britgliderpilot
-
Posts
2795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by britgliderpilot
-
-
Triggers activation space will be a dome, right? Or the shape space will be dependent on terrain masking (like for eye and sensors).
IIRC the trigger space is a cylinder rather than a dome. So any altitude over a given circle on the ground . . . .
-
1
-
-
you can run it on a mac?
Yes and no.
You cannot run BS under OSX - but since a Mac uses the same hardware as a PC these days, you can install Windows on a Mac.
You can then of course run any Windows program you choose, including Black Shark.
It's an expensive way of getting there, but if you already have a Mac . . .
Regarding the original question - I know some testers are running Vista, but I don't know about the 64-bit question. Wait and see on that one.
Are the driver issues starting to be solved with Vista 64-bit?
-
One of the rotors rotating clockwise, while the other is rotating counterclockwise and they balance each other in straight flight. That is, they neutralize each other's torque in straight flight. If you want the chopper to yaw, you simply increase the torque of one rotor, while keeping the other unchanged. Or you decrease the torque while keeping the other same...
Not strictly true - as the link should explain.
You increase torque by increasing the pitch of one rotor disc - if the other remains unchanged then there would be an undesirable control coupling whereby lift would vary with rudder application.
If you balance them properly, you can cut out the lift change and create a greater torque imbalance (faster yaw rate) by increasing rotor pitch on one disc while decreasing it on the other. I understand this is that the Kamov system does.
-
If the hydraulic pressure goes away, the boosters will become a direct link between the stick and the rotor blade rods, so the stick will start to circle bw your knees and crash 'em away: you cannot go out from the helo (on Mi-24 you ain't have ejection seats). On the other hand, the helo will make a very rapid kind of Pugachev cobra, then start breakdancing around its 6DOF, so you have no time to get out.
Bye!
I rechecked it, and it appears the original suggestion was right - the controls are hydraulically boosted rather than a hydraulic linkage.
Your description of the resulting crash does sound very familiar to my experiences of battle damage in the BS betas, though :)
-
I'm not a lazy English speaker. I'm not an American. What I am is a lazy bum. A single dad with a very demanding two-year-old daughter and I can't be bothered to learn a language or memorize a language I'll never have to use outside the virtual pit.
I don't speak Russian at all. I don't struggle with the Ka50's Russian cockpit ;)
AlphaOneSix -
I believe the Ka50 is offered for export - but nobody's bought one yet, and as such there's no definitive spec for such a machine.
The Ka50 being modelled is the most representative version ED can get information on, which is one of the prototypes that's accepted as having the specification that will enter service in Russia.
So just as the Apache or A-10 wouldn't come with Russian cockpit markings, the Ka50 is unlikely to come with English cockpit markings.
If TekaTeka or someone else wishes to produce an alternate set of cockpit textures in English . . . . well that's fine. But I don't think ED are going to do it out of the box.
-
Hmm why do u think it could be very hard to do? Soldiers can have script... example:
if soldier fire then
go to <random area between 10-50m) \\go minimum 10 m from shoot position and max 50
end;
or
if soldier stays close to building example max 30m then
after shoot go to wall building
end;
and more&more scripts
I don't expect natural behaviour but this litte scripts can do MUCH when we compare to oryginal behaviour. It is same with vehicles, example when column is attacked they drive faster example up to 20% oryginal speed or drive zigzag until they lost contact with enemy or must level the driving due to example brigde. Think it could be done with scripts.
;)
. . . I'm not an ED programmer, I really can't comment.
I suspect it's a bit more complicated than that, though.
-
personally i think that he uses the trim just when he pressed with the thumb...all the other movement are just "adjustment" of the grip.
I hope that we won't end up with a helo that never stay in position and you'll spend most of the time trimming.
You can fly the helicopter with no trim, but it will be hard work - you'll have to have big control inputs on most of the time.
For those without force-feedback, the trimming does still have an effect. Press the trim button, return the stick to centre position, and the input to the control system will remain at the position it was in when you pressed the trim button.
It works, trust me :)
-
1. The pedals actually modify the amount of torque produced by each of the main rotor blades. For example, if you push on the right pedal, the controls are moved in such a way that your counter-clockwise rotating blades slightly increase their torque, and your clockwise rotating blades slightly decrease their torque. There is no net change in total lift, but your torque effect has changed, resulting and the aircraft's nose turning to the right.
Yup. "Differential collective" is the key term here.
You increase the pitch of one rotor disc while decreasing pitch on the other. Total upward thrust remains the same, but the torque imbalance between the counter-rotating discs causes a yawing moment. Magic.
2. In an aircraft like the Ka-50, it will be impossible to control the aircraft without hydraulics. I can move the controls on an Mi-17 without hydraulics, but it takes just about all the strength I can muster. In flight, a complete hydraulic failure means that the aircraft is uncontrollable, period. In other words, a Ka-50 without "power steering" is going to crash. Only very light helicopters are flyable with a total loss of hydraulic power (some don't have hydraulics at all).I'm not sure that's strictly the case. IIRC, the controls aren't hydraulically boosted, the control linkage itself is hydraulic - so a failure removes all control.. Will check and get back to you.
-
A better result with Su-25...
BTW, there's a pop-up firing mode of unguided rockets, it can double the maximum range of S-8, but it definitely ain't a pinpoint strike:D, it is for area attack. I cannot try it in LOFC cause of the self-destroying (fading away) rockets. Will it be possible in BS?
Bye!
A range of weapons will have WAFM in Black Shark - not all of them, but I think those used by the Ka50 have had the treatment.
I think the S-8 and S-13 are on that list. So yeah, if you were to point the nose above the horizon and fire, the rocket would follow a ballistic trajectory and come back down to earth eventually. Good luck aiming it, though ;)
-
I'd hate to have to mouse over everything to find that one button I need, so English pit will be most appreciated.
Dunno how good your monitor is, but if I'm zoomed out to a point where I can comfortably fly the aircraft, I can't read the markings anyway.
I've pretty much learnt the switches by location now, rather than markings.
English cockpit would still be nice to have, though :)
-
1
-
-
Er... think S-8s ain't against tanks? There are variants destroying more than 400 mm of conventional armor (think it ain't modelled in LOFC); if you're accurate on an accurate helo... well, you must get closer than with Vihrs:)
Bye!
Feel free to try in Black Shark - I'm just warning you, you're not likely to come out of such an engagement victorious . . .
-
The attack helicopter is the quivalent of the sniper of air warefare.
Get in low, and at at standoff range....pinpoint the target with accuracy... boom... and get out low.
The a-10 and Su-25 is more like a cavallery charge, powerfull and brutal
straight towards the enemy with blazing guns.
It all has it own charm.:thumbup:
That's certainly the best way to use the Vikhr - but then the Vikhr only occupies two of your four pylons. To get those S-8s on target you've got to get up close and personal . . .
If you're on an antiarmour mission, though, forget it. Vikhr for heavily armoured stuff, cannon at standoff range if there's trucks or BMPs around. Then go home :P
Otherwise . . . snipe any air defence stuff you can see with the Vikhr, then come in with the S-8s and appropriate burst settings and strafe to your heart's content . . .
-
you is beta-test aren't you? i have played old Hind combat simulator 1996 and the infantary, can shot, run and shot again if you stay close... In DCS-BS i dont understand this think, for sample, in mission or mission edit when you put one enemy soldier and if you stay close of this enemy soldier, what they do??Shoot, run, escapes ?
I can't say for sure, but I imagine they'll engage their target regardless of what it is.
The difference is that infantry played a major part in the life of the Hind - whether it was dropping them off, supporting them or extracting them. As a result, it had to be given some serious attention and development time.
The Ka50 is primarily an attack/anti-armour helicopter. Infantry doesn't really play a big role in it's life other than calling it in for support.
Infantry has been hacked into Black Shark at a relatively late stage by adapting the existing vehicle logic of the LO/FC engine . . . there simply hasn't been time to develop the AI to the level you're talking about there.
So in BS, you should expect a man with an AK to behave exactly like a very small tank. This isn't ideal, and realistic infantry battles are probably out of the question.
However, the addition of infantry can still add a great deal to mission immersion, even if just thrown in on triggers by a hard-working mission designer.
You make an interesting point, though. A major flaw in the AI of the engine so far is that it does not know fear ;)
For realistic combat, there ought to be a point at which the AI should find cover, disengage and regroup, or even retreat.
With the AI currently being controlled on a waypoint system rather than autonomous thought, that just isn't possible. Their one goal is to get to that waypoint - and they pursue it fanatically even if that leads to total extinction.
I'll be throwing that on the wish-list. Black Shark won't be perfect, but ED do intend to significantly develop the capabilities of the DCS engine as time goes on as well as adding new aircraft.
-
I don't have high requirements for soldiers - I would like to see they are running after shoot or from time to time move from position (area). And hiding behind objects, example plane is incoming from north, soldier will find and hide his body that plane will lost contact.
Unfortunately, that might actually be quite a high requirement.
Infantry in BS is modified vehicle AI - and I'm not certain on this, but I don't think the vehicles are clever enough to fight a battle like that.
Move, find cover, fire, move again . . . that's pretty serious stuff.
Stalker and FEAR do it well and have been praised for it . . . but they're solid first-person-shooters, and Black Shark isn't.
-
1
-
-
It would be amazing if the infantry can model a situation, such as this.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42s3i_apache-shoot-insurgent_sport
Imagine that with a KA-50!!! :D Just hovering, watching... BOOM!
Would infantry behavior like that be possible?
and this.:D
To be honest, that first clip looks a bit like it's from a game anyway. No tracer, the reports are at the same time as the round impact, a bloke mysteriously appears next to the car . . .
edit - that and the fact that I think I've actually seen the original footage. The audio's real, but I remember the video being more drawn-out and gruesome . . .
ArmA? BF2?
Anyway . . .
Don't know how clever the infantry are. You could probably trigger them to panic and start running around as soon as you overfly a base or hit a target . . . . mission-building fun.
But in terms of them panicking and dodging explosions, don't think they're that smart.
-
I have a question regarding how ED plans to model the physics.
Will the handling be made as realistic as possible or will it be dummed down to be easy enough for everyone to fly?
I hope it won't be the latter. Helicopters tend to be tricky to fly, this is partly why the Heli Flight sim community is small.
(Hovercontrol)
I hope us heli enthusiasts won't be disappointed. :)
The full realism flight physics mode is more realistic than anything you've ever seen before.
ED are pretty much aiming to deliver professional level dynamics and modelling to the private market with DCS. The kind of thing the military or an airline would expect for pilot training.
With this in mind, I'd say the Hovercontrol chaps are going to LOVE the Ka50 ;)
The missions are a bit more limited in scope, of course . . but the modelling of the aircraft physics and systems will blow your mind.
-
Sorry if this was asked previously but 25 pages…, lol.;)
My impression is that the DCS component as flyable will be separate to the game engine. Some might buy the KA-50, some might just want the A10 and so on. Myself, I intend to buy everything, but anyhow, that’s beside the point. I have a question.
When BS does come out, down the road if the game engine does gets upgraded due to technology demand or due to implement new flyable and features.
Besides the add-on of the flyable itself, will they get the upgraded game engine and new features for free to stay in conformity with the version pack?
From the DCS Black Shark press release:
Q: How will multiplayer compatibility be ensured between players with different DCS modules?A: The base DCS simulation environment will be continually upgraded and improved with release of new modules. However, as each new DCS base version is released, all DCS users can upgrade to the same base version to ensure compatibility. The only difference between players would be the selection of what aircraft would be player-controllable versus AI-controlled according to which modules were purchased.
-
I cant see why. Quad-core Intel's are just a pair of core-duo dies side-by-side.
And, just for grins, my system:
Athalon FX-74 (times two)
GF8800GTS G92 (times two)
Around 3gig ram (system has 8, but it only gets used when the system boots linux)
Full CH HOTAS setup
TrackIR 3
Full water cooling
Can't see why it wouldn't run faster, or can't see why itd' overclock better?
Black Shark doesn't use both cores of a Core 2 Duo - they work very well indeed with BS, but only thanks to the chip's raw speed.
As for overclocking . . . I dunno, Im only going on what Ive been told.
I'm intrigued as to how and why you all have such monster beast machines, too . . . . grin.
-
:yes: You might be right. Is it worth then to invest in quad cpu regarding BS only? Let me put this other way. For PC only for BS - should I buy quad cpu? If so wich one?
Black Shark won't use all four cores - so no, it's not worth it.
Apparently the quad-core intels overclock even better than the dual-core CPUs, though . . .
-
Sofrash, you seem to know your stuff - have you got personal experience on the Apache?
If so, I think Wags might be interested in talking to you . . .
It'd be unfair to say the Ka50 could be built from scrap - in fact in that list of stuff you've given, the the only things I can think of that the Ka50 doesn't have modelled in Black Shark are the radar (not on the 64A either), the FLIR (should imagine relatively easy to tweak in, it's only imagery) and the IHADSS.
Actually, the Ka50 has a simplified helmet sight already. No info display on it, but that's a small update.
The controls . . . well what you've listed seems peanuts compared to what the testers have been learning in the Ka50 cockpit.
You might be surprised when you get your hands on the Ka50 just how well modelled it is ;)
-
Its good that ED is pursuing this sort of detail but it does put a limit on how many types of aircraft they can model. I wonder if EDs finally got enough info to model the Hornet its quite a cool flyable in FSX acceleration.
My understanding is that ED do now have some documention for the F/A-18A.
I'm not certain that they have enough to model it to the requisite level of detail, though.
And in any case, the -A model can only carry the Sparrow - not the AMRAAM.
We'll have to wait a little longer until we find out what's happening after the Hog and the Apache, I think . . .
-
I'm wondering how are they going to keep the series compelling. I can forsee a lot of aircraft out there that people would want to have but ED will pass by. Am I imagining this, but didn't someone request a flyable Hornet in Lockon only to have ED say that they needed a manual or SME before considering it? If ED won't put a Hornet in a survey sim like Lockon, even after the Hornet has been done in some detail before and will be again, the chances seem slim of putting some of the more popular aircraft in the DCS series.
There are popular aircraft that have been declassified ;)
My opinion - and this may be contentious - is that people who demand a specific aircraft often don't know much about it.
It should be pretty clear that that's not the audience ED is going for with DCS.
-
:smartass: Well with a KA-50 model to 98% accuracy and 100% of systems model to 100% accuracy, it will make DCS BS 98% better than any other helicopter simm out there and I will be 100% satisfied:D Sorry could not resist.
I'm about 70% sure we're agreeing on . . . . something . . . :P
-
I think we all need to remember that you can not have same quality of ground objects with a good aircraft simulator game. Remember that the computer hardware (GPU, RAM and CPU) on those other game, have different priorities. In flying game it has to create, AFAIK, like 50 mile of terrain and it has to calculate other stuff like avionics, flight models and even huge battle (in terms of the are the battle occupies) compared to games like ARMA or other shooting games. I relay doubt that a good racing simulator game the computer hardware has to do as many calculations as in a good flight simm. Beside I just want good game play and as good as it gets flight and avionics models.
Well put.
Fly a chopper in ArmA and watch the draw distance disappear . . .
New screens at DCS...
in DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark
Posted
If you heard it from Jim, you can pretty much take it as gospel ;)