britgliderpilot

That was genuinely impressive! I'd prefer a more reserved commentary, and when they put on a Raptor airshow just for me I'll tell them so :P

Not only that - I'm not sure which weapons you'd end up using it with. The rocket capacity is such that given an area target to suppress I'd just do one run and blanket it. I'd hate to do it with Vikhrs, the cannon is best used from distance . . . Gunpods, perhaps?

Dude, it made sense all along and I suspect you know it. In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, let's recap . . . This thread is about people's expectations for Black Shark. There are gaps between what some members of the community are hoping for, and what they can reasonably expect for Black Shark. That's what my original post was about - I think it's a very valid point. You've picked up on one of the little examples I suggested of an unrealistic expectation causing someone disappointment at Black Shark release. I plead some artistic licence - no, there haven't been mass calls for an F-15 study sim on this forum, and the term "some people" doesn't include every F-15 pilot on the forums. So shoot me ;) But there has been an expressed desire for changes to the F-15 that aren't just fixes to what is already there, but require remodelling the aircraft. And I do still believe that some people will be disappointed when they don't arrive with Black Shark . . . .

Simply put - because more people know, or think they know, areas in which the F-15 model could be improved. More people on the English forums have seen F-15s at airshows, have read F-15 flight manuals, have brothers/cousins/mates flying F-15s than likewise for the Migs and Sukhois. Likewise, more people on the English forums are interested in an aircraft flown by the world's biggest English-speaking nation. AMRAAM accuracy, radar modes, MPCD, thrust DO all need changing for the Eagle to be more accurate. This is undoubtedly true. The MiG-29 and Su-27 also require radar, missile, and possibly thrust reworkings. Certainly they require the HDD operation and nav modes updating. But do you hear about those things so much? No. I've seen several posts saying that if these things don't improve with Black Shark, the poster won't buy it. It's not hard to get from that to the poster being interested exclusively in the F-15 and how well it's modelled. Do I carefully write down the post numbers and thread titles? Of course not . . . . . Now chill out ;)

Mmmn. I don't care about what it lacks - I'm going to buy it for more Red Bull Air Races in the Extra, and pylon racing in the P-51. The RBAR in FSX - and beating the clock in it - is one of the most challenging pieces of flying I've ever done. I still actually get a bit of adrenaline surge as I'm going through the last couple of turns towards the finish on a fast run . . . . *looks embarassed* . . .

A link? Well take a look at Wags' Black Shark sticky. It says - more than once - that Black Shark is going to focus on the Ka50. Regarding requests for a dedicated F-15 sim - of course I exaggerate. However, the volume of requests for tweaks to the F-15, or better modelling for the F-15, has been larger than that for any other aircraft. The F-15 wish list thread was enormous, and doubtless some members of the forum wouldn't be satisfied with ED's modelling of the F-15 unless it was at study-sim level. Whether that's due to F-15 jocks being more numerous/demanding than the rest, the F-15 being modelled less accurately than other aircraft (which I doubt), or simply more being known about the F-15 and hence it being easier to point out the points overlooked, I simply don't know. I'm not picking out the F-15 pilots here. There's simply been more complaints about that aircraft ;)

Not necessarily more important - but it was a Russian publisher that approached ED with the project, so they were certainly the first publisher to show any interest in distributing a new flight sim. American and European publishers were nowhere to be seen . . . . as I'm sure you'll remember, Ubisoft dropped ED and Lomac some time ago . . . I really don't know if 1C assumed the Ka50 would be modelled to this level of detail. But there is an easy flight and radar mode if you want to use it, and a lot of people probably will. Hardcore simmers will appreciate the hardcore modelling, too. Regarding a two-year delay affecting interest in an aircraft . . . . I have just two words to add here: Top Gun. I rest my case :D

;) None of those 3D models and textures are in Black Shark - they've been community developed for Flaming Cliffs. That doesn't mean they couldn't be adapted and added as mods to Black Shark at release, and it doesn't mean they couldn't be taken on board and added to Black Shark during development. They certainly add something, and I'd like to see them in game, subject to framerate considerations. Anyone approached ED about that yet? . . . but in other ways, of course, Black Shark will already look better than FC.

Ultimately, if ED can make *enough* money by selling a sim they want to make . . . . then they'll make that. In this case, 1C Games in Russia presented a project for ED based on the success of a film starring the Ka50 in Russia. ED thought they could make money from it, and accepted the project. It's that simple.

A quick Google reveals two things . . . Firstly, the gold coating reduces RCS by hiding the inside of the cockpit - all sharp edges, bad for radar reflections. And technically classified on US aircraft. Could be an export issue. Secondly, it's apparently incompatible with NVG use . . . . so with the gradual re-roling of the F-16 from day fighter to multirole strike aircraft over the years, that'd make sense.

As the question suggests, that depends on everyone's individual expectations. ED play their cards close to their chests, and most of the online community is both enthusiastic and optimistic . . . . which is a bad combination. Judging from past experience, though, a lot of people WILL be disappointed by Black Shark, and we'll hear a lot from them . . . Some will complain the helicopter is too difficult to fly and fight. Some will complain it needs too expensive a PC. Some will complain you need a HOTAS and TrackIR to make the most of it - see above. Some will complain that the graphics still aren't good enough. Some will complain that things are still missing in terms of AI and immersion - which is inevitable, you can't manage a quantum leap in a couple of years. Some fixed-wing fans, despite the repeated statements that virtually all dev time for Black Shark is going on the helicopter, will still complain that Black Shark isn't a dedicated F-15 sim. Flight sim fans have varied tastes, and there will ALWAYS be people who have hopes in their favourite direction. Not every flight sim will go in that direction, and they won't like it. For the hardcore simmer, rotorhead, or perhaps a simmer who's open to experiencing a new direction in sims, Black Shark will be fantastic. It's the most detailed helicopter simulation I've ever heard of, and the accuracy is unbelievable. You'll spend months learning it all. For the hardcore fixed-wing jock . . . . Black Shark won't be what you're looking for. It's about a helicopter. The good news is that ED do want to release that final patch for FC incorporating some of the improvements they made along the way . . . so you hopefully get some tweaks and improvements for free. The better news is that ED don't want to stick with rotary-winged flight forever. So just have patience, and hopefully the next project will produce some fixed-wing aircraft at the level of fidelity that the Ka50 is modelled at. It'll take time. But progress always does.

. . . . how come all DPS' vids have attractive Scottish women in them, and French subtitles? I'm not complaining, you understand . . . just curious :P

Sounds like some envy and impatience here . . . . Most of the beta testers were pretty active forum members before they got to the beta team. We'd be telling you to be patient anyway . . . . just now we're a bit better informed on it ;) By your logic, the guys who've played the rough beta at MAKS should shut up as well - because now they've had a taster of the final product. No matter what any of us say, Black Shark will take as long as it takes. So just settle down and wait, pick up another game in the meantime and enjoy it :) I'd recommend Stalker or FSX. As a side note . . . . I haven't yet seen the campaign for Black Shark. And I await that very eagerly indeed . . . So yes, we get a look at the sim before you do. But please don't hate us for it ;)

You can't buy what isn't finished . . . . Black Shark needs a bit of polishing first. If it was released right now, you'd very quickly start to hate it. From what I've read of the MAKS demo, it was a very minimal, easy flight model, limited use mission overseen by the guys at ED. I'd question it's stability, security, and accuracy to the final version if released as a demo. To draw a rough analogy, it'd be like using the original Lomac demo as a demo for the Su25T in Flaming Cliffs.

Will it have a boat and a pier? :P I never really liked that film . . . . In fact . . . I never thought I'd say this . . . . but the lack of Keanu Reeves actually hurt it!

Oh sure. I don't care how long ED take with a fully functional release of Black Shark . . . I mean, I've got it right here! Those little bugs like my aircraft randomly exploding or no missiles hitting after I've just done a ramp start and flown an hour's NOE ingress to a target are just fine, and no hindrance to the enjoyment of the sim at all . . . . It's a good myth you have there ;) The fact that a lot of time has been spent working on Black Shark absolutely does not mean there's been spare capability for anything else. It's like saying to the builders of, say, the Milau bridge that they could have thrown up a couple of tower blocks into the bargain . . .

You think they don't need every last minute of that time to get the Ka50 working properly? ;)

Those are operating procedures, not flight manuals - fascinating stuff, but not quite the real thing . . . .

Mmmn. The capability did exist, but the USAF never trained for it and never used it. I don't recall whether software updates eventually removed the capability. The Saudis, with the same aircraft, do train for it and used it in GW1. You can argue that it's a possibility for the F-15C . . . . but then there's a whole heap of other A2A modes that aren't modelled for the F-15C either, and IMO dropping bombs comes a very long second to them. On LGBs - I'll have to recheck the books, but IIRC Sea Harriers with minimal equipment used Paveways in the Falklands after several attempts. But they did have a laser rangefinger to buddy-lase the position.

Helios is solar-powered - no burning of fuel involved there . . . . From everything I've read, Gary Powers was anything but a mediocre pilot. In fact he was the most experienced U-2 pilot there was, chosen for a marathon mission . . . . only reason he got shot down is that his overflight followed a previous entry route to Soviet airspace and fourteen SAMs were waiting for him. I consider his survival astonishing. And the U-2 should be considered an extremely challenging aircraft to fly at the extremes of it's performance . . . .

Yeah - it's been proven inaccurate, new data accepted, and put on the list for the next fix. But I don't believe that's caused by leaving VG intakes out of the calculation ;)

Is that not done already? AFAIK, FC's engine data comes from interpolating between data points - whether those points are arrived at from known values or theoretical models I don't know. If the thrust is from known values (as long as they vary with Mach number as well as throttle position/altitude) it's irrelevant. If it's from a theoretical model, then one of two things is probably true: - Mach-variable intake efficiency is not applied to the model. This would mean you'd get more thrust than in RL . . . which by popular consensus seems to be untrue. Plus it seems an oversimplification - a couple of hours in Excel could probably build a halfway accurate model, still accounting for intake efficiency. - Mach-variable intake efficiency is applied to the model. But while there's a fairly big difference between no intake efficiency, normal shockwave intake efficiency, and VG intake efficiency . . . . there's not much difference in complexity between the intake efficiency models. I can't see why a VG model wouldn't be used.

I'll go for a world with things actually happening in it. Birds, more traffic, better roads, MUCH more in the way of AI aircraft and comms, FACs . . . . I suppose asking for little AI humans going about their everyday business is a bit OTT, but hey, it might happen some time :P The problem with all this stuff is that the time you take to implement starts to increase exponentially, for not all that much reward. For instance, my pet "live world" game at the moment is Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl. 1000 AI creatures, humans, bad guys, good guys, animals . . . all of which have to eat, scavenge and so forth. And the detail in some areas is absolutely mind-boggling . . . . But it took best part of a decade, and still isn't finished. Maybe 20% of the original game area couldn't make it to release. And the AI's still bugged. Try doing that to a flight sim . . . . . where the "world" is generally considered secondary to the simulation of the aircraft. Certainly the aircraft could be finished before the world was, which gives you an interesting problem regarding release dates . . .

Is that check list from the Ka50 startup video? Looks about right for that one . . . . There are a couple more steps in the sequence now . . . but I'm not sure the NDA lets me tell you exactly what they are and what they do. It's broadly speaking right, and a good leg-up . . . . but it's just a bit more accurate (and complex) now.

I saw that movie. It was complete bollocks :P The Ka50 can just about manage A2A . . . . but so far I've never felt comfortable in such a situation. Against a fighter (regardless of what Firebirds may have you believe), I'd just run and hide . . . .