britgliderpilot

Mmmn. Given that no DirectX 10 game has yet been released, the nature of BS as a development of Lomac/FC (both Dx8.1), and how much it would cost for ED and the testers to upgrade to Vista and Dx10 cards . . . . the answer should be fairly obvious ;) I think it's fairly safe to say without breaking the NDA that Black Shark will NOT be a DirectX 10 game . . . .

According to Russian marketing conventions, they're probably right . . . By which I mean that if you walked to Kamov with a large cheque and said "Can you fit an R-73 to a Ka50?" . . . the answer would probably be yes. Same deal with Sukhoi, MiG, anyone . . . you want a weapon on their aircraft, give them some money, and they'll magically find a way to do it. What matters to us is whether it's fitted to the "basic" model Ka50 . . . not the night attack version, not the Ka52, and not a prototype they tried it on once.

. . . . until the missile enters the cloud of smoke and can't see the beam anymore. Nothing's foolproof, of course. All SALH and beam-rider missiles still suffer from the key problem that you can only attack one target at a time . . . . which is why the Apache Longbow's rippling 16 Hellfires at individual targets is such a fantastic capability. It's sometimes easy to forget that the Ka50 first flew in 1982 . . . . it's pretty old now.

I think we've come full circle now . . . . Yes - the Shkval sees the target and points the laser beam at it. The missile travels down the beam, looking backwards from the sensors in the tail. The beam probably does touch the target - it's aimed in that direction, after all, and unless the beam is REALLY small there's not much chance that the missile will block the laser energy from reaching the target. . . . I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, though.

Make it a very thin closed box rather than a single plate? The one textured side will remain on the outside . . . . Just guessing, I don't do any 3D modelling . . .

Quoting the Flaming Cliffs manual again:

Nope, you're still misunderstanding it. The sensors on the Vikhr look BACKWARDS at the aircraft - not at the target at all. See this quote from the Flaming Cliffs manual:

I think you must have misread that explanation - the sensor doesn't look for the laser reflection from the surface target on the Vikhr. It looks backwards at the launching aircraft . . . . perhaps an unusual way of doing things, but that's the way it works.

The .cmd file format is the old shape file format from the days of Flanker. The .lom format is the new, improved shape file format. My understanding is that they're pretty much interchangable . . . it should be the file name, not the extension, that's the issue. Try replacing the PTB-3000.cmd with your new PTB-3000.lom and see what happens :)

Try "The New Mission Editor" for size. In fact . . . . just read Wags' 24th July Update: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=21797

Mmmn. The problem (or possibly advantage) that Jet Thunder has is that rocks and boulders are just about the only form of scenery on the Falkland Islands. It's not really a feature, it's just all they can do . . . It's a barren, featureless desert out there . . . .

Playing the harp? ;) Graphics are important, and so is gameplay. But you can't just stop improving the graphics in favour of better gameplay . . . the Falcon 4 guys took that line some time ago, and the graphics on that sim now look dated to the extent that I just don't enjoy flying it anymore. Lock On is starting to show it's age in some areas as well. Some of it can be updated easily - new terrain mapping and textures have already been mentioned as areas of improvement for Black Shark. Some of it, IMO, doesn't need much tweaking yet - the atmospheric shaders, for example, are still pretty good. The water reflections are great, but could do with a better wave shape. The clouds could do with improving, adding cirrus clouds, changing shapes, so forth. Shadows. Ahh, shadows . . . . The Full Shadows Bug and the jagged edges on self-shadowing could both do with some improvement, of course. As ED's future turns towards mudmoving, though, the ground details in particular will require upgrading to stay up to date. Here I'm talking about better trees, more detailed ground textures . . . . and sooner or later, probably updating the models used for buildings as well. If you take a flight through the world of Armed Assault, you begin to see the level of detail that is possible now . . . . and Lock On is starting to fall behind. Of course a flight sim can never offer quite the level of ground detail that a game primarily designed as a first-person shooter can - especially not over such a huge game area - but there are still some improvements that can be made, and we should all hope WILL be made.

There's some overenthusiasm going on at Lockonfiles, I think. Speedtree WAS tested with Black Shark . . . . but in the end couldn't be made to work successfully, so it's not in.

If you are in a situation where an A-10 has failed to notice you, it's just as easy to take it out with Vikhr as with R-73 - as countless virtual Su25T drivers will attest ;) If it DOES see you . . . . then you're dead. - rogue_blade The fast-mover will at least get one pass without warning on an attack helicopter - with guns if nothing else. The idea of an attack helicopter engaging the fast-mover first remains extremely improbable.

I genuinely have no idea where these mysterious 2 extra hardpoints are supposed to be . . . . On the other hand, if the "official" Kamov page doesn't give the R-73 as armament, that answers the question of the thread . . . . the Igla question may be another matter but I have to assume that ED's information is accurate.

A Flaming Cliffs profile will certainly need extensive modification for Black Shark . . . The clickable cockpit mainly deals with setting up the systems of the helicopter - there's not many that you'll need to access in flight. However, there are new commands - some caused by more realism, some by the nature of the aircraft - that you will really want on the HOTAS. Don't worry about it too much. Yes, you'll need to change the profile, but wait until it comes out and you've caught up with all the commands you'll need to use first. And trust me, the learning curve on the helicopter is going to be steep.

Now this is a new and interesting problem . . . . Logic dictates there's got to be a way through it somehow. Have you got the monitor screen sizes (in pixels) sitting to hand? My best guess is that a monitor will stretch a signal of the correct aspect ratio and centre one of the wrong aspect ratio. Whether the black stripes are at the top and bottom, or at the sides will depend on whether the aspect ratio is too large or too small.

I fail to see how, when you've just said that both missiles are likely to have a range of 6km, an R-73 would be a better choice :) Exhaust coolers, flares, discoballs . . . all reduce heater PK. Laser guidance is rather more difficult to spoof. While operating an A10 or Su25T with every pylon loaded might be tricky, I'd be fairly comfortable in a Ka50 with twelve Vikhrs and two B-8 pods, even more so if running short range trips with light fuel loads. I certainly wouldn't want to give up the B-8s for a pair of R-73s. Well this is the problem - DO Kamov and Mil recognise the need for it? So far the only photos that I've seen of an R-73 on a helicopter are inert models . . . The US don't recognise a need for it, and neither do the UK. Exploring possibilities in testing is one thing . . . . but responding for a genuine need requested by the services? I still believe that even equipped with R-73, the Ka50 wouldn't stand a chance against a fast-mover. The APU-6 launcher with only two missiles hanging from it has indeed been seen flying, and I'd support that being included in the game as an option for flying with a light payload. But sadly I still don't see evidence to support the R-73 being carried, let alone a reason to carry it.

I'm unclear as to what you mean - are you talking about image quality, or framerate? You seem to be mixing the two in describing the problem . . You will get a lower framerate with a 128Mb 9800 Pro compared to an X1950, you can't avoid that - you'll just have to turn something down. As for image quality . . . . Well you're running a 22" screen and your dad's running a 17" screen - are they both on their native resolution? On an LCD/TFT screen, every pixel is a physical object - running it at a different resolution to it's native resolution causes odd effects. Should be 1280x1024 for your dad, 1,680x1,050 for you. Checked for latest drivers? It's also possible that when zoomed out (especially with the HUD lines), the size of pixels is greater than the size of the detail it's trying to show - which results in bad things happening. Try zooming in a little and see if it sharpens up a bit.

Oh no, the Shkval is fairly good at locking up moving targets . . . . Anyway, if your target is moving fast, it's not something you should be fighting. In order to carry and balance an A2A missile, you lose half your ordnance load . . . . and that's simply unacceptable. Rough range for an Igla is 5km. It's an old missile. Rough range for a Vikhr is 8-10km. And you're already carrying twelve of them. . . . . which bit of this doesn't add up to Igla - or any air-to-air missile - being a poor choice? BTW, the Ka50 does have some helmet-aiming functionality for mudmoving . . . edit - something that's just occurred to me about the potential mechanics of firing an R-73 from a Ka50 . . . Imagine the effects on the Vikhr launcher package of the rocket exhaust of a fire-breathing Mach 2 heater . . .

What is referred to in Russian promotional materials isn't always the same as what is currently integrated on the aircraft. There are no photos of the R-73 on a Ka50. There may be photos of a mockup on a Ka52, but the avionics suite on that aircraft is rather more complicated and isn't in service yet. The comparison to the Kh-41 is a good one ;) The basic ranging and targeting systems for ATGMs may well be similar on the Su25T and Ka50 - but it's madness to suggest that everything else is the same. The Su25T has ten hardpoints, the Ka50 has four. The Su25T can carry the Mercury pod, the Ka50 can't. The Su25T can carry the Phantasmagoria pod to guide ARMs, the Ka50 can't. The sighting system may be similar, but the WCS is completely different! Nothing was copied over . . . really. They are two completely separate aircraft, in real life as well as in the sim.

Subtly different variety of mudmover. The Tornado is a low-level, high-speed strike aircraft - built to cruise veryveryfast through attack runs. High wing loading is a bonus in these conditions . . . . gives a smoother ride. See Jaguar, Harrier, and the TSR2. The A-10 is an agile CAS/tankbuster - twisting and turning is what it does. See the difference? :)

If you think you stand a chance against a fast-mover in a helicopter . . . . think again ;) Helicopters fly NOE. Visibility from a Ka50 cabin is poor. You look down for targets, not up. You have no radar, you don't even have an RWR. You'd just have absolutely no idea the fast-mover was there. None.

The weapons systems on the Ka50 and Su25T are based around the same optical sight and laser-guided missile, but are still different in many ways. The code for the Ka50's weapons system - not that you can immediately tell from the videos - is completely new and isn't related to the Su25T code. So it's a moot point, to be honest. In addition to that, the evidence that I've seen so far suggests that the R-73 just isn't a realistic weapon for the Ka50. To be honest, not having an R-73 isn't important. For a helicopter, it's quite a big and heavy missile - certainly if you're just carrying it on the off-chance of finding something to shoot down. It just hogs a pylon you can use for more ordnance. The Vikhr can be used in the air-to-air role, as people have found many times in Flaming Cliffs - it suffices perfectly well. You don't want to wade into A2A combat in an attack chopper unless you absolutely have to, though - your best bet is just to run away . . . .

Oh, right, I misread it then. Something outmaneuvring an F3 really isn't something to worry about . . . . grin. BTW, you need to remove the last slash from that link . . . .