britgliderpilot

Dude, if you manage to wander into line-of-sight for any of those systems without noticing, you'll qualify yourself for a virtual helicopter pilot's Darwin award anyway . . . ;) Repeat after me - Nap Of The Earth!

I've said this before, and will say it again - it's previously been said that the load from modelling the sea as one large entity is less than the load from having to model lots of little ocean-type objects. I don't know exactly how the engine works in that regard, but if my memory serves, the bloke who said it did know what he was talking about. Perhaps things have changed since that decision was taken, perhaps not. IMO a change to the ocean/lake system would be a good thing (if only to sort out the lakes issue) . . . but I'd run easier on the total condemnation it's getting, seems there was a good reason behind that system to begin with.

I've only seen a couple of systems running Black Shark - mine and JimMack's at the open shows. I think they're similar specs - Core 2 Duo at 2.3GHz or so, 2Gb system RAM, and a 7900 series graphics card. No worries so far. This is no longer a cutting edge system - and really, anything from there upwards is a bonus :) AFAIK Black Shark won't make the most of a quad-core CPU - but if they handle normal running faster than dual-core then that's fine. . . . . you don't need to go beserk on a computer for Black Shark. Buy what you can afford and what makes sense. My personal inclination for rig-buying is to hang on a little longer, wait for Vista to get it's servicepack, wait for DX10 to start coming in (Crysis, BoB), wait for the 8800 drivers to mature a little . . . and then move up. Call it Vista SP1, an Intel quad-core, 4Gb RAM (blame Vista), and an 8800 series. But not quite yet.

It's gone :( A real shame - a very capable aircraft, recently updated, designed to operate from rough strips, very difficult to FOD . . . . in some respects a better match for conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan than the UK's current light strike aircraft. Anyone saying this in the corridors of the MoD will probably find themselves being glared at by the Harrier/Typhoon supporters, though ;)

This might require a redefinition of the term "second rate" ;) The Ka50 is a 1980's aircraft. . . . but then IIRC, the M1, T80, Shilka, and Vulcan are all 1980's vintage as well, if not older. The Mi28 might work better against massed tank formations in a World War Three scenario roaming over central Europe . . . but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. Whereas low intensity conflicts happen a lot more - Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and possibly the conflicts in former Yugoslavia could all be termed low intensity. Insofar as you can have low intensity wars, that is. The campaigns aren't written yet, but I wouldn't worry about them not keeping you busy!

The Jaguar is a magnificent aircraft, but half French. Give them some credit! The AV-8B and the GR7/9 are almost identical - they're both Harrier II variants with the big epoxy wing. Equipment fit does vary a bit . . . but enough to class them as entirely separate aircraft?

No need to single me out - there's plenty of seasoned simmers on the beta team who can and do suggest some very desirable features and changes :) Of course some changes make it, some don't . . . but generally things work out pretty well!

It should be no great surprise that Lomac's flyables have been flyable in the Black Shark betas ;) Don't count on them being in the release version, though.

Well I have to say, the rendering looks great. . . . but, um, to me a rendered landscape doesn't count as in-game.

It'd be absolutely fantastic, no argument there . . . but you have to apply some realistic development time constraints here ;) I don't know a first-person-shooter that has that kind of damage model for armoured vehicles. Hell, does Steel Beasts even have that good a damage model? Justifying the time and cost of that level of input is very, very difficult. Just doing the 3D models to that level of damage detail is challenging. AFAIK even the brand-spanking-new models don't have damage models or parts to fall off, so they'd all have to be reconstructed . . . to say nothing of the code to allow all that to happen. Imagine the poly counts! ED don't have infinite resources, and it makes more sense to focus them on . . . well . . . the flying bits of the flightsim . . . Some AI improvement is more likely, but again, very time-consuming. And as a tester, it's just as time-consuming to figure out when they're doing it right and when they're doing it wrong . . . Black Shark is already going to be far and away the most detailed combat helicopter flight sim there's ever been - perhaps you could even dispense with the "combat" tag - but there's got to be a limit to how good it can be made! It's probably as good a time as any to remind everyone that pure system simulation doesn't automatically mean great immersion - those who've flown Flanker 2 and Falcon 4 should know this. The environments you're flying in need to be well-populated, changing, and filled with AI who respond in both a challenging and believable manner - how well they fall apart is of little import compared to that. If your Shilka is going to be destroyed by a single hit anyway, it's more important that it's placing and behaviour is appropriate than bits fall off it in a realistic manner. That's down to mission/campaign building (and to some extent a powerful enough editor), AI behaviour, and unit performance. To that end, the ME's completely new and AI behaviour has been improved - but until progress on those has been completed there's no indication as to how much better it'll be. You'll have to have faith that ED will get it properly sorted before release - and now they're self-publishing it's in their best interests to do just that. On a different note - if you're in a position to only damage the subsystems of a ground unit, you can bet your bottom dollar it's in a position to do some SERIOUS damage to you ;) At which point it's the damage model of your aircraft you need to worry about, rather than the damage on the ground unit . . . .

Whoa! When did ED announce that FC was being dropped? Last I'd heard, the announcement was that Black Shark would be standalone but ED still wanted to do another patch for Flaming Cliffs . . . If that's disappointing, then I hate to think what you were expecting!

Well Half-Life 2's engine has been seriously developed between HL2 and Episode 2. I wouldn't want to run Ep2 on HL2 minimum spec. FSX actually runs more slowly on my PC than Black Shark does . . . and doesn't look as good. You inevitably need a lot of power to deal with high-fidelity flight models, large textures, and a large number of 3D objects - if you can get around that, then take a patent out quick! Until then, there's always the option - an unconventional one, I know - of turning the eyecandy down until the game runs more smoothly . . . You can turn it up in a couple of years, as brewber's textbook post points out ;)

If you're in a real hurry, you can take off as soon as the engines are turning. You'll just have no countermeasures, no laser warning, no navigation, no radio, no HUD, no targeting, no artificial horizon, no ejection system, no fire extinguishers and no autostabilisation. This isn't recommended ;) I don't know how long Wags' startup is, but I'd figure on being in the air fully operational in a couple of minutes. If all else fails, leave the HUD warmup and ABRIS check to complete in the air . . . as long as the other dials and nav systems are powered on and working.

Eh? You don't need pressure between the free power turbine and the exhaust - you need it between the gas generator (effectively a normal turbojet producing high-energy gas flow) and the free power turbine. The exhaust is there to get rid of hot waste gases (here in as well-mixed and cool a way as possible), not produce thrust.

The shaft horsepower depends on how much energy the free power turbine can extract from the gas flow - the exhausts don't have any effect on that.

This info is in the Black Shark manual - however, that's still a WIP and is probably covered by the NDA. If you absolutely can't wait for release, try forwarding a polite request directly to Wags or EvilBivol :)

Scary thought. So far I've only been ejecting when I suffer serious rotor system damage - prefer to autorotate in otherwise. The seat doesn't seem to like sinkrates . . . Explosive bolt failures, catastrophic rotor system failure . . . *wince*. Now here's a question - which would you prefer to eject through? ;)

Ooh. I didn't know that. . . . . I'm going to go find a cloud . . .

I'm not sure you ever reach the speed limit for blade stall - you'll run into another problem first. Consider for a moment the problem of the advancing blade rising when you have a coaxial rotor system . . . .

You'd be amazed how many little hills and valleys there are that you just don't see from a fixed-wing aircraft . . . . I don't think I've found myself wishing for a bit more cover yet.

I'm expecting the beta testers to be working overtime at release just trying to keep people airborne! Actually flying the aircraft isn't the most challenging part. Flying it, fighting it, and operating the systems will drive you mad. Just expect to break your landing gear a lot as you start learning.

Yep. Don't know, don't bet on it. Good point on the lakes, and now the terrain rises further above sea level it gets to be an even bigger problem. The performance issue is a grey area. The team have said before that it takes more processing power to split up the water into several areas than it does to just have it modelled as one uniform ocean. May or may not still be true, but that's what's been said. I do hope they can do something about the surface of the lakes, though . . .

That falls under the same question as dual-core parallel-processing stuff - you've got to code it to run on several processors at once. To the best of my knowledge, the engine doesn't allow for that yet. Perhaps at some point in the future, but not with Black Shark.

People have been thinking about the Strike Eagle's absence and complaining about it for about as long as Lomac's been out ;) It's a very odd omission from the AI aircraft list, you're absolutely right. Building a 3D model is in some respects the easy part - the community can do that, and I think ED have it on their wish list of models for the community to build. It isn't as simple as modifying an existing model, though. As for whether it'll actually finally make it to the nonflyable list . . . no idea.

IIRC you'll get voiceover training. I've said so several times, but can't remember now where I saw it. edit - third question of the DCS announcement FAQ . . . so yeah. Voiceover training is coming, and it is very necessary with an aircraft of this complexity.