britgliderpilot

It rather depends how you define percentage realism, doesn't it? Was fairly arbitrary at the beginning of the thread . . . do we need to nail it down? Clearly some stuff won't happen - for a start, when you get shot down you won't be killed. However - if every system in the simulated aircraft responds in the same way to an input as it would in the real aircraft . . . that system would be 100% realistic. If the symbology and procedures in the simulated aircraft correspond exactly to the real aircraft, that would be 100% realistic. For the Ka50 most of that's possible. I believe there are a couple of switches in the Ka50 cockpit in Black Shark that don't work . . . so we might have to settle for 98% by that measure ;)

Fair enough - but you won't get that sim from ED any time soon :) The more advanced the aircraft get, the more difficult it is to figure out their capabilities in order to model them. The list of stuff we don't actually know about the F/A-22 is endless. It starts with about 2 million lines of code . . .

An AMD 3700? I hope you're planning to swap that for a Core 2 Duo . . . As a rule of thumb I don't buy brand-shiny-new graphics cards - the price/performance ratio is too high and the software doesn't keep up with the new tech. Waiting for the new card to come out, and then buying towards the top of the last generation has worked well for me :) When the 9800 comes out I think I'll be having an 8800 or two to replay Crysis with DX10 . . . mmn . . .

As GGTharos points out, it has to be realistic enough to satisfy ED's requirements. The criteria are many and I don't know what they all are . . . but modelling something to the possible limit is on the list. That does NOT include making stuff up. My understanding is that for the AH-64D, you would have to make up some fairly significant chunks of the systems . . . . so it's off the list for now. Hardcore simmers may well be able to justify the position that once you make something up, it's no longer a simulator . . .

As with every time this comes up . . . If you want to buy a new PC for Black Shark, don't do it until you know when Black Shark is being released! Lets you save more, lets more powerful hardware drop in price, and final betas give you a better idea of the kind of power that's acceptable. There's still no release date, there's still no release date estimate. ED is aiming for some time in 2008. That is all. I've got a 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo, 2Gb RAM, and a 7950GT. Has handled the betas very well indeed so far, and it's now more than a year old. But I haven't stress-tested it with campaign-mission sized battles yet, so things could all change.

Now you're just bragging :P That's one hell of a beefy laptop. Can it actually be refitted with the uber graphics cards? How open are the mobile Core 2 Duos to overclocking?

. . . uh . . . . ;) I believe there's a Mission Editor interface screenie floating around somewhere. That's been tweaked a bit since the last show, too.

You will be astonished how long it takes to cover ground while walking . . . I'm not sure how much a walkaround would tell you, either . . . modelling visible fluid leaks and making sure everything's bolted on properly is waaaay beyond the current scope of BS. Ground crew would add immersion - if someone could whip up some animated models, that would be fantastic. With the system as it is now, you could probably trigger ground crew running out to your landing pad as you approach. Add in some activity around your aircraft for a re-arm or refuel, and NOW we're talking . . . Good mission builders will find some workarounds to add considerable immersion to the missions. If you list of triggers is long enough . . . . grin. Weta- The ability to retrieve shot-down pilots for more points would add a great deal to big online missions . . . but as well as AI improvements, you'd have to have a system for generating flights to a specific point for it to be successful. Which means further development of the Mission Editor would be required. For personal preference I'd eliminate the possibility of a human being picked up - leave the ability to respawn. However, for a few bonus points it might be nice to switch the little man on the ground to AI and leave him open to being picked up. Anyway - troop pickup and some CSAR capability. Let's add it to the wish-list :)

Well put! I'd like to add one thing to the above - while it's very important to welcome suggestions from the community, it is not practical or sensible to try and incorporate them all. So while some suggestions are productive and will be worked on, there will inevitably be some that, no matter how dear it is to one or two posters' hearts, won't go on to be developed. My personal opinion is that the ability to fly alongside a troop pickup/CSAR mission in progress would be very good indeed - well worth having, and would expand mission variety. But having your ejected pilot sit around and wait for three hours to be picked up by a CSAR helicopter in order to continue a campaign . . . that's pointless in the extreme. Once you've ejected you'd either have to restart the mission, or if you've already succeeded then assume you get picked up. Anyway - to reiterate the point once more, there is no plan I am aware of to add any playable ground combat stuff to DCS. . . . . someone's going to ask about after DCS now, aren't they? :P To pre-empt that one, the plans for DCS aren't finished. At least three aircraft are in the works, and it's not worth speculating beyond that yet.

Oh . . . now you've gone and done it . . I can see a smoke trail incoming from here . . .

I swear, Alfa has a server dedicated to scanning the web for any occurrence of the term "Su33" . . . :D

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm told that Kamov offered unprecented access to ED regarding information on the Ka50 - what form that took I don't know. Might be possible to pool it on a server for the beta team. Problem with that is that Kamov is Russian. I don't know how far the other testers will go, but learning Russian is a bit far beyond my level of dedication :D "You have to think in Russian!"

. . . . like a manual? Draft manuals have been available to the beta team for learning and editing for some time. But reading the whole thing and testing each function of each piece of equipment can make you go cross-eyed. Remember Wags' "600-page manual" quote?

A major problem with testing DCS is that the depth of modelling is such that you'd barely scratch it in normal playing. Nearly all the helicopter's systems are modelled - but how many people will regularly use the more complex features of the ABRIS, or the radionavigation equipment, or some of the more arcane weapons system dials . . . . The testers need to learn these systems in great detail to understand what the bugs are, and in some cases the theory behind them as well. If they understand the theory or systems first, that's a big advantage! In addition, I'm expecting a huge load to be placed on the testers as instructors and troubleshooters once Black Shark is released - because we do know the Ka50's systems and the quirks thereof. It'd be a bit presumptuous to say that testing for DCS is harder than testing for other sims - but from what I've seen so far, being included on the DCS beta team does drop you into an immensely challenging environment, with a wider range of learning and input than may have been required for "simpler" sims. You've really got to know your stuff, and you've got to be dedicated to the project. Yes, ED do try and get advisers and SMEs on board as they develop new features . . . and combining the role of an adviser on a feature with testing on that and other features seems to be working well for them :) To some extent the joy of discovering the sim all at once does suffer from beta testing . . . but it's still exciting seeing new features come into the sim. If it wasn't fun, why would we do it? ;) I'm still looking forward very much to flying the campaigns in the final product - it's hard to reconcile an advancing storyline with test scenarios. That should be an epic adventure . . . can't wait!

Dunno where you might find a copy, but what it IS . . . is ED's AH-64A cockpit model ;)

I've seen that vid before - it's a combination of an extremely agile chopper and an unbelievably talented pilot. The Bo105 is, if anything, more agile than the Ka50 . . . . it's smaller, lighter, no targeting systems, cannon, armour . . . . I'm reluctant to fly that way even in Black Shark with a chopper that isn't real! There are forests with clearings that you can duck in and out of, yes. Flying NOE in the Ka50 can be fantastic fun ;) . . . it also showcases the Ka50's damage model . . . because you ARE going to crash while practicing. Lots :D

It's most likely a labelling error on the website - as Gys points out, the Mk3 version of the Tornado was an interceptor. And if Gys says he modelled the GR4, I'd be inclined to believe him ;) Both the Jaguar and the Harrier came in GR3 variants, so the designation isn't unheard of . . . but wrong for this aircraft.

As stated in the updates thread, a counter-insurgency campaign IS planned. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694 How exactly this will be implemented I'm not sure - but don't worry, it's not just nation-state warfare considered :)

So far there's no generic map I'm aware of, only maps that individual testers have created. I believe the intention is to release *some* documentation as the release date becomes imminent, so there'll be some time to prepare . . . but not just yet.

I don't have a TrackIR and can fly Black Shark just fine :) Those who have TrackIR even in Lomac/FC wax lyrical about how effective and wonderful they are, and I suspect the potential immersion factor in Black Shark is even greater thanks to the 6 DOF cockpit . . . . but don't worry, you can fly without one. What will be virtually impossible, however, is flying without a HOTAS. I have an X45 and that's just about sufficient . . . for deskspace reasons I'm currently using a Logitech twist-stick, and it's almost impossible to fly an effective mission with it. There's just not enough buttons to deal with the flight controls AND the weapons system controls. And there's only one hatswitch - at which point things do get interesting without a TrackIR. And accurate yaw controls of some form are vital too. The X45 rocker switch isn't quite accurate enough . . .

Black Shark's radio modelling is much more complex than Lomac - you can set up the radio frequencies manually and depending on what you're tuned to you'll hear different things. Whether the AI outside your flight chatter or not, I'm not sure. With radio modelling this complex it's probably possible, but don't hold your breath for Black Shark. There's plenty of opportunity to develop through the DCS series :) There's a realism issue here, too - how much of the AI is likely to be on your channel?

Trim's in there, yep :)

It doesn't qualify you on it's own, but it's an important consideration to have . . . . because sooner or later someone is going to try exactly that! I did once trip across a bug by doing something a bit ridiculous with the Ka50 and a bridge. Way outside the normal operating envelope - but then that's how a lot of people (me included) will fly the Ka50, because it's more fun :D Some of the bugs are caused by really obscure events. Some are tiny. Chasing those down can be a real challenge . . .

I'll give you a clue. Go out and buy Crysis. Turn the graphics to maximum . . . watch your computer explode ;) An equally good example is Armed Assault. That gets grass and decent trees at ground level . . . but once you're above it in an aircraft the draw distance is tiny, because today's PCs just can't cope with that level of detail. If it was possible to implement such features on such a scale as the map in Black Shark, your PC couldn't cope with it yet. In time we may see graphics like that . . . but not quite yet :)

I think he was just referring to the dual-seat functionality of the Apache Longbow sim, rather than the fact it modelled the Longbow :) You know how it is, though - so many questions on why you can't have X aircraft that sometimes you get tunnel vision :P ED are working on dual-seat functionality - there was limited dual-control functionality over a LAN connection in Lomac v1.02, so they've experimented with it before. It's not just a case of reproducing that code, it's not suitable for use in Black Shark . . . but it'll probably count as valuable research :) Hopefully the AI improvements visible at Black Shark release will provide some reassurance that it'd work OK offline, too.