Helo-Helo Combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


StrongHarm -> Helo-Helo Combat (9/7/2021 12:59:54 PM)

Someone made a youtube vid of a battle in DCS between 100 Apaches and Hinds. My first thought was "if you want to simulate something like this, DCS is not the proper platform". So I jumped in CMO and tried to create the scenario. The problem is that the guns on the Apache don't show Helicopters as valid targets. The Guns on the Hind will fire at helos. Likewise, the missiles on each helo don't show helos as valid targets. Now, you and I know that helos don't go air-to-air very often, but it does happen. Likewise, I looked at the Abrams cannon and it also doesn't show Helos as valid targets, which should not be the case.

What can I do to put together an engagement between Helos and force the weapons to attack non-valid targets? Is a request for a db change my only recourse?




temkc5 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/7/2021 10:09:19 PM)

too good not to share

https://youtu.be/vjffM_4Dkcc

have you checked WRA?




kevinkins -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/7/2021 11:46:35 PM)

The choppers depicted here would be downed by simple layers of AA or a flight of 4 F-15s. Or small arms would take them down in an urban setting. See what happened here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

Attack choppers like the Apache will never see combat in mass over ground. Perhaps off of carriers as individuals over water. You can hear a single Apache from miles away ... not good for survival.








StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 4:17:28 AM)

As I said, it's not common that you'd see helo against helo, but it is something I wanted to simulate to illustrate the superior scenario accuracy of CMO.

During the beginning of Desert Storm I saw dozens of Apaches fly into the AO en mass. At first I thought it was gnats in front of my eyes and tried to swipe them away. Then I realized it was small specs in the distance. They went in first and took out command and control and radar before the rest of the air cover came in (read up on 'Task Force Normandy' if you aren't familiar).

They were designed in '75 during the cold war, for combat en mass over the ground. They were intended to be an anti-tank force multiplier (16 to 1) much like the A-10 Warthog. They're the "heavy ninjas" of the battlefield. They're not loud until it's too late. They're capable of NOE bounding overwatch while hiding behind terrain and buildings. If you'd asked me what would give me dread on the battle field most; arty, tank, plane, or attack helo.. attack helo would win, hands down.

Of course, they have a different mission these days, but who knows what near peer engagements might require of them in the future.




StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 4:26:57 AM)

temkc5, thanks for the suggestion. I did open WRA up and that didn't work. The problem lies with the Valid Target values of the weapons. The cannon on the Hind has 'Helicopter' as a Valid Target, but not the AT-6. The Apache cannon and Hellfires both lack Helicopter as Valid Target. I put in a request for the values to be added to the database and added the scripts. I was hoping there was another way to achieve a workaround because I'm sure the devs are busy with more important requests.


INSERT INTO DataWeaponTargets (ID,CodeID)
VALUES ('2001','1002');

INSERT INTO DataWeaponTargets (ID,CodeID)
VALUES ('28','1002');

INSERT INTO DataWeaponTargets (ID,CodeID)
VALUES ('1042','1002');




Kushan04 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 6:48:17 AM)

Someones been watching too much Firebirds.

The hellfire isn't capable of attacking aircraft so that ones not going to happen. AT-6 can theoretically do it but because its a contact fuse, not sure how its modeled in game, it needs a direct hit which is extremely unlikely vs another helicopter. Not sure if the guns on either are capable since helo vs helo combat has been pretty much non-existant.

If you want to use Apaches in helo vs helo combat, most loadouts carry the stinger A2A missile.

On the opfor side could use the Russian 2022 Hokum B with Igla-V missiles rather then the Hinds.




StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 7:25:21 AM)

Kushan, thank you. Yeah I know.. a mostly unlikely scenario.. but I'm trying to recreate a simulation that was done in another platform.. one which encourages unlikely scenarios [:)]. The scenario I'm recreating specifically used primary A2G missiles and cannons. (also, the stinger was never really used from helos (although they fit them for a while) nor was the Igla.)

However, for the sake of discussion, if a tank round is a threat for an Attack Helo, I'm not sure how a missile moving at 1400fps, which is only slightly slower than a 120mm round, is not. In line battle in a large engagement where both sides have many tanks and many helos (to counteract those tanks) exists... is it so unlikely that those helos might engage one another, particularly when they have better LOS and standoff range? 100 Apaches against 100 Hinds? LOL! A lot would have to go wrong and the planets would have to align just so... no doubt.

SideNote: It's worth consideration that high flying and fast "strafing" attack helo tactics are used in environments where air dominance has been established, while low and slow "mask and popup" maneuvers are used in near peer air parity environments.




tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 12:09:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

Someones been watching too much Firebirds.

The hellfire isn't capable of attacking aircraft so that ones not going to happen. AT-6 can theoretically do it but because its a contact fuse, not sure how its modeled in game, it needs a direct hit which is extremely unlikely vs another helicopter. Not sure if the guns on either are capable since helo vs helo combat has been pretty much non-existant.

If you want to use Apaches in helo vs helo combat, most loadouts carry the stinger A2A missile.

On the opfor side could use the Russian 2022 Hokum B with Igla-V missiles rather then the Hinds.


Apparently they can target aerial threats and that dual use capability seems to be part of the reason it is used on the M-SHORAD. Seems the Israelis have downed a Lebanese Cessna and an Iranian UAV.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/05/24/israel.plane.02/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Jt_Vy4Mj0
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-761410,00.html




Kushan04 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 4:16:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon
Apparently they can target aerial threats and that dual use capability seems to be part of the reason it is used on the M-SHORAD. Seems the Israelis have downed a Lebanese Cessna and an Iranian UAV.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades


You're wrong. The Hellfire isn't used on the SHORAD for air defense, its used to give the SHORAD battery a limited anti-armour capability.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/05/24/israel.plane.02/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Jt_Vy4Mj0
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-761410,00.html


No where in there does it say the hellfire specifically was used to shoot down anything. I'll grant you the UAV was shot down my a missile but it could easily have been a stinger or some other missile the Israelis mounted on a helo.




robertqin -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 5:48:14 PM)

I am wondering why would the OP consider CMO a superior simulator than DCS in this specific case? CMO is a much higher level (in terms of scale) simulator and a lot of low level details are abstracted. For example:
Most ac serving the same role in the same era have the exactly same altitude bands and speed bands with a few exceptions. Helos are like this as well.
Evasive maneuver is very simplified and hit prob is really just prob based.
Abstraction of close range combat, especially gun fires. Different kinds of shells having the exact same speed (too slow in many cases, for example APFSDS needs to fly a few seconds to reach max distance in game, slow enough that the tank can fire a second shell before the first lands), able to fire at maximum engagement distance regardless of terrain (sometimes itís wonky even with terrain effects on gun fire on) and with high PoH at that range.
Again effect of terrain is very simplified. Try mask and pop up with helos in CMO. It wonít work unless you are behind a hill of hundreds of meters.
Automatic weapons are fired in fixed volleys with PoH and damage calculated that way.
Damage model is also probability based and not place of hit based.
Armor value is for the entire unit and not taking different places of the vehicle into account.
No unit collision or friendly fire (except got caught in the blast radius, but you canít be targeted by friendlies or get caught by stray rounds).

Now I am not ripping CMO. It is a wonderful game and these low level details are not in any way important given the scale of the game. Itís just not the tool for the kind of thing the OP wants.

I only have limited experience with DCS, but as a low level simulator it does simulate all these pretty well, much better than CMO does.

In addition, a hellfire is much slower than a 120mm round. It has a max speed of Mach 1.3 which is 446m/s, basically equal to the1400fps number the OP gave. A 120mm APFSDS flies at 1600m/s to 1800m/s depending on the type (l recall DU rounds have a slower optimal speed than Tungsten rounds and thus a bit slower by design). Thatís roughly four times as fast. Even the slower HEAT and HE rounds reach 1000m/s mark as I recall.




StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 8:00:30 PM)

Although I've performed multiple roles for the U.S. Military and DOD over many years, I'm very careful about telling someone they're "wrong" about anything concerning military hardware. Of course, we all have our perceptions of performance, capabilities, and purpose, but unless we're actually tasked with using that system *right now* it's hard to be so sure that it's worth a confrontation. The gap between perception and reality can sometimes turn around and bite you.

If someone said "Those Strykers look cool with the lasers on top" you'd say "You're wrong!".. buuuut:
search "army advances first laser weapon through combat shoot off" (sorry I can't post links)

Another example; is that a SHORAD fired Hellfire hitting an air target, or is it a Stinger that needs to go on a diet?:
search you tube "Stryker A1 IM-SHORAD in Action - US Army New Air Defense Vehicle" at 28sec

Concept:
As part of multi-domain integrated air defense philosophies, they wanted a missile that could be effective offensively defensively. Here's a conference where they discuss the plan. (Also, you can see a Hellfire being launched at an air target then a ground target in the previous video)
search you tube "Distributed Defense: New Operational Concepts for Integrated Air and Missile Defense"

Testing:
The Longbow Hellfire missile, although originally designed as an air-to-ground tank-killing missile, has recently shown success in destroying Unmanned Aircraft Systems targets. A variety of other missiles will also be tested as part of the Engineering Demonstration at White Sands Missile Range.
search "US army successfully fires missile from new interceptor launch platform"

M-SHORAD with Hellfire now deployed:
ďalready successfully fired Hellfire, AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles and other weapons as a mobile air-defense weapon. It is showing great promise in testing, fires multiple missiles.."
search "bulletpoints stryker msl shorad russia europe"

IM-SHORAD - it appears that the SHORAD uses Stingers for light air threats, and Hellfires for larger armored air threats:
*Two Hellfire missiles, capable of hitting both air and ground targets. Hellfire has not only a larger warhead than the Armyís standard Stinger anti-aircraft missile (18-20 pounds vs. 6.6) but a long range than the TOW anti-tank missiles on its M2 Bradleys and ATGM Strykers (5 miles vs. at most 2.8).
*Four Stinger missiles for less well-armored aircraft targets, in a new quad launcher put together by Raytheon.
search "army anti aircraft stryker can kill tanks too"

Fires Bulletin:
L7A Hellfire missiles capable of air-to-air engagements of enemy helicopters and some tactical UASs
search "army mil fires bulletin archive nov dec"

Hellfires are also being fired from the Multi-Missile Launcher (MML) for air defense:
Mobility - Road-mobile; Mounted atop a medium tactical truck
Targets - Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), cruise missiles, rockets, artillery, and mortars
Role - Short and medium range multi mission air defense system
Interceptors - AIM-9X Sidewinder, Miniature Hit-to-Kill, Lockheed Martinís Longbow Hellfire, Raytheonís Stinger, Rafaelís Tamir




StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 8:04:37 PM)

robertqin, I was a military engineer and I was an SME for DCS. You'll find this same name in the software credits. You're right that individual equipment is modeled in exacting detail in DCS, down to rivet physics.. and that does differ from CMO. However CMO models widescale values and variables better on the macro level where it counts for modeling engagements. The Pentagon uses CMOpe to wargame, in fact.

To put it in a not entirely accurate but more understandable way; the AI in DCS is more confused than the AI in CMO.




robertqin -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 8:35:08 PM)

I see. Perhaps I was focusing too much on fine details and missing big pictures. I would imagine PE version is like a completely different piece of software though, with additional features, MP(so we donít need to deal with confused AI, just confused human), and most importantly I assume much better and accurate DB, plus maybe with less abstraction. I can only learn about PE from what people said on this forum though so this interpretation might not be accurate.

With all the abstraction in the commercial version of CMO I still do not think it would be much better than DCS in this case, but perhaps on an equal footing while touching on different aspects of the engagement.




StrongHarm -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 9:00:50 PM)

I didn't know whether I'd get an answer to my question here, but what I really didn't expect was a large number of posts detailing how my question is wrong. Interesting debate forum.




Airborne Rifles -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/8/2021 9:17:12 PM)

Hi StrongHarm, I haven't looked specifically into the weapons you're using to simulate the engagement, but if the database doesn't list helos as valid targets for the weapons you're trying to use, then your best bet is to request a database update in the db forum.

Regarding your posts about helicopters and SHORAD, I think you're right on the money. I've often thought a rotary wing deep strike mission would be very cool to simulate in CMO, but I think the scenario designer would need to extensively use LUA to simulate SEAD by artillery to make it realistic and viable. I definitely think it could be done, though, with special actions simulating the effect of artillery suppression instead of having the actual batteries shooting in the sim.




tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/10/2021 1:06:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon
Apparently they can target aerial threats and that dual use capability seems to be part of the reason it is used on the M-SHORAD. Seems the Israelis have downed a Lebanese Cessna and an Iranian UAV.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades


You're wrong. The Hellfire isn't used on the SHORAD for air defense, its used to give the SHORAD battery a limited anti-armour capability.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tylerblakebrandon
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/05/24/israel.plane.02/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Jt_Vy4Mj0
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-761410,00.html


No where in there does it say the hellfire specifically was used to shoot down anything. I'll grant you the UAV was shot down my a missile but it could easily have been a stinger or some other missile the Israelis mounted on a helo.


I didn't write this stuff. But this is what's out there. If an F-16 can pop a cruise missile with a APKWS a chopper or a SHORAD shooting down a chopper or a Cessna with a Hellfire doesn't seem so far fetched. Especially for the 114L with ARH.

From https://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/
"The Hellfire can be used as an air-to-ground or an air-to-air missile. The AGM-114 provides precision striking against tanks, structures, bunkers and helicopters. The missile can be guided towards the objective either from inside the aircraft or by lasers outside the aircraft."

From https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/
"RIwP allows for different weapon configurations, including a pair of AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire air-to-surface missiles capable of defeating air and ground targets and four Raytheonís Stinger man-portable air defence systems for engaging light armoured air targets within a range of 4,800m.

The Hellfire missile, which incorporates a millimetre-wave guidance system and fire-and-forget system, offers superior firepower."

From https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40311/the-army-has-started-fielding-its-first-new-short-range-air-defense-system-in-decades
"On the other side, there are two launch rails for millimeter-wave radar-guided AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles. The AGM-114L is in U.S. military service today primarily as an air-to-surface and surface-to-surface weapon, but it has a demonstrated secondary surface-to-air capability against slower-flying threats."


Some additional commentary:
Granted this one says hovering helicopters
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/03/22/agm-114-hellfire-missile/
"he missile is used to target armored vehicles, including tanks, bunkers, radar systems and antennas, communications equipment, soft targets, or hovering helicopters."

From https://www.military.com/equipment/agm-114-hellfire
"Hellfire is an air-to-ground, laser guided, subsonic missile with significant anti-tank capacity. It can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft.

Hellfire can be used as an air-to-air or an air-to-ground missile. The Air-to-Ground (AGM)-114 provides precision striking power against tanks, structures, bunkers and helicopters."

From https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/
"Two Hellfire missiles, capable of hitting both air and ground targets. Hellfire has not only a larger warhead than the Armyís standard Stinger anti-aircraft missile (18-20 pounds vs. 6.6) but a long range than the TOW anti-tank missiles on its M2 Bradleys and ATGM Strykers (5 miles vs. at most 2.8)."




Kushan04 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/10/2021 3:53:55 PM)

Edit: Nevermind, not worth arguing about.




tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/10/2021 4:33:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

Edit: Nevermind, not worth arguing about.


I'm not looking to argue. Rather just to debate the validity of statements/claims made in the defense press. I'll grant I have not been able to find any corroborating documentation linking the Hellfire specifically to the Israeli incidents the news coverage is claimed for. But other sources clearly make the claim and I for one am interested in any commentary/insight regarding those claims either for or against them.




Twistedpretzel -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/10/2021 10:04:07 PM)

Nice to see additional capabilities fleshed out with our equipment. That video of the hellfire hitting an aerial target is very neat, especially seeing the effect of its shaped charge warhead against that type of target.




1nutworld -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/11/2021 11:12:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: temkc5

too good not to share

https://youtu.be/vjffM_4Dkcc

have you checked WRA?


Someone in that digital world will have a gold mine of a time finding shell casings for the collectable market! [:'(]




Gunner98 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/11/2021 9:11:39 PM)

I just watched that video, it seems so wrong on so many levels. The root of my thought is ---- why?

The Hind & the Apache are designed for two different armies to fit two different doctrines. They are not the same, they are not comparable and they are not designed to fight each other.

So if they can, isn't that sort of moot? Why would they?

Aviation deep strike, yes. How do you kill Hinds or Apache - airburst artillery or MLRS DPICM while they're FARPing

Aviation maneuver, yes. How do you beat Hinds or Apache - make sure you're maneuvering where they aren't

Really scratching my head on this one. Why?




1nutworld -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/11/2021 11:36:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I just watched that video, it seems so wrong on so many levels. The root of my thought is ---- why?

The Hind & the Apache are designed for two different armies to fit two different doctrines. They are not the same, they are not comparable and they are not designed to fight each other.

So if they can, isn't that sort of moot? Why would they?

Really scratching my head on this one. Why?


This is the GTA-type video game mentality at work, just because a platform CAN do something, doesn't mean it "could" or "should". World of Tanks, World of Warships combined with "why not" mentality is why these types of things are done for YouTube views, and that is one of MY own personal fears of multiplayer in CMO, that people won't care if a platform CAN or SHOULD do "something" we are going to make it do it just because we can. instead of using whatever the platform is designed to do in reality.




AndrewJ -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/12/2021 12:25:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Really scratching my head on this one. Why?


There's a whole bunch of videos like this, where absurd quantities of aircraft are pitted against each other in bizarre situations. The intent isn't to make a militarily sound scenario, but just to make a humorous spectacle showing off what the software and computer hardware can do. I doubt any of the creators intend them to be taken seriously (I hope).




thewood1 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/12/2021 12:49:35 AM)

People who are into things like that tend to miss the point of CMO. If you like it, thats great for you. But I miss the relevancy to CMO. CMO's point is sandbox in the context of somewhat realistic force on force. Its like some World of Tanks arguments that get dragged into Steel Beasts threads with absolutely no context to the combined arms scenarios that Steel beasts players tend to build.

Should mass helo on helo encounters be represented in CMO? Maybe. But its going to end up being such a rare tactical encounter in the scheme of a CMO scenario, I hope its a relatively low priority.

As to ATGM being used to attack helos, in Steel Beasts, ATGM can be used on slow or hovering helos. Common sense would also say that would be a potential use. I would also expect that there are limitations based on guidance and maneuverability that would come into play.




Kushan04 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/12/2021 2:01:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
People who are into things like that tend to miss the point of CMO. If you like it, thats great for you. But I miss the relevancy to CMO. CMO's point is sandbox in the context of somewhat realistic force on force. Its like some World of Tanks arguments that get dragged into Steel Beasts threads with absolutely no context to the combined arms scenarios that Steel beasts players tend to build.

Should mass helo on helo encounters be represented in CMO? Maybe. But its going to end up being such a rare tactical encounter in the scheme of a CMO scenario, I hope its a relatively low priority.


Couldn't agree more.

While I'll concede the army was going to use hellfires as an anti-air weapon, its a mute point now since they just cancelled it on the Strykers and instead are going with the 8 stingers they should have used in the first place.

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1436501493427834882?s=20




thewood1 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/12/2021 12:34:46 PM)

With something like the Hellfire and the length of time its in service, it can also be very dependent on the timeframe and version of the missile that was used. Only recently has the the Hellfire been deployed with a multi-sensor and multi guidance capability. The laser guided version is pretty straight forward against slow or hovering helos. But the L version's radar guidance is built more for large metal objects on the ground. It might not have the capability against flying helos. I'm not sure there is any public info on it.

Went back and checked and it looks like none of the Apaches are Longbow variants. So they would most likely have been laser-guided.




tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/13/2021 12:18:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kushan04

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
People who are into things like that tend to miss the point of CMO. If you like it, thats great for you. But I miss the relevancy to CMO. CMO's point is sandbox in the context of somewhat realistic force on force. Its like some World of Tanks arguments that get dragged into Steel Beasts threads with absolutely no context to the combined arms scenarios that Steel beasts players tend to build.

Should mass helo on helo encounters be represented in CMO? Maybe. But its going to end up being such a rare tactical encounter in the scheme of a CMO scenario, I hope its a relatively low priority.


Couldn't agree more.

While I'll concede the army was going to use hellfires as an anti-air weapon, its a mute point now since they just cancelled it on the Strykers and instead are going with the 8 stingers they should have used in the first place.

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1436501493427834882?s=20


The idea of the crew reloading Hellfires from the descriptions in the press seemed to cumbersome and seeing it in the video in the link proves it. Having that punch against a ground unit with the ability to also employ it against certain aerial threats is a certainly cool and definitely concept (with any suitable ordnance) worth pursuing for a ground force but the employment and reloading of the 8 stinger option is the most practicable at present. Truthfully at present the Hellfires could be employed better elsewhere for just 2 ready rounds per Stryker.




Gunner98 -> RE: Helo-Helo Combat (9/13/2021 9:47:07 PM)

Just caught this vid on Twitter: https://twitter.com/i/status/1437530460318584838

Ground launched ATGM at a Gazelle. Caption here:

In this brief video capture you can even hear the ATGM approaching my aircraft and just missing me by a few meters.

Very impressive work on the sound design by
@eagledynamics
#DCSWorld is truly an amazing experience. Even more so in VR.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0546875