Leaderboard

As mentioned by Ethereal and others, you're definitely not the only RL pilot on these boards, nor are you the only one who knows people in the AH field. In fact, speaking of Apache experts, a certain famous British pilot had quite a few nice things to say about this sim. If you're not familiar with Ed Macy, a google search will inform you that he is a highly accomplished British Apache pilot, and after a forum search you'll find some of the positive things he's had to say on this very forum. Furthermore it seems Mr. Macy was impressed enough with the sim to lend his knowledge and talents to the Leading Edge Training project for DCS: Black Shark. Along those lines, a current active duty Mi-24 pilot has also had very positive things to say about the sim, and is easily one of the most prolific and valued 3rd party contributors to the English DCS community. Now, I bet not a single person in this thread will claim that this sim is 100% perfect. In fact I recall the posts of another subject matter expert, an Mi-17 crew chief who I believe is currently flying missions in Afghanistan, who has criticized some of the finer details of the sim's autopilot implementation. And guess what, there was not a single inflamed response to his criticisms, not a single accusation of "troll" or "noob." There are three reasons for this difference, in order of ascending importance: 1. Being an Mi-17 crew chief, he is intimately familiar with many of the components that are on the Ka-50 (the engines, for example, are very similiar between the BS and Mi-17). 2. Unlike you, he has quite a bit of stick time behind the DCS: Ka-50, and is familiar enough with the sim to be able to tell the difference between a bug or incorrect implementation, and user error. (See my last post explaining how AFAIK noone with reasonable stick time has any problems whatsoever with autohover.) 3. Despite the fact that he's easily one of the most qualified subject matter experts on this board, not once did he display the arrogant know-it-all attitude that infects your every post. This is an extremely detailed and complicated sim, and yet after less than a week of flying in realism mode (as can be deduced from your post history), you've got it in your mind that you know better than everyone else in this thread, and that you're competent enough to know with absolute certainty that your piloting skills are not at fault for the erroneous behaviors you describe. Basically, you started on a low point by naming this thread what you did, and amazingly each post has been going further downhill. If you want to redeem yourself (and from what I've seen this community truly believes in forgiveness, and will embrace you as soon as you learn a bit of humility), your first step should be to stop asserting your opinions as facts and acknowledge, at least for now, that they may be uninformed opinions. The second step from there will be to post more tracks showing the perceived issues in the sim. From there, we can proceed on a constructive discussion and get to the bottom of your issues. Either you're doing something wrong, in which case we'll be very happy to offer assistance, or there truly is a problem in the sim, in which case we can present the issue to the developers. If you decide on this course of action, I would recommend to let this thread die, and to start a new one with tracks attached and with a better thread title.

Модель повреждений с добавлением эфекта спекуляра и бампа.

Well ChromeWasp, I wish I could say it was nice knowing you for this brief stint, but I'm going to count myself out of this charade because I feel it's gone on long enough. You've been offered loads of help by the very generous members/mods on the forums and you're attitude and lack of chivalry is more than I choose to deal with. I commend those who still have the patience to continue and offer this "avid simmer/pilot/programmer know it all" support. If one person is logical and the other is a fool, you won't make any progress. - stalemate.

Some shots from Farnborough this year:

Just my 2 cents: Like Grimes said, ERI is great when considered a realism mod. The problem is that there are capabilities of the Soviet Aircraft's electronics combat suites that are not currently modeled into the game nor is there a mod for them. I would say keep ERI in single player or in servers that actually allow it until at least one of the Soviet aircraft has a mod to model more realistic capabilities of the electronics combat suite. Then we'd be on our way to a realism mod (now - if someone can model in wing flex too lol!) Nothing wrong with ERI, but when compared to the lack of features availabel in other aircraft, it does give the F-15 a sizeable advantage. Would love to see a comparable (realistic) mod for the SU-27 or the MiG-29. If the community put as much effort into actually helping advance the sim rather than bickering about someone who is trying to do just that, then maybe it would be further along :)

Обнаружил сегодня глюк с дозаправкой на земле и сливом топлива, смотрите трек: TMS_12-30.miz.trk

the physics and flight model in this simulator are not realistic at all hard to fly - yes realistic - no in fact this helicopter feels like a paper bag even at 200 kph it rocks and jumps about as if there is no airflow outside at all - look at it in outside view! its as if the mass has been set to 500 kg instead of 10,000 kg taking off often results in a 720 degree spin - if you watch the outside view you can see the broken contact physics between the wheels and the ground where did all the torque come from? it is contra-rotating fcs! this is no fun - there are some great simulation ideas here - but the overall package is just a paper bag full of bugs unless you are flying with the autopilot in either route or hover mode this feels like a robinson r22 full of helium combined with never ending short comings in the software design itself: - limited control mapping options - bad window management - constant minor glitches - inconsistent and incomplete and badly designed documentation the idea is ok - the execution lacking - another nail in the coffin of the sim industry

Hallo! Habe eine (halbwegs) übersichtliche Tabelle mit der Tastaturbelegung der einzelnen Flugzeuge in FC 2.0 gebastelt. Hat mir vor allem bei der Joystickbelegung geholfen. - Man sieht auf einem Blick jene Funktionen, die bei jedem Flieger gleich sind und kann sie nun einer bestimmten Taste am Joystick zuteilen. Vielleicht kann's wer brauchen. LG Kaupe Tastaturbelegung_FC2_0.pdf

I have no Idea myself but If I had to guess, I would think he is saying something like " now I'll show you how it's done" or maybe " now we are going to have some fun" I almost forgot he has no tail rotor, because for a moment when he started spinning, I thought he said " Oh $#!^ no tail rotor" :joystick: Great video though, thank you for posting. I wish we could get a Russian speaker to help translate some of these other videos, I would love to understand what is being said in those documentary's.

In 3:33 pilot is talking something, can someone translate for me pls? :)

Not funny, just didn't wanted to start a new thread, simply awesome. That what takes just an eyeblink streached in to a minute... http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/8010584/21245351

a reasonable technique is to trim the helicopter for hover then switch FD on and HOVER off for manoevring then as you pull up into a hover turn FD off and the AP will mostly take care of the rest you can use shkval to designate and scan then ... once velocity vector is zero activate HOVER and confirm holding then ATTACK! that is 2 button presses to exit hover and 2 to regain (the other technique is that I learn to fly better) BS is the best simulator i have :) (re:cpu I am ashamed to name it) where can I find some good track files?

my system specs are well above *minimum* and all well above *recommended* except for cpu I have 4gb physical 3.25gb available to winxp gpu is GTS250 with 512 at 1024 it is mostly ok - but still dips to 10/12 fps regularly I wrote black shark startup script that shuts down all non-essential services and system trays etc. nothing is interfering yes i have debug version of dx as i am dx programmer no it doesn't make any difference unless i use dx control panel to activate it using av8r-01 joystick with trackir 4 pro i don't like heavily sprung joysticks as i am used to flying with finger pressure av8r lets me adjust the springs (couple of cable ties do it nicely) yes i understand the old and new (central position) trimming system and its problems yes i have set adequate deadzones to avoid locking issues yes i have tested what happens if I don't return to center I understand how the autopilot works I understand the difference between active trim (fd off) and passive trim (fd on) I know when the AP trys to maintain airspeed versus pitch I know when the AP trys to maintain heading/track versus bank I understand the autopilot has only 20% authority from the trimmed positions I have tested all my assumptions and the AP works as expected EXCEPT I believe there is a bug related to auto-hover, here is the simple proof: - if I activate auto-hover with fd *on* and I follow the guidance, I will return to hover point quickly and easily and with nowhere near 20% deflection - if I activate auto-hover with fd *off* the AP *should* follow the same guidance but it does not - in fact it cannot overcome even a 5 kph velocity vector now that could be due to wind - so I tested it on a mission with 0 wind further proof - when the auto-hover is holding the hover point - you can FEEL and SEE the AP working with changes in attitude but when it is drifting - you can feel NOTHING - it simply isn't trying now if it tried and failed to overcome the trim or wind or whatever - I could accept that why would you spend millions on developing an attack helicopter optimized for a single flight crew and then create such a weak auto-hover? that is precisely the feature that allows the pilot to handle the workload NEXT POINT about "realistic" simulators using computer monitors and trackirs isn't the same as reality many things are different - in reality I would glance at a switch and then my hand would find it with trackir i have to stare at it, hold my head still, and carefully guide my mouse more importantly you can not feel any forces in your body and also the resolution is never as good this means that to make a computer simulation feel realistic - it has to depart from reality to overcome the differences a crass example is the size of doors in video games - they are 10 feet wide and 16 feet tall! if they were sized like real doors you couldn't walk through them like real doors because in the simulation your senses are DULLED this applies to this case - maybe the auto-hover specification is *exactly correct* but then that is the mistake - as we will never have the same sensory information as a real pilot the simulation now STOPS being realistic and starts being PEDANTIC in real life I should be able to come to a hard tactical stop - down to *almost* zero and engage auto-hover and concentrate on my weapons - that is the whole point in the aircraft this simulator fails to simulate the most important feature

First Airbases with functionnal lights Fayzabad Termez Konduz Mazar e sharif

Свежачок... по ощущениям наверно это самая жесткая панель за всю кабину была, много мелких деталей, а видно только при сильном желании, 3.14к треугольников

Modernised Su 27UB M2 from Kazakhstan Air force. Note the Litening pod under the fuselage. Nice line up, from L to R: SU-27UB M2, MiG-31, MiG-29, MiG-27 and Su-25. Kazakhstan Air Force. Best regards!

ну наверное потому как противоракетные маневры аля ГС1 в ГС2 не работают. Кадушка во всяком случае. А новых пока не придумали :) .... шутка. Просто стало все сложнее и уже нет универсальной тАблЭтки... тактические, гарантированные отвороты, змейки остались но терь их юзанье зависит от кучи факторов.

Wsadfsdf sdhfs fsdhf sdfsjggy sadfsdgf gsdggg sdfkjhhhs sdfsfsdfs! Makes about as much sense as stating that this sim does not have a realistic flight model. I have had an SH-60B and an MH-60R pilot fly this sim and they were blown away.

Not as far as I know. PhysX is what they use to make ragdoll physics a.o. It's more about explosions than continuously calculated dynamic simulations. So, let me get this straight... people need to qualify before you allow them to help you? Let me put it this way: wether or not you can fly your helicopter, or like the product... WE DON'T CARE. It will not affect our fun in any way. We enjoy the product, we enjoy the helicopter. So it's only your own enjoyment that's on the line here. The stance you are taking, the arrogance, the infallible belief that you are the absolute authority on simulations and how a helicopter should fly, make sure your chances of being helped are dwindling. -Z

Please bear with us. We have a failed video card on our server and are awaiting a replacement. The performance is some what reduced temporarily as we are using the on board video until the new card arrives at the co-location. We apologize for any inconvenience. Out

It will be stand alone. You will not need Black Shark or Lock On prior to installing it. Nate

lol! I was waiting for that to come up!:D Well said, +1.

TROLL successful - YOU WIN 17-pages of nonsense .

I'd have to disagree with you there. My understanding is that the Module - Base simulation separation is central to the DCS software design and that the Module interoperability is a central goal of the DCS Series. Nate

Oh boy… well, sure that’s a perfect way to cut all discussion. Who knows, maybe Russians have flying saucers with Mach 20 and turbophasers capability…? There are proofs that some missiles are in early stages of development(like R-77M, K-172) and sometimes the development is frozen due to lack of funding. They didn’t even have money to buy baseline R-77. There are more urgent needs than development of a new super-duper missile. Tell me – why would they want to develop such missile if they haven’t modernized their aircrafts to be able to launch such missile? Now when numbers of aircrafts which are able to fly is getting slimmer and slimmer they must have been utterly stupid to put money in development of a secret missiles which are completely useless for them. BTW: they recently developed RVV-SD (R-77 with bigger motor and probably other upgrades) and the missile is intended to fly with (for example)Su-35BM. Why are they developing inferior RVV-SD if they have developed superior R-77M?

Сделайте ещё одно волевое решение: включается пускай помеха сразу? а повторное ВКЛЮЧЕНИЕ- через 15 секунд! Если вы реально боретесь с частым включением и выключением- то это сработает!

That varies greatly ycodryn. I know people who went up in choppers with nothing but simulator experience and flew them just fine. Anecdotal evidence is worthless. That said: helicopters are more difficult to "fly" than most fixed-wing. This is nothing strange - it's just down to the fact that they fly in several regimes that have different behaviours associated to them. Though if you want to "lol" at gliders I would suggest that you try flying 1000km non-stop without an engine, or ascend to 16000m altitude with no engine. Let's also remember that in landing those things (which is relatively easy, admittedly) you only get one try. No such thing as a "go-around" when you don't have an engine. :) My point being: apples and oranges. There is no gain in making comparisons because the two do not use or require the same skillsets.

You won't notice a difference in FC2, since it's executeable only comes in 32bit. Development of a 64bit exe is ongoing for DCSW, though, which will grant larger missions with more units.

In America you fly helicopter. In Soviet Russia, helicopter flies YOU!

Here is DCS review by a real Apache pilot, Ed Macy. http://www.raes.org.uk/cms/uploaded/files/BlackSharkPCReview.pdf Also you cannot really compare it to Apache, since the design is different it has coaxial rotors. In fact Ka-50 should be easier to fly.

Originally Posted by ChromeWasp to put it to rest - I know somebody who works with "real" apache simulators and someone else who is apache engineer - I will show them this and see what they say - if they tell me attack helicopters handle like paper bags blowing in the wind and their APs have control authority of a budgie I will accept it! ChromeWasp, have you ever heard the name Ed Macy before ? He happens to be an RAF WAH64 Pilot, the UK version of the longbow Apache. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache Here is Ed's Twitter page, everybody has a Twitter page nowadays :helpsmilie: He has written a couple of books regarding flying and fighting in the WAH64 in Afghanistan. One of them is called Ed Macy Apache, I cant recall what the other is called, so you will have to forgive me, but Apache is a great book which I can fully recommend buying. He is also a member of these forums, he also has DCS Blackshark and he also gave it a GLOWING SEAL OF APPROVAL for its hi fidelity and exacting attention to detail. He even mentioned that the helicopter physics feel right and act like the real thing in regards to the helicopters he flies as he obviously hasnt flew the KA50 IRL. If you search the forum you shall find his posts. He also did a review when DCS BS first came out and he gave it the same glowing recommendation. So, Ed a real Apache Longbow pilot, not to mention the Russian Sniper Pilots whose input was used to make the game and also used to test it afterwards to see if the helo felt correct whilst in flight. Both of those Camps say that this sim really has the fidelity down to a T and, that the Helo flies and feels like the real deal. I would be more inclined to believe him/them, than say for example, yourself. If I just happened to join these forums today and asked a question about how the helo handles etc, and say I got a mixture of answers/replies from the above people I mentioned and also yourself, with your replies coming from several of your posts that you made in this particular thread. After reading and judging each answer/reply carefully, I would be more inclined to believe them than I would you, simply because they are actual Military Helicopter pilots, either working on the actual real ka50, or working on something similar in a different country. Both camps have the knowledge and skills to fly a real helicopter, they also have the same skills when it comes to flying in Military simulators or normal PC sim's like DCS BS whereby they can then judge if DCSBS feels the same as A, the Real helicopter and B, the Real Helicopters Training simulator. So, with everything they have gone through, Military training wise and flight wise, to then say that the sim has it down pat when it comes down to the way the Shark handles in flight, but you dont agree with them for whatever reason, which person do you think that the shit answer comes from ?

Condor is calculating a large scale wind and lift model, convection, ridge lift, wave effects, cloud formation and dissipation Condor has GPS, navigation, flight computer, moving maps, radio Condor supports > 60 way multiplayer (eg. 60 gliders on screen at one time - in same thermal) reliable enough to be used in major online gliding competitions with almost no glitches And runs perfectly well on a Pentium M with Intel graphics I see nothing in BS that requires much cpu and gpu resources except the graphics - in fact the physics belongs in the category that nvidia say "will run slower on a hardware accelerator" does BS use the PhysX on my GPU ?

Nice... one more I will not be getting :) but wait... maybe it would be good for my nephew :D

Do we have an existing "cool BS videos" thread? now that i am looking for them, i have found some pretty cool stuff!

Yes it would.;) A real DX Diag would be an eye opener. as posted above.

A-10,Su-25T,F-15C

The soundtrack creeps me out. I saw another clip from the same movie where he literaly uses the cannon to snipe people. Wish my shkval had his kind of zoom :D

I just died a little inside.

Can we(ED) make the sims better?

"Simulating" an environment, creating an Atmosphere, does not make the game a sim. Look at Bad Company 2/COD 4 ... The atmosphere in both these titles are REALLY good at certain locations etc, with battles going on all around you etc, but is it a sim? No. Doest Black Shark/FC 2 lack certain atmosphere etc? Yes.. Is A-10C trying to do something about that? Yes. Are we moving forward: Hell yes! :)

I fly a Eurofighter Typhoon 2 seater disgused as an Su-27, my co-pilot is Kate Beckinsale and my ground crew consists of Kelly Brook (fuel), Angelina Jolie (weapons) and Cheryl Cole (anything else).

here is a nice back ground for the computer... might burn a spot on your monitor http://www.centaf.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/081215-F-7823A-285.JPG

So far, no crashing in single player mode (was just doing the Quick Mission and flying around for an hour+). I did crash it once in local server multiplayer mode, on the same map that I crash on on 104th as a few copies got left behind in my temp folder after the crashes, and ended up with a similar but not quite identical .crash dump file. The odd thing about these tests is that my memory usage with this mission on 104th is ~1250MB to 1450MB. When playing the same map in multiplayer locally it is consuming ~1350 to 1550MB. When playing the Quick Mission it's ~1500 to 1600MB used. So it's not even memory accumulation or a 'leak' of memory not being deallocated causing it. Still testing I guess, as it takes time to build up the results, but wishing there was something better for debugging built in I could enable, to capture what's needed to identify the cause, as it's a royal pain. My online experience is akin to spending 30 mins flying farp to airfield, get shot down, flying farp to airfield, crash to desktop, then flying farp to airfield again... one hour 30 mins later, I get to fire my first shots, the team on the other side have already claimed their airport and are cleaning up the WP groups, and I'm about to start throwing heavy objects around the room :)

It was about that Su-30 and super-hornets are both very capable aircraft's and that both sides should spend money on training pilots, That will be the key to complete A2A/A2G missions if they would encounter in a fight. The point here is that F-18 dont have that great technological advantage over Su-30 and do not have better flight characteristics,. I would go for F-35 to be on the safe side. While that move would probably lead to less fly time and less aircrafts avaible.

Let me recap what is happening for you. Read through ENTIRELY before you repond. Better yet, also think about it. 1. You don't know anything about the physics written into BS. There is nothing light-weight about them. The helicopter is split into sections to which forces are applied. It is not a matter of applying a single vector to a point body, it is many vectors applied to multiple points, each with different moments due to position away from CG - which, by the way, is also mobile. 2. You don't know the first thing about flying helicopters. This much is very obvious. By now you may have gotten a bit of a better hang of it. 3. You don't understand how the systems in the Ka-50 work. There is a manual that explains it. Not COMMONS SENSE, the MANUAL. The operating instructions are your bible of flying a particular aircraft, not any manner of common sense you may think should have been applied. This is true of all aircraft. Despite all of this, you continue to argue as you knew what was going on. In order to save you, and us some time, quit arguing and do as you are told, and soon you will be humming along like a happy little Black Shark pilot blowing up things all over the battlefield, controlling your simulated flying warmachine like a pro. I'll reiterate: What you see in other sims does not count. How you think it should have been done does not count. What you think of the physics also ... does not count. Let it go. Just a suggestion to reduce all-around frustration ;)

Thank you :thumbup:

Well then we should share information would you happen to have information on the Horizontal Situation Indicator, and Attitude Director indicator? You may not have this so I will share The specs on the AAU 34 A http://www.kollsman.com/downloads/Altimeter%20AAU%2034A.pdf

Yo, is it possible to add duplicate button not only to triggers but to that what is inside trigger? I mean duplicate rules, actions.

backlit switches metal backlit switches metal weighted backlit switches that go "thunk" apparantly Also, (bringing myself off my cloud a little), DCS:A-10 will use ALL of those lovely MFD switches and buttons straight out of the box. No more "LSHIFT-RALT-T, (NUM LOCK ON)", key combinations. My other half spied the amazon page with my order the other day and was "shocked" that I was going to pay £320 for a hobby. A quick few queries into how much she spent on handbags, etc because she needed "something to go with...[insert other expensive item]", shut her up. Honestly! If i was spending that kind of money on druge every week, people would be patting me on the back and giving me leaflets.

Is a PW engine thing. Simple answer, air used to move the exhaust nozzle from open to close and vise verse. The PW engine uses 13th Stage bleed air ( air coming from the 13th stage of compression of N-2) to actuate or spin the Convergent Exhaust Nozzle Control (CENC) which in term spins flex shaft that moves 4 actuator to move the nozzle to the correct position to ensure proper thrust, help control N1 speed and help diminished or prevent Stalls/Stagnation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle