britgliderpilot
-
Posts
2795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by britgliderpilot
-
-
Hi evyone!
What about GUV pods? With six Gatlings (4x7.62 and 2x12.7) in two pods a Ka-50 can be a grim reaper for ground troops... :devil_2:
Bye!
Had to Google to find out what that was . . . from a doc on the Hind:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avhind1.html
Gun pods, including a GUV pod that could be fitted with a 12.7 millimeter Gatling gun and two 7.62 millimeter Gatling guns or a 30 millimeter grenade launcher; and later a UPK-23-250 pod with a twin-barreled 23 millimeter cannon. The GUV pod was too heavy and disliked by crews, but the UPK-23-250 pod was popular.Sounds mean!
But no, it's not on the list. You're stuck with "only" 23mm gunpods and the onboard 30mm cannon :D
-
If you want a vertical takeoff machine that can also fly fast why not the harrier? I think having the harrier made by DCS would be incredible. Is there not aircraft system information out there for DCS to work with? It would be a perfect aircraft since it is considered a multirole aircraft and unque and challenging to fly. It is also is unique in that it has it's own problems such as the redigestion of it's own exhaust. Theres a ton of possibilities I think with the harrier. You could land in unprepared areas and many other things. What do you say eh? Not sure if it would be the original sea harrier or the AV-8B. :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!
-
Really, Like what are the big ones? would they be something that we might miss a lot? I just got the feelly that we were getting to the point in BS where it would almost be impossible to ever make a flight model and 3d model look any more realistic. (As in detail correctness) Without adding natural effects such as better wind and stuff...
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 wouldn't be crazy at all. far from it. It would be a financialy sound decision.
Release black shark first. Sales go along as expected.
4-6 months after, Release BS as add on for lomac (like originally planned) Increased sales in Flaming cliffs, lock on and black shark as people would like to fly online in a full environement of playable craft.
3-6 months after - Release next DCS Flyable with new DCS engine - everyone then purchases that for the new indepth flyable and the new engine.
Fits in a great time line and what do you have. Non conflicting sales for the DCS series, and an increased awareness and support for the existing lockon to fill the void that will be DCS with only one flyable.
Of course people will buy both. People want the online playability of lock on until DCS can increase its number of flyables. Just reading the forums with the dissapointment of those that fly the fastmovers, it is quite evident that lock on will have a lot of interest until DCS can fill this role.
To be honest you could even sell them side by side and you would still be guaranteed sales as DCS has different areas on the map and new campaign and mission builder system. Plus, look at the flight sim market as a whole. We are a niche. And we support that niche, more than any other games market. I could gurantee you that most people would by both in able to fulfill the best that both can offer until DCS can bridge that gap.
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.
-
Balance or Orientation..
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.
-
1/
This is a FLIGHT combat sim, where a lot of effort has gone into getting the ADVANCED FLIGHT MODEL to fruition, & then something as basic as getting the wind vaguely realistic is skimmed over. I don't know about where you live, but I live in WINDY Wellington, and watching the pilots wrestle airliners down onto the dinky little runway we have here in a full on Southerly that's gusting & swinging around reminds me just how much the wind modelling in FC falls short of the standard of the AFM for the 2 planes that have it - & how much it would add to the flight part of the sim if it were improved.
Also - Isn't that alway's the complaint about Falcon derivatives - that they focus on the beautifuly modelled systems, and ignore the experience of flight that has always been a LO strength ?
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.
2/You're making it way more complicated than needed to acheive a reasonable result.
While full fluid forced computation on a Cray would be nice ( or - there's a name for modelling the forces on particles used in engineering & that knights of the sky vid - anybody know what it is ?) - it's not necessary to do that to get something better than the constant state wind we have at the moment.
All that's needed is for the present modelling of wind speed & direction to be varied over time.
Set a minimum speed, a maximum speed, perhaps a base direction & degrees variability & have the wind vary within these bounds (perhaps against either random or sampled profiles).
It appears all the 'air' in the LO world at a given altitude exerts the same force at any given time, so the same would happen here - everyone would feel the same 'gust' at the same time, but as any 1 player is only in 1 plane at a time, and eveyones reacitons are different - meaning their plane would react differently to the same gust - no one would realy be able to tell that from inside the cockpit (even doing acrobatics ...).
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.
-
Supercomputers aren't needed, there is a video floating around of this somewhere, I can't remember where it is, though. Maybe someone else will remember, but it was based on a WWI flight sim, if I remember correctly.
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 ;)
-
This topic suddenly has me wondering if it might be a bad idea to fire the Ka-50's gun in auto-hover. I assume there must exist a resonance frequency stemming from the delay between INS, radar altimeter, and/or attitude gyro input and actual swash plate actuation. Should the cannon firing cycle hit that exact frequency, it might pose a real risk. You can release the trigger, that's true, but who's to say the vibration won't self-amplify under those specific circumstances?
Oh well, I'm sure Kamov's engineers have thought about all that. :smilewink:
. . . 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
-
*Sigh*
And Lockon players AND F4AF players are both chomping at the bit to have that monstrosity modeled in a sim. :huh:
I wouldn't have such a problem with the regular F-18, but I have mixed feelings on naval aviation. Carrier landings done correctly would be challenging, but I'm more of a land-based warfare guy.
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.
-
Yes, I think Osprey is a nice non-flyable aircraft addition, but I doubt that ED models an flyable Osprey, because is a relatively new aircraft and many aspect should be secret.
Regards!!
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 . . .
-
I'm not entirely certain, but I think it has a 0.68 TWR or something along those lines. For sure it's no monster like the F-15's 1:1 or better TWR.
EDIT: Man, did I get that wrong of what. The superbug in A2A configuration is just under a 1:1 TWR. The problem is more likely the inlets then. The F-15C recovers significant pressure using the moving inlets to allow it to develop greater thrust at altitude than an aircraft without variable inlets. Long shots require speed and altitude ... so, like the MiG-29 and F-16, the F-18 likes the low, slow fight. It REALLY likes the slow fight, that thing is a high-alpha monster that will happily put the mig to shame.
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 . . . .
-
3 more? An answer i didn't know about myself :D
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!
-
the engine and rotor have seprate gagues. The engine clearly has a RPM gauge and the producer says RPM ( watch video time index 3:40-3:50)
the same with the rotor (time index 5:25-5:35) In the vid he clearly says "you want the rotor at about 9000 RPM betwean the two red lines"
as well if you watch the ABRIS notes you can see the gauge and it says RPM right on it.(that is the engin RPM gauge) If you want to think of it in % that is just fine with me.:thumbup:
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.
-
Some people tell me in January 2008 come Black Shark.
Now is January but BS...
When?
Thanks
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
Taken as a whole' date=' there is still a lot of work to do, but we are indeed in the home stretch now and a 2008 ship date is very reasonable, unless something unforeseen comes up (yeah, that never happens…). In this home stretch you can expect to see more videos now (like the producer’s notes) and probably in the spring we’ll be sending out press preview versions.[/quote'] -
IMO, it makes more sense to release the Apache first as it would pair up the two choppers an make room for fixed-wing jets. This is probably why most people thing this way, because it is the option that makes logical sense. Now, there's obviously something that ED knows that makes the A-10 work better, and I'm fine with that becaue I personally like the A-10 a lot and can't wait to get my paws on it.
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 . . .
-
Hi evyone!
I have a question about the autopilot of the Ka-50. In Mi-24s, there's a dual-mode AP, one for stabilization around the 3 axis (N, K and T) and one for working like a fixed-wing AP: airspeed stabilization, baro alt hold, course (NOT heading!) hold, auto hover with or without radioalt hold and final approach with RSBN. It is a nice, useful stuff. Fly (and definitely hover) without AP is a good character training:). I've tried Nemeth Brothers' Mi-24P add-on in FS9 but AP didn't work in no way (and I think FS9 engine does not really support rotorcrafts: a 12 ton warbird's flight dyn must be different from an R-22's. Not Nemeth Bros' fault:worthy:). How will the Ka-50 AP work? Will there be difference between fly w/ or w/o AP? Will the weight be sensible? If once it starts to breakdance around itself w/o AP... For the first try it's a full aerobatics flight at 1 m!
THX for Your help!
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.
-
True, there's nothing stopping them... it's just my... maybe little pesimistic feeling that we won't get it in LockOn. It's been a while since many things (mods) have been announced by many 3rd party moders... and I presume it'll take few more weeks if not months more to get it all working properly. By that time BlackShark might already be out. Also fact that ED made these moders partners and are working together in making environment better I assume they would preffer having this mod in BlackShark before it gets to LockOn. If I would be owning a game/sim I'd preffer having better stuff in new product (in this case DSC) rather then old (LockOn). If patch 1.13 ever gets done again I assume then it would get this airbase mod.
Again, this is just my hunch/opinion which I'm allowed to have, aye :D
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?
-
CAT, Poko is not talking about the aircarft/choppers but rather the ground/airbase textures/objects which everyone is eagerly awaiting... I now think they probably won't release them for LockOn but BlackShark only... but we'll see...
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!
-
Btw, Interesting how they don't have several hundred people milling around the flight deck like the U.S. counterpart.
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?
-
is ED going to put English labels/buttons/words in the cockpit for the release?
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.
What will we be missing?
in DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark
Posted
The IFF - Identification Friend or Foe.
I didn't know there was a working Skhval wiper - wow!
Back to the switch list . . .