Black Shark 3 official photos.

[BranchPrediction]

Well, im happy that ed is finally showing some love to the oldest (and best imo) dcs module, but ed did a free cokpit update and they want to get paid for there work. But they cant charge for a cokpot update and so they make bs3. U could argue that only because of bs3, which isnt free, did we get a free cockpit update. They said something similair on the russian forums! Which is why i welcome the bs3 upgrade. And ofcourse a2a is very nice to have aswell. The ones who dont want bs3 can simply not buy it. But i think they dislike others seeing other people (enemies) in bs3's on servers. As it isnt proven to exist. Im all for bs3.

[zerO_crash]

This is not a online game, no we don´t talk about "balance" here, or fair unfair. This is a matter of realism and nothing else. Also, when it´s about creating fantasy-modules, if it´s once accepted, it can become a trend. Now you only need a company that will create the TIE fighter and Han´s Millennium Falcon. No, that takes us first and foremost the wrong way, and second of all, it attracts the wrong kind of people, those who seek something between Ace Combat and DCS.

 

At this point, ED shouldn´t be lenient to what people think or want, rather create something real. It´s maybe not the most lucrative business model, but if money is all they cared about, then they should have made CSGO 2.0, or Battlefield 6. The market for such realistic sims is niche, and typically has been unavailable to the average people, because who bothers to read 6-700+ pages of manual before jumping into a plane and failing again and again until they learn. The more average minded people come, the more requests there are for modern modules that are made to the PFM-standard but with simple systems-modelling. That or asking for types of modules that never existed (like BS3, and although all of the systems that it probably will have, have been tested on our Ka50 #25, they were never there at the same time, making BS3 land in a grey zone. It had all the systems in it at some point, but not all of them at the same time). And this is basically dumbing down of the simulators aspirations as to being "as realistic as we can get it". So no, I am totally against this.

 

I haven´t participated in the forums before BS2, and I was here since before even DCS, when it was just FC and LOMAC, that´s even before BS1. I see many new people join here that barely bought one module, and are getting pissed at it not flying like their Ace Combat plane, and wanting to change everything. Wanting better weapons, modern cockpits and everything, because they cannot destroy everything after 5 min of owning the module. They want to have Lightening II tgp, ugroza, and many other systems "just because it could have been done IRL if Kamov wanted to". With that logic, we should be asking driving sims like Assetto Corsa to have flying cars, just because we have flying cars, and we could make them if we really wanted to IRL... Yeah stupid logic... It´s great to welcome new people, but try to better understand the community before you recommend your awesome changes, cause we are here from long before and for a reason ;)

 

The point of the matter is, I wouldn´t mind to pay for an updated cockpit like from BS1 to BS2 (and some other things, but still). I love the updated Ka50 cockpit, but that keeps it still realistic and we have pictures of Ka50 #25 depicting the exact Ka50 model we have. Although some systems are classified, we at least don´t have anything that was NOT there. Matter of the fact is, BS2 is the best helicopter in the world (Ka50/52), but the variant we have does have it´s weaknesses in ultra-modern battlefield (post 2010), so sit down and learn what you can and cannot do. But atleast we fly the #25 and not something that never was there to begin with. It´s a demagogy.

Edited May 3, 2020 by zerO_crash

[BranchPrediction]

If u want ur disatisfication with ED's decision to be heard then i would suggest that u write it on the russian ka50 forum. The russian devs are way more active on the russian forum.

[zerO_crash]

If u want ur disatisfication with ED's decision to be heard then i would suggest that u write it on the russian ka50 forum. The russian devs are way more active on the russian forum.

 

I am aware of that, and participate there as well. But no, it´s not about my dissatisfaction heard. Choice has been made by ED, but time will show where this all goes. I for sure hope they don´t make this a trend. :thumbup:

[3WA]

...but time will show where this all goes

 

 

That's simple. $$. And during this time of World Wide Crisis, DCS needs to keep it's head above the water.

 

 

I'm all for the BS3, as I think the Russian's eventually went FAR beyond what we have in game.

 

 

And if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You can even exclude certain planes / heli's off your server.

 

 

DCS and their paying clients should be free to make and buy whatever they wish. DCS never promised anyone anything. As I have been told more than once. :D

 

 

Still waiting for DCS to annouce DCS: Star Destroyer.

 

 

But I'll be satisfied with playable ground troops, and realistic vehicle modules.

Edited May 4, 2020 by 3WA

[Blackjack_UK]

I've kept pretty quiet on this one so far, but as conversation has now got reasonable, here's my take.

 

I think we can all agree that what is being proposed for BS3 is realistic if not actually factual. This is important.

 

We're not looking at a TIE fighter, or even Airwolf. We're looking at something which is a logical extension of the earlier version, had Russia elected to continue down that development path. We're also looking at something which has existed in parts, just never together as the whole.

 

So historically accurate? No. Practically realistic and believable? Yes.

 

We also can't discount Field Modifications as well. Might a unit have jury-rigged Iglas? Especially if they had access to -52 wings... It may or may not be a practical thing to do. But you can bet that if it came to it, folks would have found a way to do it - us military types are good like that...

 

A slightly related question. If a Huey picks up a Stinger team you've now got a Stinger armed Huey. Likewise Iglas in an Mi8 or a Hind. I don't know because I haven't tried - can passengers fire from helicopters? 'Cos that would make CAS missions interesting - take one cab with a couple of Stingers or Iglas and some reloads and really piss off the CAP when they come find you...

Edited May 4, 2020 by Blackjack_UK
My 100th post. Go me.

[IVAN01rch]

The point is that IGLAS has no way to work with current weapon control hardware in a chopper. It is not about pilons it is about wires. And seeing old weapon system doing stuff they weren't designed for is weird.

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

… I think we can all agree that what is being proposed for BS3 isrealistic if not actually factual. This is important.

 

We're not looking at a TIE fighter, or even Airwolf. We're looking at something which is a logical extension of the earlier version, had Russia elected to continue down that development path. We're also looking at something which has existed in parts, just never together as the whole.

 

So historically accurate? No. Practically realistic and believable? Yes.

 

We also can't discount Field Modifications as well. Might a unit have jury-rigged Iglas? Especially if they had access to -52 wings…

Can you explain to me how the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK, designed to control 4 pylons, can control 6 pylons?

 

If you can't explain to me how this is possible from a technical point of view, then this whole conversation can be considered the next stage of blah blah blah, and nothing more.

 

Original in Russian

 

Вы сможете объяснить мне, каким образом ПрПНК К-041 «Рубикон», предназначенный для управления 4 пилонами, сможет управлять 6 пилонами?

 

Если Вы не сможете объяснить мне, как это возможно с технической точки зрения, то можно считать весь этот разговор очередным этапом бла-бла-бла, и не более того.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[Blackjack_UK]

Can you explain to me how the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK, designed to control 4 pylons, can control 6 pylons?

 

If you can't explain to me how this is possible from a technical point of view, then this whole conversation can be considered the next stage of blah blah blah, and nothing more.

 

Original in Russian

 

Вы сможете объяснить мне, каким образом ПрПНК К-041 «Рубикон», предназначенный для управления 4 пилонами, сможет управлять 6 пилонами?

 

Если Вы не сможете объяснить мне, как это возможно с технической точки зрения, то можно считать весь этот разговор очередным этапом бла-бла-бла, и не более того.

 

No, I can't.

 

I'm not an avionics engineer.

 

I also can't tell you that the next release would have done so. But it's not a totally fantastic leap of faith to suggest that it would.

 

I'm happy to continue a reasonable and civil conversation on this. Our opinions are just that, and as many have said they're unlikely to make much difference to ED. But I'm not going to get worked up about it, I'm just looking forward to whatever they give us.

[Blackjack_UK]

The point is that IGLAS has no way to work with current weapon control hardware in a chopper. It is not about pilons it is about wires. And seeing old weapon system doing stuff they weren't designed for is weird.

 

Fair enough - I understand your point and see what you mean. I think I even agree with you, to an extent.

 

Though just to be clear, we do know that Igla can work in a chopper (KA-52, for example) - just not this one, right?

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

No, I can't.

 

I'm not an avionics engineer…

In this case, I do not quite understand what kind of "realistic" and "believable" can we talk about? Sorry, but most amateurish speculations on this subject sometimes look just funny and meaningless.

 

Original in Russian

 

В таком случае я не совсем понимаю о каких «реалистичности» и «правдоподобии» может идти речь? Извините, но большинство дилетантских спекуляций на эту тему порою выглядят просто забавными и бессмысленными.

 

[3WA]

Can you explain to me how the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK, designed to control 4 pylons, can control 6 pylons?

 

If you can't explain to me how this is possible from a technical point of view, then this whole conversation can be considered the next stage of blah blah blah, and nothing more.

 

 

I agree. Which is why they need to bring in certain instruments from the Ka-52 that DO control 6 pylons. The night vision as well, as the Ka-50 needs to be able to fly and attack at night, along with the Ka-52.

 

 

Fair enough - I understand your point and see what you mean. I think I even agree with you, to an extent.

 

Though just to be clear, we do know that Igla can work in a chopper (KA-52, for example) - just not this one, right?

 

 

 

 

Of course. There are pics of the Ka-52 carrying them. Even the Apache and Cobra have had experiments carrying stingers and even Sidewinders. The big problem with larger Air to Air missiles, such as the R-73, is that their gasses can affect the engine intake. Igla and stinger don't seem to cause much problem ( hell, we're launching Kh-25's ). The chopper just needs the controls to launch them ( and control 6 pylons ).

Edited May 4, 2020 by 3WA

[IVAN01rch]

Fair enough - I understand your point and see what you mean. I think I even agree with you, to an extent.

 

Though just to be clear, we do know that Igla can work in a chopper (KA-52, for example) - just not this one, right?

Do you want to see ka-52 cockpit in ka-50? There is no such thing as ka-50 weapon control system that designed to control IGLA. So developers would use their phantasies. While having absolutely wrong SHKVAL lock not based on target contrast and half of the systems not working properly. Incorrect SHKVAL behaviour, infinite batteries, no cartridges with flight plans and so on. The list is long.

[Blackjack_UK]

Do you want to see ka-52 cockpit in ka-50? There is no such thing as ka-50 weapon control system that designed to control IGLA. So developers would use their phantasies. While having absolutely wrong SHKVAL lock not based on target contrast and half of the systems not working properly. Incorrect SHKVAL behaviour, infinite batteries, no cartridges with flight plans and so on. The list is long.

 

That's not what I am looking for at all. Like I said, I actually agree with you.

 

You said Igla, can't work in a chopper, I just clarified that it can work in *a* chopper, just not this one...

[Blackjack_UK]

In this case, I do not quite understand what kind of "realistic" and "believable" can we talk about? Sorry, but most amateurish speculations on this subject sometimes look just funny and meaningless.

 

Original in Russian

 

В таком случае я не совсем понимаю о каких «реалистичности» и «правдоподобии» может идти речь? Извините, но большинство дилетантских спекуляций на эту тему порою выглядят просто забавными и бессмысленными.

 

OK, then I will try to make it more clear.

 

Factual = clear evidence that something exists/existed.

 

Realistic/believable = clear evidence that something close exists/existed AND that it would be logical to assume that under slightly different circumstances the proposed configuration would have become fact.

 

Fantasy = anything else.

 

I'm assuming you also aren't an avionics engineer, otherwise you'd already have worked out how it could be done and what changes would have been needed. And with respect I'd say that makes your opinion no more valid than anyone else's. But it doesn't really matter anyway - ED will do what they feel is best and we'll either embrace it or not. I'm looking forward to what they come up with, you obviously are not. Your choice.

[Fri13]

I've kept pretty quiet on this one so far, but as conversation has now got reasonable, here's my take.

 

I think we can all agree that what is being proposed for BS3 is realistic if not actually factual. This is important.

 

The systems and weapons ED is implementing is so, but questionable part is not really the external part of the helicopter (pylons on wings, new sensors, new jammers, new weapons etc) but how they implement them to the system.

 

We can see that in the KA-52 early versions it as well had just the KA-50 wings and the same systems for weapons selection etc. But as glass cockpit design was applied to serial production as well, they moved those to the digital screens and could upgrade the wings for third pylon.

 

And that is what KA-50 had as well, glass cockpit with the old weapons selector panel removed same way etc. KAMOV clearly upgraded KA-50 for the standard that KA-52 came, but just in single seat variant and with limited other features that were impossible to add like radar.

 

If someone would do a simple image manipulation where KA-50 is carrying a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't make it so. If someone would find a photo that KA-50 is carrying R-73, it is evidence for pointing that is in realms of possibility. If someone would find a documentation from testing that R-73's were test launched multiple times and it was found not possible by technical reasons like motor exhaust gas stalling the engine and lost or or almost lost an airframe because that and R-73 was cancelled to be fielded, then it rules out that possibility.

 

But if someone comes to say "I haven't seen X...." it is not evidence. Neither is "I think it could be possible...." without anything to back it up by various means:

 

 

And at this moment there is logical, laws of nature, technical possibility, material evidence and some documents pointing out that KA-50 can have President-S, IGLA, Glass cockpit (heavy upgrade to weapons systems) etc.

We are lacking the neutral testimony and we are stuck to party testimony where some are denying everything above. And all pilots, even engineers, all eye witnesses etc fall to the lowest possible evidence value there is without very carefully finding what is their status.

 

If KA-50 project chief engineer (or one responsible for weapons systems in details), factory test pilots, assembly and testing chief etc would comment in acceptable details what was possible and what not, it could be acceptable evidence.

 

We're not looking at a TIE fighter, or even Airwolf. We're looking at something which is a logical extension of the earlier version, had Russia elected to continue down that development path. We're also looking at something which has existed in parts, just never together as the whole.

 

Exactly.

Not fantasies, just some improvisation based evidence and even evidence pointing possibilities.

 

So historically accurate? No.

Practically realistic and believable? Yes.

 

My own personal problems is that how example ED will implement the President-S to avionics. We know that it is offered with an own small display and so on very likely it would be required to be there. But likely ED will not implement that display in KA-50 cockpit but will just copy the little known functionality of it and implement in KABRIS, and that IMHO is wrong. It is not wrong that KA-50 is carrying President-S, that is factual and well known thing. But as from public material we don't know how it is operated inside KA-50, it raises the question.

 

Can KA-50 carry President-S operationally? Yes.

Do we know how President-S is operated inside cockpit? No.

 

Instead some people arguing that it is fantasy that KA-50 has President-S, they should use their time and effort to research and find to educate themselves (and everyone else) that how it is operated in a KA-50 when it is clearly shown that it is included in latest version of it.

 

Because we do not know something, doesn't mean it is impossible.

We need to have information that something is impossible as much as we need information that something is possible.

 

And when we have evidences that KA-50 is equipped with IGLAS, President-S, Glass cockpit etc. It is required to show evidence that none of that is possible by showing the documents from the KAMOV that they were tested and tests failed and they are technically impossible.

 

We also can't discount Field Modifications as well. Might a unit have jury-rigged Iglas? Especially if they had access to -52 wings... It may or may not be a practical thing to do. But you can bet that if it came to it, folks would have found a way to do it - us military types are good like that...

 

Mi-24 and Mi-8 is great example of field modifications. Missiles, bombs, rockets, flare dispensers you name it, has been attached to them in the field by the ground crews and even manufacturer engineers. The experience that has gained from the field was then taken to designers and implemented in the factory for the next versions.

 

And when you have designers that from the begin has had philosophies where you share as much as possible parts between different war vehicles like Mi-24 and Mi-8 so in war time you can service both of them as much as possible with the same parts, with the same tools and with the as little as possible teachings for the process, then why would KAMOV purposely design KA-52 and KA-50 to be incompatible as much when they were meant to operate together in same group? It is far more logical and makes far more sense that you share as much as you can between these two helicopters as they are twins, not identical but they are twins. Where Mi-24 and Mi-8 are more like a siblings. It is seen that KA-50 and KA-52 share the same wings, other just received later on the upgraded wing. Mechanically meaning you could take the upgraded wing and attach it to previous fuselage but problem is that you don't have the other end where to connect the cables. Why we again come to same situation, glass cockpit upgrade that is very little known about.

 

For years people wanted to see the President-S in KA-50, photos were shown with them attached to KA-50. First there were just one, then couple more, and then finally years later there were multiple ones as more information was found, eventually the manufacturer presentations and public documents were published and found and it became obvious. But there are still people who argue that it is just fantasy and no such thing never exist because there is no evidence that KA-50 would have President-S.

 

Eagle Dynamics has set standards and expectations for the modules, based on public documentation (legal requirement not to use classified material), but like we all know that not everything can be done that way but there is requirement for compromise where some things are simply improvised.

Publically it has stated by ED that they confirm and validate the modules from the studios to the documentation they have etc.

 

Now someone could ask that how did Razbam manage to get M2000 or Harrier out with such improvised systems that those had? Completely nothing in the official documentation how the systems worked etc? Be it a Harrier AUTO bombing mode or M2000 radar functions and magic seeker logic? How about Polychop and their Gazelle flight modeling? How about Letherneck and their MiG-21Bis flight modeling, weapons system logic, SPO-10 etc? All that has gone through so many various changes that are nothing like the NATOPS and real pilot manuals has stated....

 

ED is officially said that A-10C is not perfect in the consumer version but closer to 90% as many systems has been removed that military has. They have stated that they need to change the flight modeling slightly in Hornet so it doesn't reflect the real flight performance because security reasons.

 

ED itself has done mistakes in the past, like R-77 missiles in the Lock-On for aircraft that shouldn't have it etc.

It doesn't mean that ED is perfect or purposely doing something, as there are major factors like publisher requiring something, lack of information or conflicting information etc etc. But these things happens and we can't blame ED for purposely doing so.

 

And now ED is in new challenge, how to upgrade KA-50 module for a version that they have very little information about, without doing complete glass cockpit version with official documentation etc from KAMOV? ED very likely has far more information than we do have from public sources, but even when we can find the evidence that validates the possibilities that ED is implementing so we should be able agree that they can be implemented, it doesn't mean that ED can do it perfectly and correctly.

 

Anyone can validate evidence that IGLA's were meant for KA-50, President-S is operational and meant for it etc. But it becomes questionable just how are those connected to systems or used. And those are two separate issues, that needs to be solved. And it doesn't help anyone that someone screams "It is all a fantasy!" all the time when they don't know better and can't invalidate evidence that those exist as coming.

 

If we don't know what we don't know, we can't exclude anything out. If there are more evidence pointing something is possible, meant to, suppose to, then it is more than that is just "we don't know". And to counter all those evidences that those are in KA-50, we would need official documentation that they were tested, failed in tests and not possible at all and that way rule them out.

 

And it becomes personal opinion for everyone that are they accepting the KA-50-3 or not. Do they buy it or not.

 

Clearly there are already few who has completely marked it to be pure fantasy and so on will never buy it or never fly it because they are so against anything that is such as "fantasy".

But there are many who will buy it and fly it happily, ignorant about its development as they just take it as cool helicopter etc.

And there are those who will accept it, buy it, even when knowing that there might be some elements that are questionable but they maintain reserve to learn more in the future when information gets out, and are yet ready to accept that "This part is improvisation because lack of complete information how that connects here".

 

Like example, if KA-50 is hanged with the Kh-25ML (first I have seen, some may have seen multiple), is it evidence for it? How about that the Kh-25 being hanged from inner pylon instead outer like in DCS? Meaning you can carry two Kh-25ML and Vikhr's all together? Currently in DCS we can only hang two Kh-25ML and only in outer pylon, so would it reality be possible have four of them? Or are they only wired for a inner pylons?

 

 

The video I have found doesn't exactly show is it a KA-52 clip among all rest of the KA-50 clips, but again one question more to be answered about weapons for KA-50.

 

A slightly related question. If a Huey picks up a Stinger team you've now got a Stinger armed Huey. Likewise Iglas in an Mi8 or a Hind. I don't know because I haven't tried - can passengers fire from helicopters? 'Cos that would make CAS missions interesting - take one cab with a couple of Stingers or Iglas and some reloads and really piss off the CAP when they come find you...

 

I wouldn't fire anything from the helicopter as passenger, especially from enclosed compartment like Mi-8 or Mi-24..... UH-1 I could consider if cleared to fire straight to side while helicopter banks. And that again creates no-go situation.

But this is all because the compartment and the human factor aiming the weapon etc.

 

So what I would do is like it is done now on DCS, unmount the team (shooter, by reality at low level low speed flight so they can jump off) and then separate slightly so that fighter would concentrate at you while the MANPAADS is further from you and more difficult to spot that launch by the pilot.

 

Extremely risky but I wouldn't land that helicopter any position as it is just stupid easy target for a pilot to destroy.

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

I agree. Which is why they need to bring in certain instruments from the Ka-52 that DO control 6 pylons. The night vision as well, as the Ka-50 needs to be able to fly and attack at night, along with the Ka-52…

This is not enough. If you add certain instruments from the Ka-52 to the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK installed on the Ka-50, then in real life they simply will not work. It is necessary to simulate in the game the K-806 Argument-52 PrPNK (aka the Argument-2000) installed on the Ka-52 for its functions to work. However, the ED clearly said that they would not do this because of the lack of available information about him.

 

OK, then I will try to make it more clear.

 

Factual = clear evidence that something exists/existed.

 

Realistic/believable = clear evidence that something close exists/existed AND that it would be logical to assume that under slightly different circumstances the proposed configuration would have become fact.

 

Fantasy = anything else.

 

I'm assuming you also aren't an avionics engineer, otherwise you'd already have worked out how it could be done and what changes would have been needed. And with respect I'd say that makes your opinion no more valid than anyone else's. But it doesn't really matter anyway - ED will do what they feel is best and we'll either embrace it or not. I'm looking forward to what they come up with, you obviously are not. Your choice.

To make assumptions about one or the other is indisputably your personal matter. Fantasies from this will not become more real… but nevertheless, computer games exist to simulate fantasies. :)

 

Original in Russian

 

Этого недостаточно. Если добавить некоторые инструменты из Ка-52 в ПрПНК К-041 «Рубикон», установленный на Ка-50, то в реале они попросту не будут работать. Необходимо смоделировать в игре ПрПНК К-806 «Аргумент-52» (он же «Аргумент-2000»), установленный на Ка-52, чтобы его функции работали. Однако ED однозначно сказали, что делать этого не будут по причине отсутствия доступной информации о нём.

 

Строить предположения о том или о другом – это бесспорно Ваше личное дело. Фантазии от этого не станут более реальными… однако тем не менее компьютерные игры для того и существуют, чтобы моделировать фантазии. :)

 

[Fri13]

Do you want to see ka-52 cockpit in ka-50? There is no such thing as ka-50 weapon control system that designed to control IGLA. So developers would use their phantasies.

 

So far we have had this:

 

 

That is explained here to be mistakenly translated/labeled that pylon selector hat forward would specifically select A-A weapons, instead inner/outer pylon that you have for left/right and aft as "all" meaning inner and outer together if you have same weapon type on both (like both are hanged with S-8 rockets).

 

 

If you would have a wing with three pylons and you can only mount A-A weapons to that third pylon so there never can be anything else.... Why would you add functions to select "inner/middle/outer" pylons when you would have sometimes the A-A weapons?

 

If you would have A-A weapon on inner and outer pylon like R-73 or IGLA, why would you need a four way hat to do selection when you just need left/right/aft one? You know the A-A weapon is in your inner pylon so you can just select inner pylon. No need for "A-A weapon".

 

Now again, our KA-50 is old prototype version from early 2000.

KAMOV did offer KA-50 with glass cockpit mid 90's but was not accepted:

 

 

Then later when KA-50 production was restarted in 2005 with new serial production standard, one unit came out with glass cockpit in 2007, just before project was completely cancelled.

 

Here is the old KA-52 cockpit:

 

 

You can see that it has the same two pylon weapons control panel that we do have in KA-50.

 

And it had two pylons on its wings (and as well Kh-25 on inner pylon instead outer):

 

 

But later on KA-52 received three pylon wings:

 

 

and the cockpit got changed so that weapons selection is completely digital:

 

 

And here is KA-50 with glass cockpit

 

 

Now, where is the evidence that KA-50 with a glass cockpit:

 

1) does have

or

2) doesn't have

 

a three pylon wings like a KA-52 does have?

 

The KA-52 went from two pylons + analog weapon control to three pylons + digital weapon control.

The KA-50 went from physical weapon control to digital weapon control, but there is no evidence from its wings...

 

So where did this physical weapon control panel go in KA-50?

 

 

Could it be like in KA-52 by cockpit and like wings?

Is it logical that as from the begin the KA-50 and KA-52 were basically same, that in the later on KA-50 and KA-52 would be as well as much as possible similar by same upgrades where possible?

 

ED KA-50-3 3D model overlaid of real KA-52:

 

 

IS IT POSSIBLE?

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

… If you would have A-A weapon on inner and outer pylon like R-73 or IGLA, why would you need a four way hat to do selection when you just need left/right/aft one? You know the A-A weapon is in your inner pylon so you can just select inner pylon. No need for "A-A weapon"…

This is the top position for guided weapons: ATGM (ПС, 'противотанковые снаряды', 'anti-tank shells') and AAM (ВОЗД., 'AIR'), which are suspended on outer pylons. The remaining 3 positions (ВНЕШ., 'OUTER'; ВНУТ., 'INNER'; 4П, '4P' or '4 pylons') for unguided weapons: rocket weapons, cannon pods, bombs, etc.

<…>

 

Ка-50 (бортовой №23):

 

<…>

This is because the guidance and launch control modes for guided and unguided weapons are different. When modeling the DCS: Ka-50 module, the real Ka-50's weapon control system was simplified by ED developers.

 

Initially, the R-73 was supposed to be used as an air-to-air missile; therefore, the ability to control them was incorporated into the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK. However, test launches for these missiles were not carried out, and therefore their use on the Ka-50 was not approved.

 

Nevertheless, guidance and launch of the Igla missiles in real life is somewhat more complicated than the R-73 missiles, and requires additional controls. Nevertheless, when in 1987 a decision was made in the future to equip the Ka-50 with the Igla missiles, instead of the R-73, these works were never destined to happen. Therefore, in no the Ka-50 cockpit you will not see the governing bodies for the Igla missiles.

 

Original in Russian

 

Это верхнее положение для управляемого вооружения: ПТУР (ПС – противотанковые снаряды) и УР «воздух-воздух» (ВОЗД.), которые подвешиваются на внешние пилоны. Остальные 3 положения (ВНЕШ.; ВНУТ.; 4П) для неуправляемого вооружения: ракетное оружие, подвесные пушечные контейнеры, бомбы и т.п.

<…>

 

Ка-50 (бортовой №23):

 

<…>

Это сделано потому, что режимы наведения и управления пуском для управляемого и неуправляемого вооружений различаются. При моделировании модуля DCS: Ка-50 система управления вооружением реального Ка-50 была упрощена разработчиками ED.

 

В качестве УР «воздух-воздух» первоначально предполагалось использовать Р-73, поэтому возможность управления ими была заложена в ПрПНК К-041 «Рубикон». Однако испытательных пусков для этих ракет не проводилось, в связи с чем их использование на Ка-50 не было утверждено.

 

Тем не менее, наведение и пуск УР «Игла» в реале несколько сложнее чем УР Р-73, и требует дополнительных органов управления. Тем не менее, когда в 1987 году было принято решение в будущем оснастить Ка-50 ракетами «Игла», вместо Р-73, этим работам так и не суждено было свершиться. Поэтому ни в одной кабине Ка-50 вы не увидите органов управления для УР «Игла».

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[MikePotten]

One can dream but what application is used for these models as I have previous exp fearing for FSX but some time ago now.

 

Images look absolutely mouth watering, so envious of your skills.

Edited May 5, 2020 by MikePotten
Compliments added

[zerO_crash]

I've kept pretty quiet on this one so far, but as conversation has now got reasonable, here's my take.

 

I think we can all agree that what is being proposed for BS3 is realistic if not actually factual. This is important.

 

We're not looking at a TIE fighter, or even Airwolf. We're looking at something which is a logical extension of the earlier version, had Russia elected to continue down that development path. We're also looking at something which has existed in parts, just never together as the whole.

 

So historically accurate? No. Practically realistic and believable? Yes.

 

We also can't discount Field Modifications as well. Might a unit have jury-rigged Iglas? Especially if they had access to -52 wings... It may or may not be a practical thing to do. But you can bet that if it came to it, folks would have found a way to do it - us military types are good like that...

 

A slightly related question. If a Huey picks up a Stinger team you've now got a Stinger armed Huey. Likewise Iglas in an Mi8 or a Hind. I don't know because I haven't tried - can passengers fire from helicopters? 'Cos that would make CAS missions interesting - take one cab with a couple of Stingers or Iglas and some reloads and really piss off the CAP when they come find you...

 

No, we cannot agree on any of that, because nothing is realistic there. Neither do we know enough about the systems, nor was it all ever on a particular Ka50. So, we don´t agree there. As @Sebulba asked you earlier, do you know any of the systems? To that you say no, because you´r not an engineer. Well, some of us are, some are not, but access to documents is something everyone has, provided they are available online. And none of these are, besides some knowledgable brothers on our Russian side. But they cannot share too much either, thus "guesstimation". We really don´t know enough about these systems to have them implemented, at least if ED is open with us about what they know. @Chizh for a fact, has stated on multiple occasions that this is an envisioned Ka50(ED), not something real, and that is not only because of the weapons or systems fusion. So no, we don´t know enough about them, and guess what, Ka50 BS1/2 is actually Kamov JSC certified, licensed. Yes, you read it right, and that is because the module so closely resembles Ka50 #25 in performance, flight dynamics, systems, weapons. Pretty much the whole aircraft simulation. Ka50(ED) BS3 will not receive that certificate because it doesn´t represent anything real and physical in this world and entity we live in.

 

@3WA: Yes they did promise us something, the very code of existence for ED and DCS, being; "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible." So far, with minor differences here and there (some weapons being added for "fun" like KH25ML on Ka50, or a whole array of weapons for MiG21bis (explanation here was that another MiG21 version will not come for decades, so you might as well pretend you fly a different MiG21 version, which we kinda accepted)), all modules have been based on real aircraft, and represent their real counterparts in a very good and precise way. Although as previously mentioned, some extra weapon was added here and there, if you fly realistic, those could always be restricted. But now we get a Ka50 with weapons and systems fused that NEVER existed out there. That is not just a matter of restricting the mission, that is something more. That´s why the fuss about it. I notice you don´t care much about realism, but remember that this sim exists because of people like us who ask the difficult questions, and by that show that we are a demanding community that will read real manuals and go as far as to contact military pilots for evaluation of our product. If people were asked here for a FC3-version of F22 (SFM or PFM/SSM) or a full out PFM/ASM Mi2 or Su9, most would chose the latter. It´s because we want modules that can be replicated with such accuracy that we are all here, why we enjoy this sim. The reason you are here is because of that, not because you want to fly imaginary aircraft, and if that´s what you want, then you ended up in a wrong place I am afraid. We don´t settle down for dumbed down, or imaginary stuff, we prefer the difficult realistic stuff. So no, this sim exists for the sole purpose of realism.

 

As to you´r argument of $$, I already told you that if they wanted to become rich, they could have created Super Mario or what, and cash in money on a phone game. There are two points:

 

1 - ED has admitted themselves that they do DCS for fun, the real money lie in military contracts, we are nothing compared to them. We give them in total what you tip once to a waitress in a restaurant. Yup, DCS is just because they want, but we probably barely account for their energy bills over at ED´s HQ in Moscow.

 

2 - If you were here since the start, or basically even the time where we had only FC, Ka50 and even when A10C came out, these modules were the only modules for years. Only in the recent time, did we start pumping out 1-2 modules every year, which btw. is crazy, considering how much work it is to create a single module (because realism, finding reliable info and creating it in a virtual airspace). Notice how many subcontractors have gone in cooperation with ED, before there was only ED, after that ED and Belsimtek, for a long time. Now we have 7-8 subcontractors. But all this thanks to the sims renowned reputation. If they screw it now, that might be a blow to their most loyal community who paid for Ka50 twice, just to support them, and show gratitude with a great module.

 

(3) - I get that ED wants to get paid for their cockpit upgrade, but rather release that as a cheaper update that you can buy, maybe with some smaller fixes here and there and I will gladly buy it. But at least we got a realistic helicopter that exists. Not that they run an imagined version just to collect 60$ on something that isn´t even out there... Rather a 20$ cockpit upgrade and save themselves a lot of time. The negative development with this is that @Chizh confirmed that there will be BS2 and BS3 as two separate modules, but in 2.5. As to 2.6, it´s unknown what will happen. Potentially we are talking about losing a realistic Ka50 #25 that will not be supported in the future because it´s a lot of work to maintain them both from update to update, and so, only the most recent version will survive. Ka50 #25 that we have right now is the HERITAGE of this sim. It is authorised by Kamov with their licence for a Quality Product. Ka50 and A10C are the longstanding trademarks of this sim. And all of sudden, we talk about losing what is the pillar of this sim. Sure you will be able to use it, but with update 2.5 and nothing newer, forget multiplayer, forget support (new OS systems?), forget all the updates with regards to weather, climate, maps, whatever... That´s why we fight for it now!

Edited May 6, 2020 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

So far we have had this:

 

That is explained here to be mistakenly translated/labeled that pylon selector hat forward would specifically select A-A weapons, instead inner/outer pylon that you have for left/right and aft as "all" meaning inner and outer together if you have same weapon type on both (like both are hanged with S-8 rockets).

 

If you would have a wing with three pylons and you can only mount A-A weapons to that third pylon so there never can be anything else.... Why would you add functions to select "inner/middle/outer" pylons when you would have sometimes the A-A weapons?

 

If you would have A-A weapon on inner and outer pylon like R-73 or IGLA, why would you need a four way hat to do selection when you just need left/right/aft one? You know the A-A weapon is in your inner pylon so you can just select inner pylon. No need for "A-A weapon".

 

Now again, our KA-50 is old prototype version from early 2000.

KAMOV did offer KA-50 with glass cockpit mid 90's but was not accepted:

 

Then later when KA-50 production was restarted in 2005 with new serial production standard, one unit came out with glass cockpit in 2007, just before project was completely cancelled.

 

Here is the old KA-52 cockpit:

 

You can see that it has the same two pylon weapons control panel that we do have in KA-50.

 

And it had two pylons on its wings (and as well Kh-25 on inner pylon instead outer):

 

But later on KA-52 received three pylon wings:

 

and the cockpit got changed so that weapons selection is completely digital:

 

And here is KA-50 with glass cockpit

 

Now, where is the evidence that KA-50 with a glass cockpit:

 

1) does have

or

2) doesn't have

 

a three pylon wings like a KA-52 does have?

 

The KA-52 went from two pylons + analog weapon control to three pylons + digital weapon control.

The KA-50 went from physical weapon control to digital weapon control, but there is no evidence from its wings...

 

So where did this physical weapon control panel go in KA-50?

 

Could it be like in KA-52 by cockpit and like wings?

Is it logical that as from the begin the KA-50 and KA-52 were basically same, that in the later on KA-50 and KA-52 would be as well as much as possible similar by same upgrades where possible?

 

ED KA-50-3 3D model overlaid of real KA-52:

 

IS IT POSSIBLE?

 

You have a problem understanding what a prototype is. A prototype is a envisioned product that is in the state of development (beta). Therefore, only because a button is labeled A-A (hat switch) does not mean the helicopter will use A-A equipment, it´s there for testing the cockpit layout or so. Still, A-A missiles were not tested ONCE on Ka50, maybe the doctrine or priorities changed along the way. Point is it´s there, but it was never used as far as we know. You have a problem with evidence and how to find it properly. When you are asked for evidence of it ever being fired, or to show how the HUD looks like when it´s fired, you turn the question upside down just to try to confuse everyone around you by saying: "where is the evidence against it?". One cannot talk sense with you, when lack of evidence, is evidence for you that something exists! Once again, you keep showing Ka52, what do you know about Ka52, or anyone else for that matter? Have you seen the HUD modes, do you know how the systems work? In these helicopters everything is cooperating with each other, there are very few systems, if any, that are completely isolated. You cannot remove them as if they were constants, they are part of a formula which is the whole helicopter. Many of these systems, including the ones we got, rely on a newer avionics suite we know NOTHING about. That´s evidence that BS3 is a bad idea for DCS that advertises itself as a realistic simulator. And we are here for realism. You show me pictures that are available online, but without telling me how the systems work, show me documents first! You can start by explaining me how the weapons system is capable of selecting single pylons (since each pylon has a different weapon on the #7th picture you posted) and at the same time, explain to me how it´s capable of handling 2 extra weapon stations. Because as far as I have researched, our pilotage and weapons suite is K-041, and that only handles 4 stations. You would need to know something I don´t about the Ka52`s K-806 which can handle 6 stations. Good luck searching.

 

Hey look, I got a nut cracker for you, have a look at this car:

 

It´s an Audi, because it bears the emblem. This means that the car exists, because I showed you a picture, tell me where can I buy it? I want to buy it, show me where. You will not find it in any catalogue because it´s a prototype, but I don´t care, I showed you a photo, and I want to buy it. Find it for me. (Bear in mind, I showed you a photo, which is evidence that it exists, most of what you state is in the format: "prove to me it doesn´t exist"). And when you find me my car so that I can buy it, I am also pretty sure that there are invisible alien saucers flying around. My evidence is that you have to prove me with evidence against it, otherwise it exists. Good luck finding me my car that I wish to buy and the invisible saucers that no one has seen, smelled or touched. But they exist, because you cannot disprove me, or can you? Your logic, have fun. (Point of the matter is, we don´t disprove of your pictures, but rather implementing something that is not known enough about. Implementing systems that are insufficiently described.)

Edited May 6, 2020 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

OK, then I will try to make it more clear.

 

Factual = clear evidence that something exists/existed.

 

Realistic/believable = clear evidence that something close exists/existed AND that it would be logical to assume that under slightly different circumstances the proposed configuration would have become fact.

 

Fantasy = anything else.

 

I'm assuming you also aren't an avionics engineer, otherwise you'd already have worked out how it could be done and what changes would have been needed. And with respect I'd say that makes your opinion no more valid than anyone else's. But it doesn't really matter anyway - ED will do what they feel is best and we'll either embrace it or not. I'm looking forward to what they come up with, you obviously are not. Your choice.

 

His opinion IS more valid because he is better informed than you. Simple as that. I suggest you talk to the people that actually have a bit of idea about this, many of them on the Russian forum. Some good ones here too, though fewer with info on eastern machinery ;)

[Fri13]

Nevertheless, guidance and launch of the Igla missiles in real life is somewhat more complicated than the R-73 missiles, and requires additional controls. Nevertheless, when in 1987 a decision was made in the future to equip the Ka-50 with the Igla missiles, instead of the R-73, these works were never destined to happen. Therefore, in no the Ka-50 cockpit you will not see the governing bodies for the Igla missiles.

 

And that is old information, unless it is based to last 2005 serial production standard?

 

Question is not about history anymore, but what KA-50 became after throughout upgrade programs, and KA-52 can handle IGLA perfectly fine. What is logical evidence that upgraded KA-50 did receive the same process if it did receive the required wing pylons.

 

We are not talking here from helicopter from 1987 or 1999, but helicopter from 2005 that would be operational in 2020.

[Dudikoff]

Can you explain to me how the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK, designed to control 4 pylons, can control 6 pylons?

 

If you can't explain to me how this is possible from a technical point of view, then this whole conversation can be considered the next stage of blah blah blah, and nothing more.

 

If you have some diagrams and technical manuals describing the system in detail, then perhaps you could explain why such a thing would not be possible?

 

Otherwise, I'd presume the K-041 is not an immutable black box, but a name for a system of multiple components and sub-components which control different functions (navigation, targeting, weapons, etc.).

 

To insist that the engineers responsible for so many modifications required to test various systems on the numerous Ka-50 prototypes would have problems modifying, upgrading, replacing or simply bypassing some of these components (like e.g. the computer controlling the weapon control system) for something relatively trivial as adding support for two more pylons for A2A missiles seems pretty stubborn.

 

Having said that, I would prefer if they just added support for some Igla variant to be carried on the current Ka-50's outer pylons rather than building some Frankenstein variant of the Ka-50 with new wings and MAWS, but the same old cockpit.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Dudikoff