the Helicopter is equipped with Raduga-Sh "pod" description below.

The Raduga complex included a new target aiming and acquisition system. It was originally a submarine periscope dating back to the 1930s mounted upside down! The top side of the latter was in the right front corner of the WSO cockpit, while the other end of the periscope was located inside a new fairing below the right side of the nose. But, of course, this piece of equipment that was obviously satisfactory had to be adapted to its new task. Thus, the mirror was gyro-stabilized. Also, it was possible to choose between a narrow or wide field of view. An integrated thermal seeker allowed automatic tracking of the position of the missile, the latter being equipped with two tracers at the rear. The trajectory of the missile was then corrected by radio-link, while the WSO continually kept the sight crosshairs on the target until impact. Two small metal doors protected the windows of the optics when not in use.

The missile guidance antenna of the Raduga-Sh (Sh for 'Shturm') was a little more bulky. This moving antenna was housed inside a fixed teardrop fairing with a black dielectric panel in front, attached to the left side of the nose turret. This fairing made it possible to distinguish definitively a Mi-24V from a Mi-24D. The pilot was employing a new ASP-17V automatic sight that could be used for firing the nose machine-gun in a fixed (zero) position, to drop bombs and fire unguided rockets (5). The first "Hind-E" models had no PZU air intake filters in front of the turbines. These filters were fitted out on the later Mi-24V series and they were often retrofitted on the early series machines, as well as on the Mi-24D. The Mi-24V of the GSFG were not equipped with the SPO-15 Bereza RHAWR that could be recognized by its prominent fairings positioned behind the cockpit and on the tail boom. They retained instead the older SPO-10 system.

So both versions of Raduga should feature thermals.
So i hope you gonna fix your mistake next patch.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

Zackyx;2104954']Funny because the picture you used feature a Mi-24V(Mi-35)

I used that picture to pinpoint to on a main "buff" change regarding ammocount and firerates(iirc hind have most physical ROF ingame atm due to bug in dice engine with batches in multibarrels), optics is different story.

Regarding your optics researches on GOES-342 system. Sadly, but that's not applied to in-game versions of helicopter because we're using old non-modernized hinds.

Bout the second picture with Raduga, many thanks for correction. When i were kid and visiting local airbase ~10 years back, should have paid attention what those serious army dudes were telling us
If you could be so kind and provide additional sources for Raduga you know, then we're probably going to re-take a look on mighty hind

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

I used that picture to pinpoint to on a main "buff" change regarding ammocount and firerates(iirc hind have most physical ROF ingame atm due to bug in dice engine with batches in multibarrels), optics is different story.

Regarding your optics researches on GOES-342 system. Sadly, but that's not applied to in-game versions of helicopter because we're using old non-modernized hinds.

why not just add it to the old hinds as a stopgap wile we don't have new models?

[Mineral]

That's not how we do things. This ain't BF4 But if you make the model for us then surely that would help a long way

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

That's not how we do things. This ain't BF4 But if you make the model for us then surely that would help a long way

what? how about MEC representing a lot of factions and the T-62 being a stopgap to the T-55 in some maps and factions that never comes out?

[Mineral]

T-62 is not on any faction where it doesn't belong? Militia and FSA only. Both actually known to use them?
MEC only uses vehicles that are used by countries in the middle-east? Anyway, that's not really comparable anyway.

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T72 variant like ours, and adding barrel launched ATGM for it, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

[X-Alt]

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T72 variant like ours, and adding barrel launched ATGM for it, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T-72 variant like ours, and adding a French TIS and IR blocking smoke, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

[Roque_THE_GAMER]

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T-72 variant like ours, and adding a French TIS and IR blocking smoke, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

i dont get it.

[camo]

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T-72 variant like ours, and adding a French TIS and IR blocking smoke, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

hue cheeky, t72 doesn't have ir blocking smoke, commander no longer has TIS. Gunner kept it because people would complain.

[Armchairman_Mao]

hue cheeky, t72 doesn't have ir blocking smoke, commander no longer has TIS. Gunner kept it because people would complain.

I thought T-72 was a placeholder for T-72B or something, since it's symmetrically "balanced" to M1 Abrams and L2.

[[F|H]Zackyx]

T-62 is not on any faction where it doesn't belong? Militia and FSA only. Both actually known to use them?
MEC only uses vehicles that are used by countries in the middle-east? Anyway, that's not really comparable anyway.

You are talking about altering vehicle capabilities on vehicles without having the visual aspect on there. For example would be the same as using a old T72 variant like ours, and adding barrel launched ATGM for it, just cause newer models have them. Not something we like to do.

I'm sorry but this something that you do quite a lot :

1) Cobra having in-game 2 X 7 rockets pod while in game having 32 rockets
2) Chinese Z-10 having a 23mm Gatling gun while in real life it has a 30 MM canon
3) German Tiger using french models without canon as a place older
4) Using bell uh-1n as a place holder for the UH-1Y Venom
5) Using a weird AH-1W as a place older for the "AH-1Z" ?
6) Using a Mi-28A (prototype that never entered service and was canceled) as a place holder for the Mi-28N
7) Using the same Mi-24 model with all the weapons still attached (2x30mm + 20XSturms ATGM!!! + 64Xrokets) For the light and heavy version. And what is a bit strange on that model is that there is a 8Xshturm pod fixed on the inner pylon of the wing something impossible since Russians never use inner pylons ATGM on there choppers for multiple reason.

And i could add more examples... I'm not trying to be a "smart-***" by pointing this out but i understand that PR is a community driven project and that some compromise must be made in order to add diversity to the game. By trying to be too realistic you are limiting the "game play" and you are creating some anachronism that should not happen.

PS: i hope that you are not going to remove those asset for the sake of realism ?

[rPoXoTauJIo]

Zackyx;2105713']I'm sorry but this something that you do quite a lot :

1) Cobra having in-game 2 X 7 rockets pod while in game having 32 rockets
2) Chinese Z-10 having a 23mm Gatling gun while in real life it has a 30 MM canon
3) German Tiger using french models without canon as a place older
4) Using bell uh-1n as a place holder for the UH-1Y Venom
5) Using a weird AH-1W as a place older for the "AH-1Z" ?
6) Using a Mi-28A (prototype that never entered service and was canceled) as a place holder for the Mi-28N
7) Using the same Mi-24 model with all the weapons still attached (2x30mm + 20XSturms ATGM!!! + 64Xrokets) For the light and heavy version. And what is a bit strange on that model is that there is a 8Xshturm pod fixed on the inner pylon of the wing something impossible since Russians never use inner pylons ATGM on there choppers for multiple reason.

And i could add more examples... I'm not trying to be a "smart-***" by pointing this out but i understand that PR is a community driven project and that some compromise must be made in order to add diversity to the game. By trying to be too realistic you are limiting the "game play" and you are creating some anachronism that should not happen.

PS: i hope that you are not going to remove those asset for the sake of realism ?

Inb4 chnagelog 1.3.7.1:
VEHICLES:

• Updated Cobra to have only 14 FFARs. #refs3828
• Removed German EuroTiger as placeholder had bad quality and did not represented absence of cannon. #refs3828
• Removed Z-10 due to problem with vbf2 turret not representing real-life caliber. #refs3828
• Removed UH-1N, not used anymore by Marines. #refs3828
• Removed Cobra due to problems with non-realistic model failing to represent in-game AH-1Z. #refs3828
• Removed Mi-28 as being prototype and had never used in Russian\Any arabic countries. #refs3828
• Removed Mi-24 due to model failing to represent real life weapons. #refs3828

Regarding mi-24 optics case, thanks for than note, we're looking onto it.