mbolan

Thanks guys. Very helpful. btw A-10 night time scenario talks about 'better night vision equipment'. Hmmm

Black Shark convinced me to try Lock On FC. Brilliant. I'm hooked on A 10 atm. Cannot find list of key commands though. Essentials like Night Vision, Hook for carrier landings etc not in list of commands for keyboard Help much appreciated.

Covert missions, big chopper, big sim how about the Pave Low III Super Jolly?

Sounds excellent. I'd really appreciate transparent threat display (red lamps) in the HUD view along with IKRAN warnings to save pilots having the switch back to cockpit at awkward times...or is that capacity buried there already but outside my capacity.

ROFL. I knew it!! Superb work.

OK What's with the lazy wingmen anyone? In 'Clear Tkvarcheli' mission, I go around to the North, clear out the SAMs & Shilka (or whatever they are) then go back to the first mission TP to trigger the convoy. Then I'm off along the railroad tracks to clear the road in to Tk. I call to my wingman on the radio and he answers with the usual 'Duh' but, when I F1 to check his location, his Ka is on the ground, rotors still and it's dead quiet. Pilot seat empty. He's still acknowledging me on the radio though. Similar kind of result in the Gauntlet mission after I've landed at the FARP for a refuel etc, I'm off and the 3 wingers are answering and rogering me all over the place, but F2 reveals their choppers also empty and silent on the ground. Parked. The only explanation I've come up with is that they're unionised Labor and they're taking some kind of coffee break to play poker and have a hand held radio with them to convince me they're somewhere in the air. Perhaps they're on Flexidays? Do they take these breaks for others or is it just my country club leadership style? Are the union rules available or should I just shout at them?

Well spotted rrohde...a man with plenty of good ideas. And fair enough Zakk...I've ordered my copy...will review in the near future.

I'd like to leverage off some comments that I made elsewhere to give my view of why Black Shark and to potentially open new thoughts to others. IMHO, this sim is brilliant. It combines many complex features and places them in an evironment that offers serious learning opportunities to the user, creates the possibility of development of personal strategies to deal with complexity, offers memorable graphical eye candy, and creates access to a new world of enjoyment. Flying the Ka is no easy task. Anyone who can do it well has learned much. Dropping in on a frigate with a skidding turn followed by a perfect descent and gentle flare out are seriously challenging and very rewarding for the pilot when done well. The feeling is of a pilot in control of a very complex instrument in a dynamic environment. There are boundaries to the sim - there have to be otherwise the sim would be as complete as the real world and would no longer be a sim! Without such boundaries, the sim would be impossible to comprehend or learn. I suggest to all flyers/users/rubbernecks that in the first instance they concentrate on what this sim offers - what we simmers can get out of it - how we can use its functionality for fun and for our own learning (for more on this see 'The Decisive Moment' by Lehrer that describes how simulators can be used to increase brain power and personal capacities). It's always possible to point to missing elements or things that could be different (what no chaff, no target recognition, no blood, no oil in the road) etc. But all of these minor points miss the point - the sim is a computer representation of a reality that itself is flawed and is frozen in one moment in the infinite strand of time. It's easy to call for perfection but we can too easily end up with absurdity (How come this Spitfire doesn't have missiles?). Various ideas for improvement may, or may not, be useful. The problem really exists for the novice who starts to focus on what might be, rather than on what is. The Ka-50 exists, it has flaws, the enemy can outgun it - but that's the way it is. Failure to recognise these realities acts to prevent full enjoyment of the sim and stands in the way of personal learning. The developers of this product should rightfully be proud. They have constructed a simulated reality that is second to none on the PC. They need ideas to improve on it along with encouragement to keep at it. It's a tremendous tribute to see a product in this high quality condition still at version 1.0. The testers and release team got it so right - if only Microsoft would learn from this!! Constant complaints and minor carping won't encourage much except resignation and apathy. These are not outcomes that the sim community should want from developers of this quality. Yes, development will drift onto the new pseudo reality of the A10 (I hope) and again it'll be a partial representation of the real world. By that time I will have had some very enjoyable and positive experiences for my modest investment of $80 and will have a product that I can return to at any time. In addition my eyes will have been opened to more of my limitations and I will have been presented with the opportunity to overcome them. Once a flyer has learned to control the Ka beast, they can relax more and start to get deeply into strategic and tactical problems like how to approach a defensive position. While they are doing this, they are exercising more of their brains than most people are going to use in much of their lives. They are going to learn to control their own responses and reactions (like controlling the 'hunting' of over/undershoot when trying to land on a small area) and gain other important insights into their own capacities. That learning is invaluable and probably cannot be achieved any other way for most of us. I encourage everyone, seek first to understand before trying to be understood. :thumbup:

Similar and related issue. Flying 'Gaunlet' Mission. Landed at FARP for rearm, turned off rotors. Restarted, took off but wingmen had landed and their chopper seats were empty. They'd skyved off. Recalled them to formation with radio, they all responded but nothing happened. Is this realistic? They all sit in the ready room with a radio making positive noises while muggins flies the mish?

The impossibility of designing for perfection Some of this discussion appears to be a little astray and I'd like to add my tuppenceworth in the hope that it might make some difference. In my opinion, this sim is brilliant. It combines many complex features and places them in an evironment that offers serious learning opportunities, the development of personal strategies to deal with complexity and graphical eye candy that is most appealing, and access to a new world of enjoyment. Flying the Ka is no easy task. Anyone who can do it well has learned much. Dropping in on a frigate with a skidding turn followed by a perfect descent and gentle flare out are seriously challenging and very rewarding for the pilot when done well. There are boundaries to the sim - there have to be otherwise the sim would be as complete as the real world and would no longer be a sim! I recommend to all flyers/users/rubbernecks that in the first instance they concentrate on what this sim offers - what we can get out of it - how we can use its functionality for fun and for our own learning (for more on this see 'The Decisive Moment' by Lehrer that describes how simulators can be used to increase brain power and personal capacities) It's too easy to point to missing elements or things that could be different (what no chaff, no target recognition, no blood, no oil in the road) etc. But all of these minor points miss the point - the sim is a computer representation of a reality that itself is flawed and describes only one moment in the infinite strand of time. It's easy to call for perfection but we can too easily end up with absurdity (How come this Spitfire doesn't have missiles?). The developers of this product should rightfully be proud. They have constructed a simulated reality that is second to none. What they need is ideas to improve on it along with encouragement to keep at it. Constant complaints and minor carping don't encourage much except resignation and apathy. These are not outcomes that the sim community should want. Yes, they'll drift onto the new pseudo reality of the A10 (I hope) and again it'll be a partial representation of the real world. I will have had some very enjoyable and positive experiences for my modest investment of $80 and will have a product that I can return to at any time. Once a flyer has learned to control the Ka beast, they can relax more and start to get deeply into strategic and tactical problems like which way to approach a defensive position. While they are doing this, they are exercising more of their brains than most people are going to use in much of their lives. They are going to learn to control their own responses and reactions (like controlling the 'hunting' of over/undershoot when trying to land on a small area) and gain other important insights into their own capacities. That learning is invaluable and probably cannot be achieved any other way for most of us. So please, seek first to understand before trying to be understood. :thumbup:

TeteT, I had a similar problem and it turned out that you need to keep the target lined up with the circle in the HUD window and KEEP THE FIRE BUTTON depressed until the missile launches. While I don't know all the gory details, it's clear that the launch/guidance system has a lot of work to do and isn't always ready to fire just because you've got the target on visual. You may have to wait up to 2 seconds for the systems to work their magic. This can be frustrating if the KA drifts off target but I found that was due mainly to my weak hovering/flying skills. I found I gained major improvement fast by repeating landing on frigates. THere's a mission called ShipPractice on the missions part of this site that'll provide a perfect training ground for that practice if you want to try. After I could land without really thinking about it, (I was sure it was impossible!) my hover/fly stability shot right up to a point where I can target/launch and fire without too much grief. Welcome to the world's best sim.

IMHO In the HUD view, which shows the terrain, ABRIS and Shkval windows, along with warning/alert lights, it would be mighty helpful to display the IKRAN warnings somewhere, perhaps scrolling across the bottom of the Shkval or similar, and the attack warning lights. This would save many instances of having to switch back to the cockpit view at a time when things are getting really desperate.

Thanks Cheers Danish. Makes complete sense. Probably too much hassle to hide the virtual things just so I can land on deck!

:captain: Having recently managed to start landing safely and consistently on the frigate (OHP class) and having now become more used to the extremely high quality of DCS sim product, I have to ask - Does the frigate REALLY have a huge whip antenna or flagpole stuck up at the stern threatening any helicopter that dares a stern approach? (Not to mention a big, ugly looking winch and 'trip over' fences) A stern approach is clearly indicated since the ship is creating an apparent wind that 'feathers' the helo in line with the ship. Doubtless a side approach is possible but it seems needlessly complex when by removing the whip aerial a stern approach is OK. Such rear 'clutter' would also be a real threat to conventional helos with a tail rotor. Happily, it's possible to just fly through the antenna, but that seems to be a bad habit to get into! Does anyone know the real situation on the frigates?

Thanks Great information. Thanks Timm, ZZ and 159. Will dive into folders and try not to make a mess. Thanks again

1) The HUD is awful hard to see against blue sky. Is there a way to change the HUD colour to black or similar? 2) Throttle settings affect the amount of collective needed to get a particular amount of lift. The lower the setting, the more collective needed for the same amount of lift (or so it seems). Does this mean that when doing close maneuvering, such as landing on ships, it's useful to shift from the 2 stops up (PAGE UP x 2) to 1 stop up (PAGE UP x 1) to give more precise control? All help greatly appreciated.

Ooops. Apologies. I guess red wine and helicopters just don't mix

Thanks OK thanks for that. I appreciate the help.

Speed indication differences Oh dear. Thanks a lot. Which of these often widely differing speeds do I use then? I'd have thought radar would always be good but the others must be there for good reasons.

The speeds shown in the HUD, the ABRIS and Shkval can differ by as much as 30 - 40 kph at the same time. Can anyone explain why this is so please? Which of these speeds is most reliable and under which circumstances? I have had the ABRIS say I'm doing 40+ kph while the Shkval blithely tells me that I'm stationary. All help appreciated.

Collective brake could be a wind brake If you go into the Mission Editor and create a strong wind with the Ka stationary (e.g. Shooting Range mission) hit F2 and you'll see the rotors blow up and down in quite extraordinary ways. Operate the cyclic and different rotors will raise and lower. Now the point: If you release the collective brake the rotors will start to rotate and soon will probably collide with each other, destroying themselves. Because the rotors aren't being rotated at speed by the engine, ie. there is no centrifugal force pushing them out and down, they're free to lift as high as they like in the wind. It's therefore quite possible that the brake is there to protect the rotors in the event of wind gusts until such time as the rotors are tied down with ropes etc.

:helpsmilie: Now having flown, crashed and spun all over the place in the Ka-50 for several weeks, I'm still left with no clear understanding of rotor safety. I put the 'Shooting Range' mission into a high ground wind condition with the Mission Editor and found that the wind turned the helicopter on the ground, like a wind vane. It also caused the rotors to flap (similar to the producer's note on rotor physics). Operation of collective and/or cyclic caused the blades to lift quite violently without any engine start up. I thought I'd try a flight (ha ha) but before I could start the APU, there was a series of bangs from above the pit and the rotors proceeded to disassemble themselves into substantially shorter versions of themselves. It's clear therefore that the Ka is extremely sensitive to wind conditions. While the wind I programmed was extreme, there must exist wind speed envelopes that cause the rotors to intersect just as there are air speed and maneuvering conditions that do the same. Is it the only flying contraption that can disassemble itself catastrophically during 'normal' flight? It's all too difficult for me to figure at my stage of learning I'm finding. How can I better understand the effects on the rotors? Air speed is one factor, attitude another, maneuvering another while relative wind velocity clearly is a fourth. Since damage also affects attitude, it's also clear that some types of damage in particular wind/altitude/attitude conditions is more dangerous than others. I note tower won't give engine start clearance at higher wind speeds (e.g. 30 m/sec), they clearly know something that I don't! What a beast! Any guidance that leads to greater enlightenment appreciated.

Brilliant. An excellent, well presented and highly useful tool. Should be provided in the standard doco's for this superb sim

Does anyone know how to switch off the Shkval system please? Cheers

Excellent idea Esac. I'd definitely support any initiative that helps people to learn to get the best from this sim.