dok_rp

This website is not for real, right? :huh:

I'm pretty sure the E3 model was designed having the new Black Shark Shkval in mind. {Wears flak jacket and runs for his life} :D :lol: Hopefully they'll look into it. :) Good finding anyway. :thumbup:

It's not the graphics WynnTTr, but the performance that needs optimizing :). There's no denying the game is pretty, but it's considerably more hardware demanding than DCS A-10 in its current post-patch state. Even if I fly at the same altitude as the helo, I get considerably better results than while flying the Shark. It's, therefore, safe to say that some patches that could better optimize performance will be released, just like they did with DCS A-10. :thumbup:

My performance is as ugly as a hairy tart in some of the campaign missions and even on some of the single player ones. The situation gets even uglier if I load some more demanding Custom Missions. Black Shark 2 will have to go through the normal list of patched after release. Just like A-10, it'll take quite a few months for this sim to be polished out and be as playable as DCS-A10 is on high settings. :pilotfly:

Quite a good number of people have been reporting graphic abnormalities while using AMD graphic cards. I, myself, own and nVidia and have to say I have not had a single CTD. I've got a large amount of stutter and micro-freezes which used to plague DCS-A10 when it first came out. My suggestion would be to check out some of these threads about the AMD graphic cards. There's even a petition they are asking forum users to sign to send to AMD so that they could come up with better drivers. You might have a shot there. :thumbup:

I've been flying with rudder pedals for about 6 months now, and I have to say that the IMMERSION (caps lock on that) is fantastic. Before owning a set of rudder pedals I flew flight simulators for over a decade and never had set my hands... feet, I mean :D ... on rudder pedals. I have to admit your brain gets kinda retard when you first try and tell it to control the rudders when your wrist wants to continue on its task it has been successfully been doing for the last years. So, in a nutshell, hell yeah. It's more than possible. It's just fine. Rudders will give much better immersion, but they won't make you a better pilot. Just on a side note, I have a friend of mine that used to fly IL2 1646 using a Playstation 2 gamepad. We constantly flew on the Spitx109 server, which is set at full realism, and he kicked the hell out of the enemy. The guy was really really good. After seeing that, I can more than honestly say that it's for the immersion and that's it. It definitively won't make anyone a better pilot. :pilotfly:

Amen to that. Happened to a buddy of mine and myself. We got bombarded out of smithereens by some guy that wanted to target practice his CBU on the parked A-10's. I myself started passwording servers after that. Sad, but true. :(

I got some pretty bad stutters whenever a MBT fired his main gun at me. I can't recall if it was a T72 or a T80. I know it's the PATROL mission. If you want to test, blow a few ones up and then overfly the rest. You'll most certainly get blown to bits, but whenever they fire at me I get a half a second freeze that's sure disturbing. I'll investigate it further this week, too. The game is still 1.0, and there are still quite a few bugs to be polished off.

Thanks guys. I got it working nicely with the mouse axes and by using the ministick on the X52PRO set to mouse and divided in bands. :thumbup:

There quite a few number of "damages" that will not be fixed even if you land at a friendly base and wait for the 3-4 minutes. From the top of my head I can remember: 1) Burnt laser from Shkval in the Black Shark. An easy way to circumvent this is by doing a rough landing and ripping one of your tires. :D 2) Jettisoned canopy in the A-10. I've also tried ripping the tires to see if they'd fix my canopy, but there was no joy in that attempt. :D

The video was very funny. Thanks for posting it PeterP. The reason for my post is the ill-fated and ever-resurfacing "realism" discussion. No one waits 3 hours for their plane to be refueled or rearmed, no one performs 30 minute long start-up sequences, no one buys another license after their pilot is dead, hence the acrid tone from my words. No ill intended on your person or on Viper's. You both have been resourceful and trustworthily obliging. I did the test and this is what I got: Black Shark 1: Black Shark 2: These are the cropped images to show that the exact same problem occurs even when using the ALT-F1 view. Black Shark 1: Black Shark 2: I've also tested with and without TrackIR. The result is always the same: Shifting one's view does not reset the squished/stretched aspect of the object in the Shkval and even if it did, the inferior limit to your head movement would block you from doing so. I also did a video illustrating it. I could post it as well. This is another little test I did to show what happens in real life when you move the point of view of a camera to some strangely oblique angles: (The yellow paper strip is showing where the azimuth line on the Shkval screen is) This was taken to simulate an object locked while the pilot looks at the Shkval at a perpendicular angle: The next two shots show what happens when the view is shifted upwards to a very oblique angle. Photographically speaking, this effect is very easily noticed, but in real life it is almost imperceptible. Peripheral vision plays an incredibly important role in assisting with perspective deformation. Just like PeterP anecdotally commented, our hands don't get reshaped into weird forms just because we move them farther away or closer to our eyes. It's also due noting that for this level of deformation to occur, I had to take the picture at a very oblique angle, and that's not the case in real life from the pilot's perspective while seated in the cockpit. Now comparing the real life findings with the game ones in an animation we have the following: What's happening is that they've implemented one optical rule to the pilot's eye which influences the whole world around him, except for what's projected on the TV screen. That's why the objects (world) shrinks well under the Shkval azimuth line when - as the real-life illustration shows - it should have remained unaltered. You can't have one optical rule governing the pilot's eye and another one to determine what happens to the TV-screen-projected image. Whatever deformation we have on the TV screen must also be applied to its whole extension and the units cannot be shrunk under the TV screen overlay. Whatever happens to the projected image must also happen to the TV screen itself. Another fact to take note of is the inability to undo the perspective distortion once one lowers his head in the cockpit. Those are my findings. ================================================ EDIT: Something else that's also interesting to note is that the same level of optical distortion is not applied to the entire cockpit. This is the little experiment I did: I tried to position the camera close the oblique angle I had to put it previously to recreate the distortion level I showed in the Shkval and this is what I got: Left panel. Camera perpendicular to the monitor: Left panel. Camera in the position I used to recreate the distortion level exhibited in the Shkval: Animation of the distortion that should be seen had the optical model used on the Shkval distortion been used in the whole world around us: On a side note I'd like to explain that I did not crop the image so to illustrate how obliquely far one must look to get the same distortion level shown in the Shkval image. Right panel. Camera in a perpendicular position to the monitor: Right panel. Camera in the position I used to recreate the distortion level exhibited in the Shkval: Animation of the distortion that should be seen had the optical model used on the Shkval distortion been used in the whole world around us: I hope this post could show how little distorted our eyes see the world in real life. Again, distorting an image photographically is a simple matter of repositioning the camera's POV, but in real life the effect is barely noticeable if noticeable at all. I think the simplistic model implemented in the Shkval could use some tweaking, since it's only interfering with the Shkval image and not the whole world around us. I hope this contribution comes to a valid point.

Thanks for the information VIPER, and thanks a million PeterP for the tweaking suggestion. When I get out of my work later tonight, I'll try and figure out a good configuration for the value change you suggested and I'll post it here so that others that feel the same can change it too. In my opinion, there are countless other areas that Black Shark could have been improved on and by adding this weird feature on the single most important system in that helicopter, they have gone waaay overboard. If I could, I'd definitely ask for my money back. Actually I might even try. :noexpression: While taking the Screenshots, I was not using TrackIR, so that squished view will basically plague everyone that does not own a TrackIR and is able to shift his view down. If they their goal is ultimate realism I'll suggest that ED implement a permanent death system. You pay U$19 for one pilot license. If you eject into enemy territory, you'll have to wait for about 3 to 4 weeks until your government negotiates your return and if you die, well, shell out another 19 bucks, because that pilot is a goner. :megalol: I hate this new system and I hope they also implement this image distortion into DCS-A10. Since that's their crème de la crème sim right not, maybe more people will complain and they'll go back to the way it used to be. Let's hope and see.

I use TrackIR 5 and indeed this was also my initial assumption when I saw it the first time. However, after comparing a bunch of different screenshots taken from the same location, what they've done has become crystal clear. They've basically increased the amount of terrain the Shkval "sees" horizontally and decreased the amount of terrain the Shkval "sees" vertically, but the ACTUAL FOV remained unchanged. Just take a look at the enormous stretching the runaway centerline is subjected to in the gif I added a few posts before and you see it. :) Because, for some reason, they took this approach, the image is seen distorted.

Hello guys, This is another example of the squishing/stretching problem we are having with the new Shkval model. First of all, let me show where I positioned the units prior to analysis. These are the two units from Black Shark 2: And these are the two units from Black Shark 1: And these are the results obtained from both units when viewed from the Shkval, this time @4km and using maximum zoom level. First of all, the perfectly proportionate S300 site when viewed from the Black Shark 1 Shkval: Now the squished/stretched S300 site viewed under the exact same circumstances: Now the same two views cropped at 150X: Black Shark 1 Black Shark 2: This is the second problem I've encountered and it might as well be the culprit of the distortion we are experiencing in the Shkval with the squishing/stretching. With further comparison, it was possible to note that the field of view of the Shkval was altered as follows in Black Shark 2: The top RED area was compressed in order to reduce the Field of View from Top to Bottom, and the BLUE area was stretched as to increase the Field of View laterally. Because of the way this was implemented in-sim, the resulting image in the Shkval ended up being squished by the compression of the RED area atop which led to the squishing effect, and by the inclusion of the BLUE areas on each side, which led to the stretching effect. This is a little gif to illustrate the problem even further: Please take note of the area on the top of the image that gets compressed and the areas on each side that are added to the Field of View: These are my findings so far, and it seems quite clear that the Shkval FOV needs significant tweaking to return it to what it was, so that the fore-mentioned image distortion can be fixed. Thanks again for your patience and attention. I hope this problem can be dealt with in the forth-coming patch. :smartass: :thumbup: :pilotfly:

I use 16Q with DCS-A10 and have better FPS than the ones I get with BS2. I guess they'll still tweak it a bit further in the upcoming patches. :)

The tanks are positioned on the same place on the tarmac and on the same runaway both set at 3000m from the helicopter. I simply put one to the right and another one to the left. Simply compare the Shkval gate size to the relative size of the object. It's possible to notice that the objects depicted on Black shark 2 are squished from top to bottom and streched longitudinally. At longer distances and at oblique angles they become very difficult to ID and spot due to the reduced apparent size ED implemented to simulate some sort of optical distortion. I zoomed both images to 250X and cropped them to better illustrate the large difference there is in aspect between both simulators. This is the Tank in its 1:1 apparent size when viewed at maximum zoom from 3km in Black Shark 1.0.2 This is the second one from Black Shark 2. Note the differences is proportion. The tank was shrunk from top to bottom and its proportion is completely messed up. At long ranges and at oblique angles it becomes an absolute pain to ID and engage targets efficiently. I mean no offense or condescendence with my explanation. Internet has this cabability of making one's pure and simple explanation a dish served in arrogance. By no means I mean that. It's simply because this optical difference seems too plain to me, and I'd really like others to realize it too, being disturbing as it is. :smilewink: I am not at home right now, and I'll only be able to fly the simulator again later tonight or on Saturday, but I'd more than glad to provide more visual comparisons on this distortion as soon as I can. :smartass: Another interesting way of viewing this problem is by flying the "PATROL" mission. Stop around WP 2 and hover at about 1000m. You'll see how streched and squished the units are. Because the 16-unit column is moving at close proximity, it's easier to spot the problem. At 7km some of them become difficult to ID. :thumbup: By flying this mission both on BS1 and BS2, you get a clearer picture of the problem I am trying to describe. :smartass: I don't know why they've implemented it, since we had a nicely functional Shkval in BS 1. There's simply no logic why they've included this Streching/Squishing simulation to this optcal sensor. :huh: Make no mistake. The game is much more hardware demanding than BS 1, and I dare say, due to the lower altitude we fly in, more hardware demanding than DCS-A10. I have a Core i5 2500k @4.6 GHz and a GTX 580. These are the settings I run with: Texture: HIGH Scenes: HIGH Civ Traffic: HIGH Water: MEDIUM Vis Range: HIGH Heat Blur: ON Shadows: HIGH Resolution: 1680x1050 Aspect Ratio: 16:10 Monitors: 1 Res. of Cockpit: 1024 MSAA: 8x HDR: NORMAL Clutter/Bushes: 500m Trees Visibility: 6000m TSSAA: OFF In some of the Quick Missions, I get very low fps mid-way through it when a good number of units are under engagement. As they start to be destroyed, the FPS tend to settle down at around 45-50, but like I said, they do tend to dip down to 20'ish when a lot of things are going on. ============================================================= EDIT: This is basically what the new Shkval is doing: :)

Hello Jib, Could you elaborate on how I could tweak the Shkval so it wouldn't produce the shrunk view we currently have? If you give me the directions, I think could certainly do that. Much obliged for the help. :thumbup: The only videos I've been able to see on the last 10 years depicting the Shkval is that of an Su-25 firing two Vikhr missiles on stationary targets and the quality of the video is appalling. The image quality of the Shkval might be lower than the one we have in the sim, but it still does not justify the reason for shrinking the entire planet like we have in BS 2.0, and for which we all paid for. :noexpression:

Hello guys, After flying with BS2 and completing a few missions, something has struck me. They have adopted a new Point of View as to where the pilot eyes are in the cockpit, and as a result all objects rendered in the Shkval are shrunk to about 60-70% of their actual apparent size. There is also another little problem with the new POV. A little more than 5% of the Shkval TV screen is obscured by the black frame on the top of the monitor and it simply can't be seen anymore. Since the BS is ubberly dependable on its optical sensor, and it has no other effective way of detecting and/or engaging targets, I find these changes (Bugs? Features?) majorly disturbing. ID'ing targets at a distance has become a painstakingly difficult task now, since MBT's become a slice of what their silhouette once was. For me, this an enormous disappointment in the paid-upgrade, for it hampers our ability to ID and engage targets. I took a few screenshots from the same Airfield with the targets positioned at the same distance; roughly 3km) The first image illustrates the perfect apparent size as it was with BS 1.02 from a T-80 @3km with the Shkval at its maximum zoom. The second picture shows the same tank as it is depicted in the BS2 Shkval from the same tank on the same airfield, same distance and same zoom level as before. Another picture illustrating the first case-scenario, but now with the Shkval gate on top of the tank to better illustrate the lack of shrinkage in its apparent size. The last picture further illustrates the shrinking in the apparent size of the target @3km and demonstrating how distorted it becomes: One can also note that the frame on top of the Shkval obscures a good 5% of the top view, which did not occur in the first installment of Black Shark. So, is there something that can be done about this? I believe this to be a major drawback in the paid-upgrade. Sure having all the niftiness of grass, HDR and the such is a nice addition, but obscuring a considerable part of the only targeting visor we have and shrinking the entire world around us does not sound too reasonable. :thumbup: :pilotfly:

Just bought it and will probably buy every single large upgrade they release in the coming years... Hell, I'd buy DCS-A10C-3 if that means it'd be compatible with DCS-Fighter/Attacker!!! But please, ED... Try and find a more elegant way of putting those modules together!!!! Please... pretty please... :cry: Right now I have Flaming Cliffs 2.0, Black Shark 1.0, Black Shark 2.0, A-10 1.0. :joystick: :pilotfly: Not to mention Lomac and Flaming Cliffs 1.2!!! :pilotfly: I fly all of them, but it's a nightmare to keep track of all the missions and profiles and such. :doh: I'm sure you guys can figure out a clever way of putting all of them together seamlessly... one executable, one installation folder... get into the simulator, pick rotary of fixed and 'way you go blowin' stuff up!!! :pilotfly::thumbup: Thanks for the upgrade anyways... :smilewink:

Why use the CDU? 1) To enter LASTE information when releasing ordnance? 2) To add new Lat/Long information for additional Way Points or Marker Points in-mission? 3) To check your exact altitude over the ground no matter where you are and thus avoid some pesky SAM that's been placed over a ridge? 4) To create new flight plans in-flight? 5) To manage Marker Points used to designate ground units? 6) To use the offset page and enter bullseye calls? 7) To realign in-flight because you did something you shouldn't have? And of course, to show off to your friends, because you can and they can't. :smartass: :thumbup: :pilotfly:

That's some very interesting info right there, Chops. Before I started applying a little back pressure on the stick, and by little, I mean, a very small deflection, it was not too hard for me to get blown tires during a takeoff run with strong crosswinds, for example. And under those conditions, keeping NWS enabled over 50kts was even worse. So, while reading around here in the forums I've stumbled upon this post in which someone suggested adding a little back pressure on the stick to increase the effectiveness of the rudder pedals after NWS had been disengaged. Anyways, I started doing that and not a single time after that I got a blown tire while taking off or landing, even when taking off with 115% maximum payload. Your post made me wonder what do you do to keep the aircraft aligned with the runway centerline under heavy crosswinds. :smartass: Is there another procedure I'm missing? :pilotfly:Please, do share. You've got another eager to learn virtual pilot right here!!! :smartass: :pilotfly: :thumbup:

I just ignore it sometimes. However, 8 out of 10 times I think it helps with the Situation Awareness, given the fact that your WM has super bionic Mk1 Eyeballs. :pilotfly: :smartass:

Hello mvsgas, This problem pertains to the A-10A in Flaming Cliffs 2.0, which, much to our demise, has been left aside after the compatibity patch with Black Shark was released. =========================================== @Viper The workaround with the mouse axis works perfectly. All I had to do was create another Saitek profile to use it with the A-10, so I wouldn't lose the mouse camera control with the external views on the remaining planes. Thanks a lot for the help. :thumbup:

Holy Mother of the Lord!!!! Imagine the drag on those wings!!!!!!! :censored::shocking:

I also have the X52 PRO and I am nowhere near your problems. Sure the A-10C requires much more babysitting in terms of trimming, but my ride is usually quite problem-free. For TO, I disengage NWS over 50kts and give a tad of back pressure on the stick just to give the front wheel a tad bit of slack and make keeping the AC in the runway centerline easier using the rudder pedals. At around 140kts I increase back pressure a tad more and 'way she goes. Depending on the loadout I'm carrying, I get a little more drag on the right or left side, so a little aileron trim is also necessary. I use the curvature response on the axis config and I set it to 32. It gives a fairly smooth curvature and outputs quite a nice ride. :pilotfly: