zerO_crash

You and Fri13 apparently must live under the same roof. For someone who doesn't speak nor write Russian/Cyryllic (you write English on Russian forums, but guess what, your translator won't translate everything correct), you really ought to start quality checking the crap you sprawl. No-where has ED stated that BS3 is a fantasy, rather an educated guess. And even so, there has been much negativity as Black Shark right now is the heritage of this sim and no one wants it spoiled, just updated. It is tested and quality checked by KAMOV JSC. BS3 would never be. And although there were 12 airframes of Ka50, it doesn't mean that it is "fantasy". The given amount of a certain module IRL has nothing to do with it's authenticity. What has something to do with it, is how closely the module resembles it's real life counterpart. For the specific bort #25, it is a spot on simulation. Therefore, all your requests that you've time and again spammed the Russian forums with with regards to FLIR and all the other stuff is simply out of order and question. As to ED making BS3, what ED proposed was to update the Ka50 to a modern "suspected" standard based on what Ka52 bears now, however with background in all the borts of Ka50. Although not realistic as per specific bort, it would be a sort of collection of all Ka50's put into one. That is still more real than going out and requesting what you and Fri13 have with showing pictures of nada (empty painted boxes hung under the wings or laying next to the helicopter) and requesting it be simulated. That while not taking into account how the systems work, if they ever were implemented, how they are visualized in the cockpit, on the HUD, what military standard they use for data transfer, what computers they are connected to and augmented by, etc... You talk about switches in the cockpit in an aircraft that was of test status, and yes IR rockets were tested on Ka50, but were deemed too dangerous to use due to engine surges, so your point being?! Where is the evidence of anything you ask for, or are you just a professional keyboard warrior that rewrites whatever he feels at the moment, as there is no strength and support to any single one of your statements?! Fri13 writes 13 pages of wall text with nothing specific, as has been proved by us on the RU side, as well as module devs (Gazelle to mention one), and you somehow jump the hype-train and talk KA50N. What do you know about that aircraft? What documentation do you have on it?! Give me ranges (of the optics), the magnification, the optics layout, what screen are the thermals displayed on, how are they displayed, symbology, etc... Furthermore, you must have missed your station with DCS when stating things like: "Lol, wait till the Longbow starts SLAUGHTERING the Ka-50 pilots. Then we'll see if we get Igla's and FLIR, or not." I mean how cute of you to actually mention "balance" with regards to DCS. If anything of the previous doesn't discourage people to even take you seriously, this single statement has to take the cake, and the cake is a lie. Sorry to have to break it to you kid, DCS is a simulator, not a "game about balancing". People seek DCS because of realism and and the difficulties that come with it. Rather, I cannot wait for, you showing up here again, destroyed by a Ka50 with your Apache (what a senseless fight btw., you must be joking) and wondering how something that's older with fewer sensors managed to swat you out of the sky. Guess you'll be requesting 10 other things just to make you relevant in the air again... Part of the reason why there are pilots, mechanics and other IRL-relevant personnel here is mainly due to the realism, not groundless assumptions asking to model a whole system based on a picture of a box in camo-scheme.

This is not a matter of the actual aircraft, be it IRL or in the sim. It's about how the Shkval is simulated. It's using an artificial system that is supposed to mimic the actual contrast-based lock acquisition. Although it works most of the time, there are some obvious issues with it, for example that that it's tied to a specific time of the day. 2100hrs is brighter in summer than in winter. In order to not make it unrealistic, the contrast-lock is then set for during winter time, cause if it was otherwise, you'd be able to lock on targets in total darkness, which would be wrong. Sadly though, since it relative to the winter-season, you end up in missions where you fly 2100hrs during summer, with more than enough sufficient light, and Shkval won't lock on. With said though, Shkval is in general done very very well for the time of the simulation introduction. ED used whatever they had, and it's undeniably good. Most of the quirks can be worked around if you are a little creative or just avoid certain situations, such as real pilots would. The one bug which should be squashed though, is where Shkval all of a sudden starts drifting faster than you can correct it back. That's a glitch that has been long in, ever since BS 2, and is really the only one which can mess up your aiming and approach. In the real helicopter, it wouldn't have this "glitch".

The case as mentioned is with regards to IRL, but expecting a crew error in the heat of the moment. Well, fuel cock and shutoff valves respectively. But ok, so that´s pretty much the only reason for the procedure to exist. Nice!

I at least have never needed to use the second discharge, the first one always worked with immediate effect. However, it makes me wonder. Would there really be any negative effects if the pilots got a fire warning (during combat) and happen to use the distinguisher without cutting off the fuel (red levers) and shutting down the fuel pump (switch)? I´m thinking a pilot error here or a stressful situation. The only one I can think of is the discharge not being able to put out fire, but would there be anything else?

The new battlefield between the superpowers is really economy and market dominance. Wars and conflicts have become unethical, unconstitutional and generally uncalled for in today´s society that screams "hugs, not bullets". Also, it costs money, which is the primary reason in this money-driven world. Although history repeats itself and thus we will have a major armed conflict at some point, right now we are in a phase where even superpowers avoid conflicts as it works against their PR and agenda (remember why US lost in Vietnam? it was due to lack of support from civilians back in US). Officially that is, as PMC´s (often backed up by the governments -> Blackwater) are on the increase and the only ones with the incentive to carry on armed conflicts, they got nothing to lose. As to training, well you cannot say that Helo vs. Helo never happens IRL. It has happened before, although there are few documented cases. As such, there have been units both in US army and Russian army that have had additional training on helicopter tactics in case of a clash. There are no conflicts as of today where such a situation would happen, but that´s not how military operates. They train and prepare for the worst, keeping at pace with whatever their arch-enemy has at hand. If they were to only focus on what´s going on today, there would be no need for all this advanced tech that superpowers currently wield. It´s the "what if"-scenarios that have driven the technology and tactics forward.

It has a radar screen, which shows much good info not related to radar as well. It´s not a MFD, and you´re not going to see a RED aircraft with one for some time I am afraid. Secrecy

The question is if one will be capable of dynamic flight-plan creation in session, or change it, so that the map inside the cockpit updates. Would be really neat. I suppose creating such a system should not be too problematic, given that such systems are already in-place in other modules.

You are correct. Page 250 in DCS manual just for reference. @Rudel_chw Aside from what sLYFa stated, I cannot spot any inconsistencies. Nice! )

What people don´t understand is the grand scheme of tactics in general. They run alone to AO with their precious aircraft and wonder why they got shot down. "If I died, it must mean that the enemy has a better radar, weapon, aircraft, etc.... I mean, it for sure cannot be that my tactics suck or my battle plan, control of my aircraft, knowledge of what my aircraft excels at and it´s limitations, etc...". IRL, who sees first, usually wins. But you have to add all the other to the formula. Since Ka50 doesn´t have RWR, it does mean that fighting in a SAM/radar-contested area is not it´s primary task. Logic would suggest staying behind the SAM/Fighter umbrella and sniping from 8-10km. That´s just an example of it´s application. One thing is for sure, with the modern SAM´s, manpads and AAA-systems such as Tunguska, you are pretty much dead meat in a helicopter, be a Ka52/Mi28/Apache/Cobra. Those missiles move so fast, that the early warning gives you time to pull ejection handle before it hits you. That´s how much your countermeasures are worth when going in dumb without any proper tactic. Forget any relevant avoidance manoeuvres, as these rockets eat distance like nothing. The prerogative in this thread is naive, when it talks about this phenomenon of "balance" and "equal units". That´s not real and neither something this sim attempts to replicate...

I´ve been AFK some time due to reasons. Anyways: In the sim, the actual forces acting on the pilot aren´t modelled. For example, the collective can be pulled just as fast with the collective brake engaged, as without it. This is nonsense as IRL, the pilot, without holding the the collective brake in (which he normally would never do), would have to fight an immense force holding the collective in place, but could still move it by sheer force of muscle. IRL, there are differences greater than in the sim. Also, the reaction time is faster when you don´t have heading-hold or altitude-hold engaged. There is a difference there as well. It´s 20% on cyclic and 25% on collective. Also, it works in a different way than you think. It does not remove 25% of your total scale, which the AP will always counter your movement with. Rather, when you win over the AP, it will standby and not fight you giving you 100% gain in the direction that you move the stick or collective. That´s why you don´t see bigger differences in reaction times. Small adjustments, falling within 25% is something it will correct. Kamov and Mil use the same type of trim. There really is no noticeable difference. We are talking about the way it works. Even western helicopters that have a click trimmer have it working this way. The reason click-trimming doesn´t work well with non-FFB sticks is because for every click you do, you would have to remember to center the stick, before clicking it again. Often you can hear the pilot holding the stick in a certain place, and clicking multiple times. That is for him to get the perfect centre for his current flight, as well as remove any type of errors in the trim (which always occur). If you tried to do the same, clicking multiple times without re-centering the stick for every click, then you are magnifying your trimmed input many times. It just isn´t natural, and doesn´t really work well. You need a FFB stick. I´ve flown the Ka50 since it was released. I know her very well If you wonder about something, shoot. Otherwise, I see there are some issues further down the thread below your last response to me, but it`s too much to correct. Again, much is misunderstood by many.

Gotcha, and I would agree with that. +1

You are jumping to conclusions too quick. You know that there are many reasons why a lobby can be ruined, and it often isn´t tied to how many people there are in that session, but rather who joins it. Often lack of planning from the pilots and badly made missions are responsible. This isn´t so much a question of price, because I´m sure that everyone wants to reward a good product with money, but rather execution. That´s what will decide how this affects DCS on a greater scale.

I believe that, and the team does great, I am impressed. Nevertheless, have a look here:

Absolutely agree on the AI improving, no doubt. But having read the russian side (that´s where I am on most), PilotMI8, Chizh and others have confirmed that even with the AI being improved, we are talking about an AI on a basic level that can spot, shoot, fly the helicopter in a straight line or circle for you, and not much more. Maybe in a couple of years we will get advanced algorithms that will allow us to make the AI do more advanced stuff, however that is still miles from what two human operators could do. And this last part that I mentioned is in "2 weeks TM". Look at F-14, AI does "ok" at A-A and that´s about it. For advanced A-A and A-G, you are alone. And I say that with respect to the devs, cause they achieved an incredible Jester considering the aircraft´s complexity.

There is a difference between not having a flyable module and still being able to join a server, versus not having an asset pack and not being able to join a server. Also, no one ever said that the majority of DCS community is online, quite contrary, according to what ED have stated. Most of us who are in clans fly singleplayer a lot. However just because it´s a rather small percentage online, doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. If it´s 2ooo people online right now, then creating servers with specific packs (that as opposed to not having modules, will not let you join a server) will bring that number to 20. That´s the issue. And if multiplayer is not important, then I wonder why ED used so much time with improving net-code, made it possible for dedicated servers and all the other multiplayer implementations. If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!

Although the idea is good, I am afraid that if "packs" with different units are introduced, it will split the community between those that have the packs and those that don´t, and of course those that have a mix of them. This makes sense for aircraft modules, but not so much ground units, which are the basic mission-making material. Another question is whether there is enough information about the different units such as SAMs or AAA-units to really make all of them. In the end, I would not expect to be making money out of this. For most of the people here, they care about shooting "something". Whether it is an Abrams A1 or A2 is not really that important, even more so when you start talking about buying the A1 when A2 is already in the simulator for free. If you decide to give this a try, make sure to not make a mistake of making too many separate "packs". In the end, it´s much better to have a single, more expensive pack, than 4 different for 5 USD each. Although the idea is good, I am afraid that if "packs" with different units are introduced, it will split the community between those that have the packs and those that don´t, and of course those that have a mix of them. This makes sense for aircraft modules, but not so much ground units, which are the basic mission-making material. Another question is whether there is enough information about the different units such as SAMs or AAA-units to really make all of them. In the end, I would not expect to be making money out of this. For most of the people here, they care about shooting "something". Whether it is an Abrams A1 or A2 is not really that important, even more so when you start talking about buying the A1 when A2 is already in the simulator for free. If you decide to give this a try, make sure to not make a mistake of making too many separate "packs". In the end, it´s much better to have a single, more expensive pack, than 4 different for 5 USD each.

I see "μA" there, meaning micro amperes. I am pretty sure that it´s equipment for measuring static electricity acting on the helicopter. The scale seems to show 300 and I guess 600 micro amps. Not sure why it goes both ways though, but if a rotor blade hits a particle in the air, it creates static electricity on the airframe. The more particles (dustier), the more static electricity. It looks like it´s test equipment though, not something I would expect to see on a production helicopter. Americans did a similar test: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/282087.pdf

What´s really interesting, is that they are making the D-version. I would expect the Longbow radar to be quite classified still with regards to acquisition modes, ranges, efficiency and scan patterns. I am also surprised that they have sufficient info with regards to the glass cockpit and the different electronics. AH-64 has generally been kept on the secrecy-level of F-22/35 all those years. It´s going to be interesting to see how this helicopter performs against my russian babies

This is gold! Nice

For the sake of this thread, it´s interesting to see how long this pilot holds the trimmer while making adjustments. He does it most certainly to avoid fighting the cyclic-forces. He lands by holding the trimmer in. It´s a Mi-17 for reference, but applies to pretty much all russian helicopters. Check 03:56 and onwards for observing his thumb move when he trims (you can also hear the clicking):

I guess technically, if you wanted to, you could design a planetary gearbox (just as the real thing has), where you could have the engine run at maximum RPM and the cog within the planetary gearbox be used to "throw over" the excessive energy. That by giving the engine a different set of cogs to work with to maintain stable rotor RPM given the pitch of the blades and load. However, I´m also seeing only negative effects of such a configuration. Engine at max rpm would mean higher fuel consumption, even when not needed to, as well as reduced service life for the engines as they operate on the maximum all the time.

Then you are wrong, AP channels never "disengage" when you move the cyclic/collective outside of their 25% authority without trimming (The light on each AP-channel indicates their operation, and it never turns off when you hold the trim-button in.). This is both in the manual, my sources, as well as can be tested in flight. If you have all channels AP channels engaged (except FD), and trim the helicopter for say 200km/h (nose down), heading 090* and altitude 40m ASL, then fighting the AP and moving outside of it´s authority will give you nothing if you don´t hold the stick in the new position or trim for it. If you let go of the stick, the helicopter will return back to it´s trimmed parameters. This is also a bad technique of flying because you are "fighting" the helicopter, and as a real pilot, would probably be tired by the immense forces acting on the stick, after only a couple of minutes of flight (that´s why the exception here is an emergency). Not only that, but the helicopters reaction time when doing manoeuvres is severely impeded. When you hold the trimmer button in, you put AP Heading Hold into standby for the duration of you holding in the trimmer, it never turns off. As for AP pitch and bank dampeners, nothing happens to them, they are still operating, you never put them into standby with the trimmer. However, angular stabilisation gets suppressed until you release the trim-button. There is nothing to argue here, this is how it works. Also, it´s important to specify what AP channels you talk about, because they work different. Also, FD =/= holding down the trim button. FD is an AP mode, and holding the trimmer button down simulates FD, but it is not FD per se. The obvious difference here is that in FD mode, you would still trim the real aircraft because of the forces acting on the stick, whereas with trim button held down, you are simulating FD, but have severely reduced the forces acting on the stick for as long as you hold the trim-button in. That is a major difference between those and actual flying with them engaged (FD or Trim engaged/pressed in). The last part you write is correct, but you draw incorrect conclusions from it. The "small levels" you talk about are within 25% of the range of the trimmed point. Where did you get lost?

Thank you very much.

@BIGNEWY Any progress on this bug?

A) I don't preach, I'm pretty far from a priest last I checked. B) I haven't told anyone what they should do. For the past couple of posts you have provided no relevant argumentation, only posting personal crap that diverts the discussion off it's initial topic. You have already showed me of what calibre you are when you wish me or anyone else bad. You certainly have a lot of catching up to do with your manners. We'll end this here.