Blaze1

It will be difficult to get hold of the NTRP 3-22.4 simply because they are so new, circa 2006 or 2008. This is why I think there may be more of a possibility to get the older unclassified NWP 3-22.5 manuals. Blaze1

Nice to hear from you again Olgerd.:) I also bought those manuals from eBay including the Tactical Manual Pocket Guide. Volume I is brilliant, it's just a shame there is nothing on LGB Employment. BTW there's a mistake in my previous post, it should read: Volumes II & III (In relation to the Hornet) are classified. Volumes I & IV are unclassified. Blaze1

It was mentioned that this manual can help with modelling the display symbology accurately. Blaze1

USN Tactical Manuals Initially I had thought that all USN Tactical Manuals were classified, but that is not the case. The Harrier AV-8B has three Tactical Manuals, Volume I & II which are unclassified. Volume III is classified secret and contains information on Radar ECM, ECCM modes and Radar Performance, Defensive Systems, Weapons System specifics and Performance. As I mentioned earlier the USN has switch for the most part to the NATIP/NTRP documentation format for their aircraft. The positive aspect from ED's point of view is that there is definately an unclassified manual (NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D). The downside is that these manuals are relatively new making them more difficult to acquire. My underestanding is that the following F/A-18 manuals are possibly unclassified: A1-F18AA-TAC-000, A1-F18AC-TAC-000 or A1-F18AE-TAC-000 Volume I & A1-F18AA-TAC-020, A1-F18AC-TAC-020 or A1-F18AE-TAC-020 Volume IV. Volume II and III are classified. These manuals are of the older format so Volumes I & IV may be easier to acquire (by easier I mean not quite impossible ;)). Blaze1

Were the development team able to get all the manuals they wanted for the Hornet, such as the A1-F18AC-FRM-000 Fault Reporting Manual and the NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D? Blaze1

:thumbup: There are electronic systems that were used in Vietnam over thirty years ago that remain classified to this day. I think perhaps guessing isn't the best way to describe what the serious simulation developers do. When it comes to modelling weapon systems developers will try to base their models around weapon system theories. The more accurate/indepth the theories are the more accurate the model will be. The models will never be 100% accurate as classification prevents access to such information. Having said that, there is enough information in the public domain to create excellent systems that the user will find very believeable. Blaze1

Nice find Feuerfalke:). You won't look like Tom Cruise in Minority Report with this;).

Thanks GGTharos I did some digging around and found this: http://aeronode.com/aero/18/sikorsky-twin-rotor-x2-ground-run-in-october Also this: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-69.php Blaze1 :thumbup:

Hi AirTito In order to achieve higher speeds would it be possible to use a stiffer rotor design such as that used in the Eurocopter Tiger. I'm thinking this may help prevent rotor collision in a coaxial design? Blaze1

Your right, it needs two maybe three 'dots' per finger and would be a passive system. You really only need 'dots' for two fingers, one for the right hand and one for the left. It isn't really necessary to use every finger, this was just a suggestion, it would make the system more complex than it really needs to be. Yes a real physical cockpit would be the best solution, particular for immersion as you mentioned. I feel however that its perhaps a very expensive route to follow considering the amount of switches, dials and knobs plus other hardware you would need for the project. Another thing to consider is that DCS plan on modelling several aircraft with equal fidelity to the Black Shark, how compatible would a phyical cockpit be in this scenario? The DCS team have done a fantastic job modelling the Ka-50 cockpit already, I personally would love to put the 3D cockpit to use.;) As for the mind reading cap, it would great for firing those rearward missiles.:P Blaze1

Managing the Virtual Cockpit with ... 'Finger Tracker' The following idea I had, uses the TrackIR principles to aid in managing the virtual cockpit. This may not be original and may have been mentioned elsewhere, if thats the case I'm sorry in advance.;) Basically it would be a very similar system to TrackIR but instead of head tracking a finger is tracked instead. With current software (sims) the cursor used to activate cockpit switches and controls on screen has 2 DOF the X and Y axis (like a mouse). For this hand tracker a Z-axis would be necessary. In order to operate switches in the 3D cockpit with the finger tracker the player would have to move his/her finger into a particular user defined zone in their real environment, for example: A player sitting at their desk playing Black Shark, would want to specify a zone next to his/her right thigh as the right control console (the panel with controls to operate the INS, stability augmentation, Shkval sensor and radios). This right console zone would preferably have similar dimensions to the real thing. It would in this case be a rectangular box with the bottom of the box representing the surface of the console where the switches and knobs are placed, and the top of the box being defined by the player as the maximum height the players finger/reflective sticker has to be at to 'lock' onto the switch below it in the 3D world. Of course in reality nothing will actually be present in this zone. In reality the further you move your hand away from your eyes the smaller it seems to get. In the same way because of the Z-axis, we can give the player visual feedback regarding his/her finger position in the game by using a 3D cursor or the 3D animated finger of the pilot/gunner/WSO. Once the players animated finger/cursor is locked onto a switch all the player has to do is move the finger in the correct direction to function that switch. Another method could be a combined finger tracker with a button. When the 3D cursor/finger is over a specific switch in the game, the player presses his/her thumb against the finger button and holds it there to 'lock' the in-game finger & thumb onto a switch. The player then moves his/her finger in the correct direction to function the switch. Perhaps this idea could be expanded further to included all fingers and thumbs plus hand tracking with 6DOF to allow more than one switch to be activated at a time? Blaze1

It would have to be between the Ka-50 and the AH-64D Longbow. I am very happy with the choice of the Black Shark (Longbow is out of the question at the moment anyway). I love the fact that the Ka-50 brings the mix of hi-tech avionics with the ABRIS as well as the mechanical analogue gauges in the most aggressive looking airframe. With the Longbow you get in my opinion the most capable attack helicopter in the world as well as a very advanced avionics sensor suite which would be alot of fun to play with. The Longbow would also bring twin cockpits into the mix. Blaze1

Thanks for the replies everyone. nemises you bring up a very good point. Perhaps if pre-flight equipment failures are ones which can be solved reasonably quickly, with little or no delay (maybe depending on the time the player steps to the aircraft?), this would encourage correct pre-flight procedures. Anyway I'm sure whatever the DCS team decides to do, Black Shark will be an incredible hit and a huge achievement. Cheers Blaze1

Hi sobek So the instrument tests e.g for the ADI don't really serve much purpose? Blaze1

Hello Firstly I'd just like to say how incredibly impressed I am with the DCS team. I haven't really been following activities in the sim world for a few years so Black Shark is a huge surprise to me. I had actually seen info about Black Shark at Frugalsworlds home page, however I didn't pay much attention to it. Funnily enough I was searching on Youtube for Fighter OPS vids when I saw this. I was and am completely blown away by the level of detail involved in this simulation,:eek: it seems to be way ahead of anything else out there (Fighter OPS is aiming for similar fidelity). It absolutely fantastic to see a sim developer raising the bar and the softly softly approach Eagle Dynamics are apparently taking appaers to be working well. DSC will model a great proportion of the systems on the Ka-50 helicopter and many systems have built in tests associated with them. Considering it is common to run tests prior to flight, I was wondering if these sytems could fail before flight. The ABRIS BIT lists the following parameters when being tested, memory, CPU, flash etc, can these individual components fail? Can the analogue cockpit instruments e.g ADI, HSI fail. Pitot heating is an option for selection in the cockpit, will there be conditions where this is necessary? Thanks Blaze1

Hello Olgerd:) Yes unfortuately it will probably be a number of years before the unclass NATIP manuals find their way into the public domain. Regarding the technical manuals, I don't know much about these. I assume they don't contain operational procedure from the pilots/WSOs perspective? Or is the NATOPS/NATIP developed from the tech manuals in which case it could be information overload:book: :thumbup: ? I any case I'm happy yourself and the team are finding the tech manuals useful. It looks like you've been shopping at CHQ:smilewink: Blaze1

High Eric :) I have seen documents on the net in which the author refered to classified manuals. My understanding is that even though a manual may be classified (SECRET) it may have many sections within that are infact unclassified. So if one sentence in a 500 page document is secret (assuming all other sentences are unclassified) the entire document is labelled (SECRET)? In the case I mentioned above the author used unclassified sections of the USAF MCM 3-1 (now AFTTP 3-1) to write the document. Cheers

Sure: https://airworthiness.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=FAQ.home&faqid=6&btn=NATIP Here are some of the topics you can expect to find in the unclassified Harrier AV-8B NATIP (NTRP 3-22.4) 1. Section 2.1.2 Air-to-Surface RADAR Modes and Operation 2. Section 2.4 Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) 3. Section 2.5 Stores Management Control Set (SMCS) 4. Section 4.1 Suspension / Carriage Equipment 5. Section 4.2 Air-to-Ground Stores 6. Section 4.5 Fuzing 7. Section 5.1 Weapon System Theory 8. Section 5.2 Controls & Displays 9. Section 5.3 Target Designation 10. Section 5.4 Delivery Modes 11. Section 5.5 Reversion Modes 12. Section 5.6 RADAR Attack Considerations 13. Section 5.7 Weapon Jettison 14. Section 5.8 Bombing 15. Section 5.9 Rocketry 16. Section 5.10 Gun Theory 17. Chapter 8 Weaponeering Cheers

Fingers crossed some time in the future ED decide to pursue a Hornet sim.

New Unclassified Manuals Hello All Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?. Blaze