liotczik

Let's not mix simulated flying done for the purpose of one's entertainment, with real life, where pilots would like to keep the "entertainment factor" to a minimum ;) Besides, I wouldn't actually call Hornet to be a bad choice for a sim or an inferior aircraft, as it is in real life.

It is a pilot, who is a master. The more "inferior" tool at his disposal, the greater the challenge and glory ;)

Too nice to be true ;) I, for one, would be completely satisfied with such aircraft :) It could be also a diversion: imagine an aircraft that is completely different from this one, in every aspect, and we'll have the answer, what really is in the workshop ;) A supersonic jet, single seat, carrier capable.

In terms of quantity, yes, and in terms of quality, things are quickly changing, as X-Plane's world isn't sleeping: http://x-aviation.com/previews/screenshot_238.png http://x-aviation.com/previews/screenshot_239.png http://x-aviation.com/previews/screenshot_241.png It's a preview of upcoming Oahu scenery for X-Plane, made by RealScenery. Some other States are available now, with more to come.

I've found, that the best helo for training purposes is freeware MD500. It's very stable and easy to handle (5-blade rotor and small inertia), but it doesn't have any artificial stabilisation. That's why BK-117 is easier to fly, but doesn't make a good trainer, because it's fantastic stabilisation computers correct your mistakes and prevent learning true, unassisted helicopter dynamics. After you've mastered "The Teardrop", I'd suggest payware DreamFoil's B206. Great flight model, great sound and feel of the aircraft, more difficult to fly, but still pretty straightforward and predictable - as long as you have everything under firm control ;) One moment of distraction and bad things start to happen quite fast. Robinsons, with their unusual geometry, mass distribution and 2-blade propeller are the most wild and crazy helicopters I've ever flown in a sim. They're perfectly controllable, but require much more skills and paying attention. For advanced pilots :) Of course you can also try BK-117 with all the stabilisation off, though it's against the regulations ;) I've tried it (before reading the POH) and it was a true "ride" :D Like it was completely different bird! As for the Saitek, I've found that the best results are achieved with INNER spring removed, while outer is left in place (it can be done without any destruction, just dissasemble the stick slowly, pay attention to what you're doing and use your head, instead of muscles - just like you've been practising hovering ;)). Self-centering is preserved, but it moves more smoothly, without jerking. You can also lubricate the metal centering disc and plastic beneath it with silicone oil. In fact lubricate every surfaces, that have contact with others. The same tip goes for jerky "mini-slider" on the throttle grip. While we are at the throttle, I suggest to open it and remove rubber idle and afterburner gates, they are VERY annoying, while flying helos. In fact, while flying planes, they are annoying too. Skyhawk with "afterburner", LOL!! Actually, BK-117 has two trim methods :) Please read the manual on page 16 - SAS and ATT modes. EDIT: one more thing, that has escaped my attention before. I'd suggest using linear joystick input curve. While it seems harder to make minimal control inputs, especially near center (like in a hover), but it more than pays off, just beacause of linearity and muscle memory. It means, that no matter where is your stick at any given moment of flight, it takes exactly the same amount of stick movement to perform a specific attitude change, which is easy to "remember", as it's a constant relation. Non linear, while it's easier in the center, is more hard at the outside part of stick movement envelope (like at the beginning of a cruise, with stick fully forward, before trimming or cruising on a helo without trim at all), as well as makes much more difficult to develop muscle memory, because the same amount of stick deflection could make small or big attitude change, with regards to actual stick position and flight envelope.

http://xplane10.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/gorans-interview-final-2.pdf Interview with Goran Matovina, who is developing B747 for X-Plane. Some screenshots inside ;) I own the Becchcraft Sundowner he made, and with such high quality it presents, I'm confident that his 747 will turn the sim world upside down.

That will be changed sooner, than you think ;) Great works of art are being done as we speak. Have patience!

The basic knowledge is here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=32267 More details are here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/poh/index.html and here: http://www.copters.com/helo_aero.html Also I find his video tutorials very useful: The rest is practice, practise and even more practise. There is no other way with helicopters, but after you learn it, the experience is VERY rewarding :) For the training flights, set up on a beginning of a runway, because it provides nice spatial reference - you'll need it especially to learn how to hover.

BK-117 is a must for everyone interested in virtual helicopters! Also I highly recommend buying the newest Jet Ranger for X-Plane, made by Dream Foil. Fantastic bird! The best B206 I've flown in a sim, and I had a couple of them. A picture gallery of it: http://picasaweb.google.com/nicolas.xplane/Bell206?feat=directlink#

That's why I usually carry gunpods on inboard pylons :) For the long shots I use... wingmans! Proper formation, nice ambush and Hinds go down like in a 'Deer Hunter'. Even Apaches get busted in no time. Thinking ahead and flight management FTW!

I'm going to upgrade my PC and done some research, as what to do. Definitely stronger CPU + more modern mainboard is the answer. Currently I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+, each core clocked at 2,71GHz, running under Win XP Pro 32bit. While this is enough to run Black Shark on medium-high settings with about 30 constant fps, I'm aware that it may not be enough in a very near future. As for the Game Booster, I can't see if it makes a difference. Neither by fps count, nor visual. As far as I can tell, when Black Shark is launched, it goes to one core and all the other stuff goes to the second core. The result is that user sees increase in both cores loadout and thinks, that Black Shark is multicore, but that isn't the case. Launching Game Booster lowers load on the 'system-utility' core by max. 4% and has no influence on 'simulation' core. Also I've been advised, that it's still better to buy a dual core processor with individual cores running higher clock, that quad core with cores running lower clock settings. Another often overlooked tip, is general health of operating system. Defrag HDD, tidy up the register, remove unneeded applications from autostart etc. for better performance.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, because bringing Tom Clancy with regards to realistic military games/simulations, sounds funny to me. I'm familiar with his games and books, but I'm not a great fan of them. For me they look more like works of someone only and deeply fascinated with american power and technology, rather than someone trying to be a reliable source of information. Also I don't believe, that his friends in military tell him about modern avionics secret features, so he can relay them to us; most of his knowledge comes form publicly available sources anyway. EW and IFF systems are the most higly classified ones, as far as I can see. That's why f.e. Falcon's radar can't pick up IFF transponders from friendly a/c (a feature known since Battle of Britain and I don't believe that it was dropped since then - in fact I think it was only improved) or you don't even have the most simple IFF working switch (basically on-off, like jammer). Sonar features you mentioned are also present in Sub Command/Dangerous Waters and I don't think, that Mr Clancy was involved into production of these two.

It was already done reasonably well in 'Gunship!' - unfortunately it was one of the only 3 good features in that sim(?). The other two were planeset (2x Apache, Havoc, Tigre) and visual representation of NVG/FLIR. While in CP/G seat, player didn't have had any control over a helo. Instead he could supply AI pilot with commands like go up, strafe left, fly to waypoint no.#, fly slower/faster, fly NOE and so on. At least that element worked well and actually I liked it more, than how it is done in Longbow 2 or Enemy Engaged. I'm happy with Ka-50 as it is, with all it's shortcomings. I've flown Ka-52 in 'Enemy Engaged' and now forgotten 'Ka-52 Team Alligator'. The experience, apart from simulation fidelity and eyecandy, wasn't that much different, from what I have in Black Shark. My reasoning is, why make a whole new module for a very similar airframe? There are many Russian helicopters, that are more different from Ka-50 and would be a better choice, Hind (+ Afghanistan campaign, even current conflict could be modelled) being the first on the list. However, Ka-52 could be an interesting topic for modders, although certainly on a different level of fidelity, with a healthy amount of "educated guessing".

Ah yes, Tom Clancy. I've heard, that he made a fantastic and realistic flight sim recently, 'Hawks' or 'Hacks' was it's name, can't remember exactly at the moment, sorry... I've seen a trailer for it somewhere and was impressed by the top flight model fidelity, especially post-stall maneuvers and realistic avoidance of missiles. That really opened my eyes, as I've always suspected, that our 'barrel roll' trick was too simple to be efficient, also that our Lomac/FC jets are far unmaneuverable and underpowered. Think of it - we're in 21st century and advance in technology surely pushed envelope much further, than we are told. And no one ever performed "inverted reversed low alt double cobra" on airshows, not because it's impossible to do so, but because of it's top secrecy! :D

You should definitely try 'Condor', the soaring simulator. Since obviously you don't even have an engine in a glider, and thermals/ridge lifts are not always so easy to find, I think that lack of explosions'n'bloodshed would be your last concern there ;) Try it, complete 5 hour track and then we'll talk about "feeling" of flight :thumbup:

I'd be interested to fly such aircraft. They would be particularly useful in MP, mostly as a multicrew planes (that is either controlled by several players at once or one player manning different seats, depending on needs). However, I'm worried about the usual "classified stuff" preventing us from getting the most interesting and modern digital hardware. For now I have to manage with 'Jane's Fleet Command' and 'Harpoon' regarding EW. Another nice series would be ASW platforms. I've bought 'Dangerous Waters' for the Seahawk alone, though Orion hooked me as well, regardless almost non-existant flight model and obvious simplifications in avionics. Still, it is enough to get me interested - partially, because there is nothing better in this field and partially, because it's a challenge, even with the current fidelity. One more similar airframe I'd like to try, is E-2 Hawkeye. Carrier ops + turboprop :D

1) Aviation is especially expensive hobby, even in it's digital form. "Only for eagles"... And no, I'm not particularly rich, just dedicated. 2) Simulation will always be only simulation. Want 100% realism => join air force. Remember though, that real pilots gave Black Shark generally positive feedback and that means something! I've tried enough sims to be able to recognise high quality and I will always support one, even if it's not about my most favourite aircraft (although not many of these ;)). Also I'm confident, that it will improve even more with every subsequent module. 3) Black Shark is available in English, "aviation's main language", alright. Most interesting reading resources are in this language anyway. You may say, that's not the problem for me, because I speak it. True, but it's not my mother tongue and I've learned it just because I used computer and early sims. I've never attended any course and lessons we had at school were laugh all the way. To be honest, I hate when a game/sim doesn't have English version, as it's one less occassion for me to improve my language skills. I respect and encourage your localization efforts, but being a kind of part time low scale developer myself, I think you need more patience and understanding. I know about spinning rotors. But what about missile's radar - would it take advantage of it and won't be bothered by ground clutter? Also about that alternating flight direction, altitude and speed. The idea is to present some random returns from an area, rather than a series of "knots on a straight rope", to make it harder for radar to interpret these returns as a one and same target. Would it work like that in RL/DCS? A little offtop here, but I think it's interesting. I've painted my Spitfire in Sturmovik in some nice camouflages, among them was all PRU Blue scheme. I've observed, that in this case, the plane's dot dissappeared with increased distance about twice as fast, as with other camouflages, when put against blue sky. Opposite was true for planes seen agains terrain. PRU Pink at the right time of cloudy day is another story ;) Yes, the famous "disco lights". I love this part of equipment ;) Recently I've read and watched about even more advanced design being developed, which works on a pronciple of a laser beam being precisely directed to the threat, to blind it more effectively. Amazing! Sure, if only MANPADS weren't shooting at me through 1000m of forest ;) I hope that this will be addressed, as well as adding collisions with trees, in future paths/modules. But even now I enjoy stalking Stingers & Co. with a gun.

What about detection range and probability, against ground clutter, while jet is flying at his CAP altitude? Also I've read, that constantly alternating flight path and speed helps to blend into terrain and avoid radar detection - of course not always and everywhere, but it increases chances of avoiding detection. Another thing is flying low and slow, to be identified by radar as a ground vehicle, instead of a helo. The trick is not being on the radar scope in the first place ;) How about jammers used in a clever way? Radar is not a magic wand, but only a device (complicated and amazing but still only a mechanical device). Also all you want, is to send active radar guided missile and it's over. OK, it's really deadly and I don't blame you for doing so :) What about SARH and IR then? What about denying gunshot by maneuvering perpendicular to and "under" the jet (even without jet being tied with ROE limitations)? I'd say, that the further away we go from active missiles, the more chances helicopter has. Actually I consider good representation of camouflage as a neat feature of Lomac/DCS. As for the screen, with the recent addition of HOTAS + TrackIR I was able to somehow overcome this limitation, also I've enabled modified labels, so they show only dark ' at reasonable distances, to counter for AI exaggerated SA. Maybe, but it works for me and was tested in real combat (at least for dogfighting), with good results. Also I'm not so sure, that always better plane will win - it depends. Sure, jet fighter has a definite edge over helicopter, only because the difference in performance is so huge, but there are known cases of Bf-109 being shot down by Hurricanes, and I don't think here about surprise attacks from above. Better pilot was able to turn the odds in his favour, despite inferior aircraft. Also real engagements are more complicated and unpredictable, than theoretical 1 on 1 scenarios. I've never said, that it will be easy - on the contrary :) I only insist, that it is possible to survive, although not always, not everywhere and not in every helicopter. One is certain, that RWR-less Shark, with poor pilot's view coverage and single crewmember has clearly less chances of doing so right from the start, that say UH-60 packed with electronics and at 4 pairs of Mk.I Eyeball, with way better view coverage. LOOOL! "I'm sorry soldier, but you have to give away your helmet, bulletproof vest and boots, as they are needed elsewhere..." :D Seriously, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, even US are now more into protecting helos from IR missiles and small arms and providing fixed wing SEAD/cover. Also the possibility for helos to encounter in combat radar equipped threats is currently minimal, for the tasks they are used for, so it seems to be a good idea to save money on unneeded and expensive equipment. On the other hand you'll never know, what could happen tomorrow and as such it would be wise to have that extra capabilities. I can be pretty sneaky, believe me ;)

"Hind returns" Sadly the music is busted, but this video illustrates the most important features of EE Hind and a general 'feel' of the aircraft. I really like the beginning, with short history lesson :)

Another method is to set the wingmen to the highest (smartest) AI setting. They will engage targets out of the harm's way for the most of the time and will perform visibly better. Sometimes there is no time for datalinking and "fire at will" would be good option, with the addition of radius, f.e. "Vintovka, fire at will, up to 3km". And the selected wingmen will seek out and kill anything closer, than 3km. Another radio comm I miss, is status report. Like weapons state, fuel state and damage if any. Thay way I wouldn't have to take external camera and count, how much Vikhrs they still have left :joystick:

Technically he's able to do that, however only if he's looking for a helo, with radar look down mode or on low alt. Besides there are ways to fool radars. Neither of the two :P Simply my LCD screen isn't the biggest available and these sneaky eggbeaters blend more than well into terrain with their camouflage. I'm strong in the Force :D By carefull observation of the enemy and a lot of practice you can judge from his moves, how good is he - that is an opinion of WWII fighter ace and pre-war fighter instructor pilot (18 kills, survived the war, never shot down), and I subscribe under it. Also air combat is all about making less mistakes, than the opponent and proper use of his errors, right? ;) And that's why I don't think helos are totally doomed :) Another considerations worth mentioning are how advanced the helo is, does it have modern electronics, are we talking about real world vs simulation, single player vs multi and so on, as all of them will have an impact on helicopter survivability in a discussed scenario. Helicopters can be beaten by fighters, sure. But that doesn't make them totally useless or suicidal to fly. Helos are not worse, they are only different, and have their own applications. Still I don't know what possessed Russians not to equip Ka-50 with RWR...

While I don't know for sure, what will be in next DCS, I have this gut feeling, that it will be US multirole jet, maybe carrier capable also. It seems to be the most possible next module.

What if you had several armored columns to look after? I imagine, you would send wingmans to them. But if it was a simulation of a larger battle, then Shark would have some escort with him, at least that's what I'd like to do. ROE are another thing, that many sim pilots are not familiar with of aware of. For example, BVR in Lomac would be so different, if they had to first visually ID, what markings are on that dot on their scope ;) If AH-64 is able to outdetect Su-25, then it's a step ahead of him. At that point he can either hide/move away or prepare a nice ambush, though it's less likely scenario. No matter the case, I'd say it's a big advantage at the moment. Yes, I've tried shooting down helicopters from Su-25 and by no means it was an easy task, because they fly so low and I had to shoot from a distance and then pull up, in order to avoid the ground. Also they maneuvered in some really clever way, exactly as they should. I got them in the end, but on a battlefield, the time, they bought themselves by doing this, could be enough to make me intercepted by some local fighters on a CAP. As for the skilled/lame opposition, I prefer to take both possibilities into account. Sometimes it can be more distracting, when opponent does something stupid, than clever. Why? Because when you see a skillful move, you know, that there's some right stuff behind the stick and you're more focused, on what you're doing. But when you see a bad move, you'll never sure, if it was a real mishap, or some kind of clever trap, calculated on dropping your guard and striking right after you're relaxed and convinced, that it would be an easy kill. Simple and naive tricks bring the best results :)

Orbiter - A free space flight simulator http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ Bon voyage! :D

Of course, you're right. But do you really had to take all hope away from me, in such a cruel way? :D No matter the odds, I won't go down - not without a fight :P Given all the unpredictability of a battlefield and possible combinations of events, I'd still say, that helo has some chances. Not much maybe, but on the other hand I've never tried to prove, that attack helo is a match for a fighter, because it is not. That brings an interesting matter of air superiority to our MP equations, as helicopter pilots will need it to perform their tasks in relative safety from enemy fighters. And allied fighter pilots will get actual purpose for their kills gathering. It's only for the better, as it moves us closer to the battlefield simulation, but also makes smart design of missions even more of importance. You were able to nail Shark with A-10, mainly because you were also looking for him, as he was looking for you. If you didn't knew in the first place, that he is in the area, he might have slipped unnoticed. Another thing is, A-10C is clearly more advanced than Ka-50. I wonder, how that would be with AH-64 vs Su-25 (not T). By the way, it's nice to know, that works on A-10 are so much advanced ;) I never count on opposition being lame. I just take such possibility into account and exploit when applicable :) There are examples in history, when smaller but well organized forces beat bigger ones, who hadn't used their potential to the full.