britgliderpilot

The IFF - Identification Friend or Foe. I didn't know there was a working Skhval wiper - wow! Back to the switch list . . .

Had to Google to find out what that was . . . from a doc on the Hind: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avhind1.html Sounds mean! But no, it's not on the list. You're stuck with "only" 23mm gunpods and the onboard 30mm cannon :D

The original Harrier was the GR1 - a light strike fighter for the end of the world scenario. Only got adapted into the Sea Harrier later on . . . Jet Thunder is working on the GR3 and Sea Harrier FRS1 in a Falklands setting - that's probably the best bet. The next three flyables for DCS are pretty much fixed now . . . anything after that would be pure speculation. The Harrier's capabilities tend to be a bit overstated, but it wouldn't half fit the fun and challenging bit!

Hmmn. ED should offer a reward if you can find something they haven't modelled ;) The Ka50 in Black Shark even has a working windscreen wiper, for god's sake . . . Oh - just for the record, "air-to-air missiles on the Ka50", the R-27EA, and all other "but Janes says it has it!" systems would be exempt from this proposed reward system unless verifiable company or military documents are produced to support the allegation :P

It might be a sound financial division, but it's certainly not a sound technical decision. A major reason Black Shark has emerged as a simulator in it's own right is that so many changes have been made to previous technology over the project. I rather suspect that trying to squeeze the Ka50 into existing FC code would prove a development nightmare . . . if not impossible. Of course, you could update all of Flaming Cliffs to new Black Shark code - but then you'd have Black Shark. There's a yawning chasm between FC and Black Shark - both in terms of the detail of the modelled aircraft, and the code behind it. If ED can produce an FC 1.13 patch (as they've said they'd like to), then some improvements and fixes may find their way back to FC . . . otherwise, you'll just have to wait for fixed-wing aircraft to appear in DCS.

Middle ear's close - Inner Ear is the appropriate term. Difficult to fool, that. Most of the sensation stuff will continue to be bulky and expensive because you've got to actually sit in it to use it. I'm not optimistic about flight sims ever reaching that level of detail.

You make a convincing point ;) You've highlighted the word flight - which is fine, and you're right, it's where ED's products have always excelled. But there's also the word combat in there. I'm not suggesting that accurately modelled flight dynamics aren't necessary or should be toned down, but if you focus entirely on those then you end up with a great flight simulator with combat tacked on as an afterthought. For something advertised as a combat flight sim, that's usually a poor result. With Black Shark, we've already got far and away the best helicopter flight simulation there's yet been. And as time moves on, flight simulation will only get better. But ED's stuff hasn't always been great for combat . . . and I think it's about time that got it's share of the focus. You mean . . . like the turbulence option in Lomac and FC? A blanket gust model is probably possible, but while providing a more challenging time for the pilot is arguably no more realistic. Accurate atmospheric stuff would be fantastic, but takes real time to develop - some soaring simulators have spent years getting it right.

Knights of the Sky makes an attempt, yep. However . . . try doing that with a coaxial rotor helicopter (or worse, several in close proximity) and I'm not sure it'll work so well. Will look into the technology again and check it out. Features are nice, but in the end none of this stuff affects the meat of the sim - the combat. The Ka50 and it's systems are beautifully modelled, fun and challenging to learn . . . but the point is to blow stuff up. Where we focus on features like this, what will determine the success of the sim will be stuff like the AI, the capabilities of the new mission editor, and the depth with which the campaigns are built. And this stuff isn't finished yet. I'm optimistic, though ;)

1. Yes, in theory. The generators are linked to rotor RPM, and you can cause some serious rotor RPM decay with a heavy aircraft. You'll have to try hard . . . Bet you could do it on a single engine, though. 2. Ground effect and vortex ring are modelled, as are atmospheric effects. I think the Caucasus does does get high enough to get out of the recommended altitude range, but you probably won't be flying takeoffs or landings up there. 3. I don't know the effect you describe - sounds a bit like vortex ring in that it's high airspeed up through the rotor disk. The entry conditions you descibe - high airspeed, hard pull, lots of collective, high G - sound like the perfect recipe for a blade clash in a Ka50. Since vortex ring is modelled I'd expect your condition would be possible . . . if you don't break the blades off first ;)

. . . it's not exactly a likely scenario, though, is it ;) If by some bizarre coincidence it was a problem . . . well they had interrupter gear as far back as WW1 . . . I don't think I've suffered from ground resonance in a Ka50 yet, and I've destroyed that helicopter in some fairly spectacular ways. Whether that means the Ka50 isn't susceptible to ground resonance, it's not modelled, or I've just not provoked it yet, I don't know. It indicates it's not likely to be a problem, anyway . . . now whether you breathe a sigh of relief at one less way to destroy your helicopter, or are disappointed in the lack of variety this presents in ways to destroy your chopper is up to you :P

FSX: Acceleration offers the experience of carrier landings with an F/A-18. It is challenging, but it's also good fun. You can't fight with it, but some of the missions in FSX and Acceleration are so much fun they almost make you forget that . . . Having said that, I'm convinced there's at least one Hornet mission you simply can't complete on realistic settings. Hmmn.

Concur. Even if it's not secret, it'd probably be a real pain to reproduce. Just the thought of modelling the control laws for transition between rotorborne and wingborne flight makes my head hurt. I'm sure it's not impossible . . . but bear in mind that the Osprey is first and foremost a transport aircraft. It is not, and probably never will be, a gunship. And DCS does include the word Combat. If ED ever start a DTS series, I'm sure it'll be up on the list . . .

The Super Hornet does suffer from aerodynamic problems as well . . . . The scale-up from the F/A-18 wasn't quite as thoroughly researched as it could have been, and at flight test they had big problems with sudden wing drop. Fixing that took a while, was very expensive, and didn't do a great deal for the aerodynamics. IIRC one of the tweaks was to deliberately misalign the pylons with oncoming airflow. I leave to your imagination the havoc that would wreak on supersonic performance . . .

Don't know the answer to that. I do think it'd be a pain in the arse to have to restart a mission for a new helicopter, though . . . .

Weeell, technically the Ka50's still in development . . . If it's not a typo, though, I will be interested to see what the next aircraft on the list is!

I know that's what the commentator says, but I'm fairly certain that the gauge is calibrated in %RPM. 9000 seems rather too high for a rotor . . . will go and check. edit - Checked - both gauges are indeed calibrated in % RPM. You still want the needle in the right place, though.

There was a handout at MAKS a couple of years ago that said Black Shark would come out in 2006 . . . These things have a habit of taking longer than originally anticipated! Black Shark has grown considerably in scope since development work started, and ED's being contracted by the ANG to produce an A-10C desktop trainer hasn't helped time pressures. As has been said elsewhere, the modelling of the Ka50 has essentially been finished. That's the good news. The most recent update on ED's work (and that of the testers) can be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694

Simple guess? Modelling the A-10 first gives them more time to work on the dual-control code. That's going to an interesting challenge . . .

Well Black Shark's flight dynamics are infinitely better than FS9's . . . so you need not worry on that front. As you can see from the startup videos, there is autostabilisation functionality on the Ka50. And yes, it's properly modelled and you can turn it off.

There's enough better stuff in Black Shark that they needn't really worry about 3rd party 3D objects . . . trust me on that ;) In fact, if ED want to keep fixed-wing fans onboard while we go through the rotorhead phase, it makes good sense to get the updates into LO:FC - keep it looking as pretty as possible, keep people entertained :) I don't know the timescales for either mod completion or Black Shark release - at a guess I'd say the latter would take longer. Either way, it would require the modders to keep working on FC alongside Black Shark, and that's something you'd really have to talk to them about. The lure of the new sim is considerable . . . let's hope they maintain some community enthusiasm, eh?

What's to stop them? Ground mods are still the property of third-party modders, and will probably remain so. At this point it should still be up to the modders themselves - the original intention was to release a mod for LO:FC and there shouldn't be a reason for it to have changed yet.

Let's see . . . OH-58D, oil drums, blast deflectors, and a wire fence . . . The modders HAVE been busy!

Wonder whether it's because they can't afford to, or don't need to ;) Probably a combination of the two. They can't afford to run real high-tempo operations and don't have the deck real estate to be able to. If you're operating a couple of aircraft at once, it's not a big deal. If you're flying ten or twenty, marshalling, connecting to steam catapults, chaining down, unchaining . . . then you DO need a lot of people on the flight deck to handle all the various tasks going on. Having said that, the USN carriers do need an incredible number of people onboard. A Nimitz class at 1100 feet and 100,000 tonnes has 6000 people onboard. The RN's Queen Elizabeth class at 931 feet and 75,000 tonnes will go to sea with 1500. It's smaller, but it's not a quarter the size . . .

Hmmn. I'd imagine it'd get a bit wearing if you kept failing missions because your weapons didn't work . . . Anyone know a typical failure rate on weapons like these? Would the average player even notice such a feature?

Any clickable button or switch has an optional tooltip displayed when you move the cursor over it - it's essential at first, but after a while you learn where all the switches are. The gauges don't really need English labels - things like degrees C and %RPM tend to be the same in most languages. The problems I faced in learning to fly the Ka50 were technical, rather than language-based . . . It's not inconceivable that an English cockpit version may emerge eventually for those who do want it - but I'd probably expect it from TekaTeka or another dedicated modder rather than ED.