Black Shark 3 official photos.

S.E.Bulba · May 23, 2020

Google Translate

Then I repeat, don't challenge if you don't understand…

Man, what are you talking about? I asked you a question that you never answered. What kind of "challenge" are you talking about? :doh:

… Then again do not challenge when you don't know what you are talking about.
I asked that what evidence you have that Shkval is not a contrast based tracking system, and you dance around the question. If you want to be ignorant, then be such...

As you can't answer for a simple question, and you can't understand the question itself, it is no use for you to participate to English side.

It is clear that Shkval doesn't model correctly anything really, but you ignore all the evidence for that. It becomes obvious for anyone who uses it long enough that DCS is not capable simulate it to this Maybe in future when new FLIR and all gets implement in overhaul of optical systems…

I gave figures of dynamic restrictions for the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system, taken from the real manual of the Su-25T. After which I said that the developers of ED repeatedly stated that the Shkval automatic TV sighting system was modeled in the game close to real.
You started to prove to me that this is not so.
I asked you if you had experience with the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system?
You did not answer the question. Instead, you began to write me messages consisting of a thousand words.
I suggested that you make these inferences to English-speaking ED developers.
Instead, you continue to prove to me something, tirelessly scribbling messages, the size of a million words.
I told you that I was not going to unravel the machine translation of your multi-volume works, and once again advised you to turn to the developers with your arguments.
Now you are proudly telling me about some of my "challenges" and suggesting that I shut up.

Man, do you have nothing more to do in life than writing full-page texts on the forum? Since I have never had any experience with the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system, and I don't know how really the correct operation of the image-storage device of his teleautomaton is. Therefore, I do not presume to judge how realistic this system is simulated in the game… unlike you, although it seems that you also do not have such information.

Therefore, I once again ask you to answer one simple question that I already asked at the very beginning, and which caused such a stormy reaction from you.

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? Man, just answer me, YES or NO?

… Yes you do....
And that is it.

Oh well. :)

Original in Russian

Then I repeat, don't challenge if you don't understand…

Приятель, Вы вообще о чём говорите? Я задал Вам вопрос, на который Вы так и не ответили. О каком «оспаривании» Вы ведёте речь? :doh:

… Then again do not challenge when you don't know what you are talking about.
I asked that what evidence you have that Shkval is not a contrast based tracking system, and you dance around the question. If you want to be ignorant, then be such...

As you can't answer for a simple question, and you can't understand the question itself, it is no use for you to participate to English side.

It is clear that Shkval doesn't model correctly anything really, but you ignore all the evidence for that. It becomes obvious for anyone who uses it long enough that DCS is not capable simulate it to this Maybe in future when new FLIR and all gets implement in overhaul of optical systems…

Я привёл цифры динамических ограничений для реального КАПК «Шквал», взятого из реального руководства Су-25Т. Потом я сказал, что разработчики ED неоднократно заявляли, что комплекс «Шквал» смоделирован в игре близко к реальному.
Вы начали мне доказывать, что это не так.
Я спросил Вас, имели ли Вы опыт работы с реальным КАПК «Шквал»?
Вы не ответили на вопрос. Вместо этого, Вы начали писать мне сообщения, состоящие из тысячи слов.
Я предложил Вам обратиться с этими умозаключениями к разработчикам ED, говорящим на английском языке.
Вместо этого, Вы продолжаете мне доказывать что-то, без устали строча сообщения, величиной уже в миллион слов.
Я сказал Вам, что не собираюсь разгадывать машинный перевод Ваших многотомных трудов, и ещё раз посоветовал Вам обратиться со своими рассуждениями к разработчикам.
Теперь Вы с гордым видом, рассказываете мне про какой-то мой «вызов», и предлагаете мне заткнуться.

Парень, Вам в жизни нечем больше заняться, кроме как написанием на форуме текстов на всю страницу? Поскольку я никогда не имел опыта работы с реальным КАПК «Шквал», и не знаю насколько в действительности является корректной работа образо-запоминающего устройства его телеавтомата. Поэтому я не берусь судить, насколько реалистично данный комплекс смоделирован в игре… в отличие от Вас, хотя судя по всему, Вы также не обладаете такой информацией.

Поэтому я ещё раз прошу мне ответить на один простой вопрос, который я уже задавал в самом начале, и который вызвал такую бурную Вашу реакцию.

Вы имеете опыт работы с реальным «Шквалом»? Парень, просто ответьте мне, ДА или НЕТ?

… Yes you do....
And that is it.

Ну-ну. :)

Fri13 · May 23, 2020

Man, what are you talking about? I asked you a question that you never answered. What kind of "challenge" are you talking about? :doh:[/Quote]

I asked you first that what you think the Shkval tracking system is. You do not answer it but demand me to answer to you first.

I gave figures of dynamic restrictions for the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system, taken from the real manual of the Su-25T. After which I said that the developers of ED repeatedly stated that the Shkval automatic TV sighting system was modeled in the game close to real.[/Quote]

Where is that manual translated?

You started to prove to me that this is not so.[/Quote]

I asked is that Shkval a contrast based tracking or what, as it doesn't work as contrast based tracking does and proved it to you. If you do not accept it, then either it is using some other tracking method than contrast based, why I asked from you what it is using if not contrast based.

I asked you if you had experience with the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system?[/Quote]

Irrelevant, as I know how contrast based tracking systems work in their functionality. What DCS doesn't have and what is the problem.
So I ask again, if Shkval does not use contrast based tracking, what it then uses?

You did not answer the question. Instead, you began to write me messages consisting of a thousand words.[/Quote]

You have not answered my question I asked first. And when I answer, you don't read and demand an answer.

I suggested that you make these inferences to English-speaking ED developers.[/Quote]

You said that ED says Shkval is close to real, I said that it can't be trusted by anyone who uses Shkval in DCS because it doesn't have a contrast based tracking system it should have. To you prove it wrong, you must provide material that what other method Shkval uses for tracking than contrast.
You then made ad hominem by demanding to know that have I used a real Shkval, what is irrelevant information.

Instead, you continue to prove to me something, tirelessly scribbling messages, the size of a million words.[/Quote]

So you have zero understanding how contrast based tracking works. That came clear now.

I told you that I was not going to unravel the machine translation of your multi-volume works, and once again advised you to turn to the developers with your arguments.[/Quote]

It doesn't matter what I talk to developers, you brought up that Shkval is close to real and thats it. And I asked you that you can't be serious if you know how contrast based tracking systems work?

Now you are proudly telling me about some of my "challenges" and suggesting that I shut up.

[/Quote]
I don't suggest anything, I clearly said that if you do not answer to my question and you do not read what is written to you as answer, your efforts to discuss doesn't help.

Man, do you have nothing more to do in life than writing full-page texts on the forum?[/Quote]

Sorry, I don't have time to write short. And if you continue ad hominems I report you.

Since I have never had any experience with the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system, and I don't know how really the correct operation of the image-storage device of his teleautomaton is. Therefore, I do not presume to judge how realistic this system is simulated in the game… unlike you, although it seems that you also do not have such information.[/Quote]

So you really do not have any information how contrast based tracking systems operate, or what real Shkval does work. So all you do is make ad hominems and draw to authority if you don't like answers.

Therefore, I once again ask you to answer one simple question that I already asked at the very beginning, and which caused such a stormy reaction from you.

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? Man, just answer me, YES or NO?[/Quote]

Again irrelevant question and ad hominem attack.

I again ask the same question as in the begin, do you have any knowledge how contrast based tracking systems work, and do you know is the Shkval contrast based tracking?
If you know it is, and how contrast based tracking works then you will know that Shkval in KA-50 is not anywhere near "close to real".

It is super simple thing.

We are talking contrast detection system, not about target recognition and identification. We do not neither talk about laser spot tracking or radar tracking or anything like that. Unless you can provide evidence that Shkval tracking is not contrast based.

Blackjack_UK · May 23, 2020

S.E.Bulba · May 23, 2020

Google Translate

I asked you first that what you think the Shkval tracking system is. You do not answer it but demand me to answer to you first…
Do not compose. Or quote me your message in which you asked me about it.

You said:

Please. Anyone who has any experience with KA-50 will quickly learn in the few hours that Shkval doesn't work "close to real" at all…

I asked you:

… Do you have experience with the real Shkval?..
… Where is that manual translated?..
It is not translated. In the Russian segment of the Internet, there is only a reprinted part of the complete manual of the Su-25T. In this part there is also a section devoted to the operation of the Shkval automatic TV sighting system.
… I asked is that Shkval a contrast based tracking or what, as it doesn't work as contrast based tracking does and proved it to you. If you do not accept it, then either it is using some other tracking method than contrast based, why I asked from you what it is using if not contrast based…
I repeat, do not compose. I asked you, but you declined to answer. After that, you started talking to yourself, inventing some supposedly my "arguments", and yourself answering them. :)

<…>

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? :)
So your argument is that because anyone can detect that KA-50 in DCS doesn't have contrast lock capabilities that the system is by specifications primary mean to lock targets for tracking, that one would need real world experiences with it, to know it doesn't have a contrast lock capabilities?..
… Irrelevant, as I know how contrast based tracking systems work in their functionality. What DCS doesn't have and what is the problem.
So I ask again, if Shkval does not use contrast based tracking, what it then uses?..
This is of great importance. Since you do not have any technical documentation for the Shkval automatic TV sighting system, and also do not have any real experience with this old Soviet sighting system. You do not know the characteristics of its optical system, the threshold characteristics of the light filters of the contrast system, etc.

All words about knowing how the color contrast system works in general, without knowing the technical characteristics of a particular system, is nothing more than ordinary blah blah blah.
… You have not answered my question I asked first. And when I answer, you don't read and demand an answer…
You, too, stubbornly did not answer my question. In addition, you led the discussion with yourself, since I did not participate in it at all.
… So you have zero understanding how contrast based tracking works. That came clear now…
Based on what you have made such a conclusion? Do you think others are dumber than you?
… It doesn't matter what I talk to developers, you brought up that Shkval is close to real and thats it. And I asked you that you can't be serious if you know how contrast based tracking systems work?..
In my opinion, in your attempts to evade the answer, you simply simply got lost in the chronology of your conversation with yourself. :)
… So you really do not have any information how contrast based tracking systems operate, or what real Shkval does work. So all you do is make ad hominems and draw to authority if you don't like answers…
Thus, you also have no idea how the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system works. All your theoretical fabrications are nothing more than unsubstantiated arguments of a theoretical couch-based "expert".
… Again irrelevant question and ad hominem attack…
Again you shy away from the answer. In addition, all your unfounded accusations are nothing more than demagogic tricks.
… I again ask the same question as in the begin, do you have any knowledge how contrast based tracking systems work, and do you know is the Shkval contrast based tracking?
If you know it is, and how contrast based tracking works then you will know that Shkval in KA-50 is not anywhere near "close to real".

It is super simple thing.

We are talking contrast detection system, not about target recognition and identification. We do not neither talk about laser spot tracking or radar tracking or anything like that. Unless you can provide evidence that Shkval tracking is not contrast based.
I see no reason to continue the conversation if you do not provide any technical documents on the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system. Because I already told you that chatter about how it should work in theory, without the specific light-contrast characteristics of its optical system, is nothing more than a fortune-telling on coffee grounds.

Original in Russian

I asked you first that what you think the Shkval tracking system is. You do not answer it but demand me to answer to you first…
Не сочиняйте. Либо процитируйте мне своё сообщение, в котором вы меня об этом спросили.

Вы сказали:

Please. Anyone who has any experience with KA-50 will quickly learn in the few hours that Shkval doesn't work "close to real" at all…

Я спросил Вас:

… Вы имеете опыт работы с реальным «Шквалом»?..
… Where is that manual translated?..
Оно не переведено. В русском сегменте интернета имеется лишь перепечатанная часть от полного руководства Су-25Т. В этой части есть и раздел, посвящённый эксплуатации КАПК «Шквал».
… I asked is that Shkval a contrast based tracking or what, as it doesn't work as contrast based tracking does and proved it to you. If you do not accept it, then either it is using some other tracking method than contrast based, why I asked from you what it is using if not contrast based…
Ещё раз повторяю, не сочиняйте. Я спросил Вас, однако Вы уклонились от ответа. После этого Вы стали разговаривать сам с собой, придумывая какие-то якобы мои «аргументы», и сам же отвечая на них. :)

<…>

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? :)
So your argument is that because anyone can detect that KA-50 in DCS doesn't have contrast lock capabilities that the system is by specifications primary mean to lock targets for tracking, that one would need real world experiences with it, to know it doesn't have a contrast lock capabilities?..
… Irrelevant, as I know how contrast based tracking systems work in their functionality. What DCS doesn't have and what is the problem.
So I ask again, if Shkval does not use contrast based tracking, what it then uses?..
Это имеет большое значение. Поскольку вы не обладаете никакой технической документацией на КАПК «Шквал», а также не имеете опыта реальной работы с этой старой советской прицельной системой. Вы не знаете характеристик его оптической системы, пороговых характеристик светофильтров системы контраста, и т.д.

Все слова о знании принципа работы системы цветового контраста в целом, без знания технических характеристик конкретной системы, это не более чем обычное бла-бла-бла.
… You have not answered my question I asked first. And when I answer, you don't read and demand an answer…
Вы тоже упорно не отвечали на мой вопрос. Кроме того, обсуждение Вы вели сам с собой, поскольку я в нём вообще не участвовал.
… So you have zero understanding how contrast based tracking works. That came clear now…
Исходя из чего Вы сделали такой вывод? Вы считаете, что другие глупее чем Вы?
… It doesn't matter what I talk to developers, you brought up that Shkval is close to real and thats it. And I asked you that you can't be serious if you know how contrast based tracking systems work?..
По моему, в своих попытках уклонится от ответа, Вы уже просто-напросто сами потерялись в хронологии своей беседы с самим собой. :)
… So you really do not have any information how contrast based tracking systems operate, or what real Shkval does work. So all you do is make ad hominems and draw to authority if you don't like answers…
Таким образом Вы также не имеете ни малейшего представления как работает реальный КАПК «Шквал». Все ваши теоретические измышления – это не более чем бездоказательные рассуждения диванного «эксперта-теоретика».
… Again irrelevant question and ad hominem attack…
Вы опять уклоняетесь от ответа. Кроме того, все Ваши необоснованные обвинения – это не более чем демагогические приёмы.
… I again ask the same question as in the begin, do you have any knowledge how contrast based tracking systems work, and do you know is the Shkval contrast based tracking?
If you know it is, and how contrast based tracking works then you will know that Shkval in KA-50 is not anywhere near "close to real".

It is super simple thing.

We are talking contrast detection system, not about target recognition and identification. We do not neither talk about laser spot tracking or radar tracking or anything like that. Unless you can provide evidence that Shkval tracking is not contrast based.
Я не вижу смысла продолжать беседу, если Вы не приводите никаких технических документов по реальному КАПК «Шквал». Потому, что я уже говорил Вам о том, что болтовня про то, как он должен работать в теории, без конкретных светоконтрастных характеристик его оптической системы, это не более чем гадание на кофейной гуще.

AeriaGloria · May 23, 2020

You’re really hung up on the contrast thing. There is no true contrast lock code in DCS, I think it’s possible to say “our Shkval is close to real one” while still having a system that emulates contrast lock without being actual contrast lock.

Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

Fri13 · May 23, 2020

You’re really hung up on the contrast thing. There is no true contrast lock code in DCS, I think it’s possible to say “our Shkval is close to real one” while still having a system that emulates contrast lock without being actual contrast lock. [/Quote]

Thank you for saying "Shkval targeting system doesn't work close to the real thing." what is exactly the point that Shkval in KA-50 has been from the start a fantasy system that detects units and requires unrealistic locking requirements and unsuitable for even a anti-air mode when you can't realistically lock on target even in optimal scenario.

Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

It is not "little different", there is a HUGE difference between correctly done contrast based lock and tracking, and a fake one using unit and object ID's.

It is not "all would be better if it would be real contrast locking", but more realistic with the limited capabilities like losing lock far more often, losing track more often and requiring to be far more accurate how and when to try locking even. It would require from the pilot more in some scenarios, while making it far easier in some others.

I have good video to be made of these Shkval fantasy capabilities as well clear lack of capabilities and functions. Just need to get back to studio on next week to edit them for shorter.

The Shkval unrealistic and very limited capabilities comes obvious for anyone who starts to use it little more seriously than "can I lock on that tank and shoot at it", and in the future when we start to get far more advanced damage modeling to air and ground units, we as well require far more accurate and realistic Shkval targeting capabilities.

It is immersion breaker when targeting system has fantasy capabilities and it is unfair for the targets as well for the pilot. And it becomes frustrating when you have optimal scenario to shoot down an aircraft, but your targeting system decides "Sorry, my programming limits doesn't allow you to do that, but try to that fence post instead!"

And you do not go to "play with targeting gate size to get lock", as it is doing it wrong. It is your task as pilot to set the targeting gate size so that the system tracks the wanted target and minimizes the changes to lose a lock or starts tracking wrong target. As with that gate size you are programming the system to track specific pattern, and your job is to get that pattern be as clear as possible as you can lock on anything that has enough contrast. You can even use a largest possible gate size to target a smallest possible target with a solid lock, as only thing that matters is that point of your gate center line is on the target, and it doesn't then move in the scene that is beign tracked as the system is tracking the whole scene inside that gate, so your scene doesn't change so that tracking algorithms starts to think it size changes or it moves somewhere else.

Simple contrast based systems requires the lock to be made by the judgement of the operator. They are defining the area.
A more advanced systems are more complex that are capable for specific target recognition and then automatically track such. But we are talking about very high processing requirements and still have lots of false targets as well losing a track.

And that kind systems Shkval-M received in the KA-50Sh with the French targeting sphere. Multi target recognition and tracking, simultaneously scanning while tracking and guiding while tracking.

But our Shkval is very very simple in that.
1) operator defines the area to be tracked.
2) operator commands contrast pattern to be detected in the area.
3) system starts tracking the pattern once its requirements are met.
4) system tracks pattern by allowing some dynamic changes at given time and form changes.

This is just the common question here, does a player accept a fantasy systems like the current Shkval, or do they want "as realistic as possible"?
As it can be made as realistic as possible, but it will likely make many players mad as they need to learn that they would come more to a situations where system simply doesn't work automatically.

I take "realistic as possible" over fantasy or because limited programming.

This is similar scenario as AIM-54 tracking targets behind a mountain, or track targets even guiding radar turned off after launch and before missile goes active.

Fighter pilots doesn't accept such fantasy features, why does helicopter pilots accept fantasy targeting systems for helicopters?

We are getting a "Black Shark 3", where we get new targeting system settings for filtering etc. That has been to this date not implemented. We have never had a fragmentation sleeve modeled as engine doesn't support it (but will) and our Vikhr proximity fuze is not modeled (needs to become). And our targeting system is not contrast based but object/unit ID based fantasy system with some restrictions added to "make it real".

Some players can be happy what fantasies they have now, but some wants more realism and more realistic features.

This all is acknowledged by ED, and they are working in long run to fix all this. And people should accept that things are going to change, and things that are broken should get fixed in time.

We can go and dig up years old statements from developers saying all kind things, but we would never be even in this level of simulation if there wouldn't be a demand for it. Lock-On was great, amazing really. But I take any day current 2.5.6 DCS World without question...

And here we are talking that what KA-50 should be in the future, not what it was 8 years ago.

AeriaGloria · May 23, 2020

sure, it would be nice to see real contrast system, but I don’t think that invalidates what they said about it being pretty close. I know contrast is way different then what we have now, but the basic workflow is the same, the procedures are very similar, you slew change gate and lock and re acquire as needed. The ANG doesn’t use A-10C becuase it’s exactly like the real one, they use A-10ac becuase it’s procedures Are sufficiently similar enough to be a training tool.

I’m just saying, it’s nice to want contrast lock, but doesn’t mean the whole system is not a reasonable approximation for just that reason. If you don’t like it okay you don’t have to fly it, but it not having contrast does not also mean they weren’t being honest when it was said “Shkval is reasonably similar to the real thing.”

I know contrast lock is different, but this is basically a procedures trainer, if you want to say a system is not at all realistic just becuase one of its functions has been simplified to fit in the game code but still have the same workflow and procedure, then I don’t think you’re going to be happy with the way any of the sensors are done in DCS. We will not get a true ray casted RCS simulation. It’s an approximation centered around procedures, of course it’s not completely realistic, but I will stand by it being a reasonable approximation and as realistic as most of our sensors are in DCS. Of course things always work more perfectly then they do in real life, it’s a simulation game. Honestly if this is such an immersion breaker for you that it disqualifies everything else about the Shkval being a reasonable approximation, then I don’t know how you have been playing DCS for so long. I can’t think of a single game with actual contrast locking. Or a single game with ray casted RCS, or RWR getting false incorrect signals.

I’m sure this post will get another war and peace from you, but I guess everyone will have to agree to disagree on this thread. I understand why the developers said the Shkval is close to the real thing(for a simulation), I’m sorry you don’t

Fri13 · May 23, 2020

sure, it would be nice to see real contrast system, but I don’t think that invalidates what they said about it being pretty close. I know contrast is way different then what we have now, but the basic workflow is the same, the procedures are very similar, you slew change gate and lock and re acquire as needed. The ANG doesn’t use A-10C becuase it’s exactly like the real one, they use A-10ac becuase it’s procedures Are sufficiently similar enough to be a training tool. [/Quote]

If we do the unrealistic scenarios where a vehicle sits middle of a salt lake and we must destroy it, then it is Ok'ish. You exactly that.

But if we do semi-realistic scenarios, trees between, trees behind, sun is behind us, we launch Vikhr that's smoke trail blocks the target complete for over 3 seconds, the target starts moving etc. Doesn't anymore work at all correct way.

Same way as Vikhr fragmentation sleeve is not just used against air targets but as wéll soft targets. Why you have proximity fuze to blow up fragments near the targets instead flying rocket in the ground and fire tandem charge on rocks. You can't do that correctly as the proximity fuze doesn't detect ground. It doesn't detect buildings, nor trees. It doesn't detect anything else than Unit ID.

So you are hunting enemy helicopters that hover above treeline, you shoot Vikhr at them in A-A mode and Vikhr just flies couple meters above trees without any problems.

You are sneaking a enemy location and you see enemy helicopter hovering with cargo on rope. You launch missile between trees about 200 meters from you and proximity fuze doesn't get triggered for it.

In many real scenarios you wouldn't use A-A mode because proximity fuze would get triggered, so you need to position yourself other way to get a valid launch rules.

I made videos about Shkval locking and tracking targets behind the trees, but not on tree itself. It can lock on a fence post but not on aircraft against blue sky. It can lock on a single tire on a vehicle, but not to a whole vehicle. It can track target with perfect blending to background, but lose suddenly against perfect blue background.

It can lock on any part of the building, even on pure white wall and track it perfectly, but has serious trouble to lock on tank sitting on snow.

The system perfectly detects is a target dead or alive and denies locking if dead, while in reality a dead vehicle can have no visual signs of destruction for even pilot to know.

I’m just saying, it’s nice to want contrast lock, but doesn’t mean the whole system is not a reasonable approximation for just that reason. If you don’t like it okay you don’t have to fly it, but it not having contrast does not also mean they weren’t being honest when it was said “Shkval is reasonably similar to the real thing.” [/Quote]

There is reason why since hornet ED models radar beam scanning. That same technology has been used in M2000 now coming IR seekers for scanning the target.

https://m.facebook.com/RazbamSims/videos/1056379681407524/

I don't know is that set to other radars like example AIM-120C that when it goes active, it actually would need to find the target.
And that is affect by RCS even.

Why to do that, when we all could be happy with a Lock-On radar as in FC3, that once target is inside a radar range it gets automatically detected. We can fake things like radar beam altitude but just keep magical knowledge that targets are there and show them when parameters are right.
While currently it is simulated that your radar and IR seeker needs to find the source.

We are getting all that for radars, why not for optical targeting systems?

ED is currently remaking FLIR system. That will benefit from real contrast lock system. As now we have unrealistic Maverick missiles lock ranges (example swedish tested Maverick B locking and they got 1.5-3km ranges, we shoot them at 15km). We have unrealistic FLIR for detecting ground units. We have
IR missile seekers unrealistic. Flares are unrealistic, chaff are unreasonable.

Lots of systems are based to very limited system modeling. That has been problem of the game engine and limitations of computers resources. But not anymore. We have gone from 1 core to 12-32 cores. No more 512-1024MB RAM but 32-64GB.

Want to simulate a realistic radar? You run a ray tracing on its beam. You don't need to do complex millions of rays but acceptable and work with it to do actual detection.

And that is what ED is doing with their A-G radar, the beam needs to scan the terrain, it is calculated what it seems and how to present it. It needs to actually see things.
Anyone can write a simple variant that is "good enough" by taking a image of the terrain, apply some filters to it and then place all known units as blocks to it and say "radar found these". And most players are likey happy for a while, until the simplicity becomes obvious and annoying.

In 2020 we can't have anymore such things to happen as in 1997.

I know contrast lock is different, but this is basically a procedures trainer, if you want to say a system is not at all realistic just becuase one of its functions has been simplified to fit in the game code but still have the same workflow and procedure, then I don’t think you’re going to be happy with the way any of the sensors are done in DCS.[/Quote]

When KA-50 got released, I was flying over a year avoiding all trees, power lines and such. I got shot down often and many times I was left wondering that what happened. How did I get shot by a T-80 from 4km range when there were trees between us.

When you learn that trees doesn't have a hit box and power lines doesn't destroy your rotors and so on, your immersion goes away. What use it was to add a SAM behind a forest when it still saw you and shot you through them? What use it was to change altitude for power lines when you could just fly through them.

And one of my biggest expectations was in the 1.5 new trees that got a hit boxes and so on. No more faking that "I must avoid these trees" when you actually need to avoid trees.

But when you can today lock on target through trees and track it perfectly, it brakes the immersion.
When you can't lock on target that clearly is there well inside target gate and optimal scenario and laser just range or but doesn't lock, it brakes the immersion.

When a player learns to operate aircraft properly it is great fun. But when player finds out that it is fake or unrealistic (like CCIP drop line always perfect on ground), it will take away the fun.

We will not get a true ray casted RCS simulation. It’s an approximation centered around procedures, of course it’s not completely realistic, but I will stand by it being a reasonable approximation and as realistic as most of our sensors are in DCS.[/Quote]

We can get that, not today or tomorrow but one day. There are already simulators doing that with virtual audio. As EAX processing allows to correctly calculate audio reflections, so we can simulate audio source, strength and direction and then that energy reflecting from the 3D model (that we can shape with other simulated materials to dampen or increase audio) back toward the virtual microphone. We can have very good approximately about signal type and content we receive, and use that to simulate a radar emissions. As radio waves are not so different from audio waves.

And now we can do that with a light raytracing, we have dedicated GPU to do just that, simulate rays in wanted form and shape how we want. and we could mix that with cheats, so that we still do it to everything at low performance cost, but when we know (cheat) that at given place is something, we ramp up the ray casting to wanted level for few frames to perform a correct calculation.

We do not need to model a nuclear plant to learn how it works down to every bolt and door knob. But we cant teach it by means like explaining it to a 5 year old.

Of course things always work more perfectly then they do in real life, it’s a simulation game. Honestly if this is such an immersion breaker for you that it disqualifies everything else about the Shkval being a reasonable [/Quote]

A actual contrast based detection would bring lots of situations for losing a lock or track slipping to something else.
And it would bring lots of maneuvers and ways to brake a tracking enemy, like flying so that you get something behind you to create fuzzy contrast area.

It could actually be used for IR seekers tracking functions against flares. Like now a Flare is just a dice rolled once a second to check does missile lose a lock and track to it..only requirement is that flare is inside missile gimbal limits. So no matter of FOV or flare separation from the tracked target, it is very simple "yes or no" roll.
Why we have cases that R-27ER seeks at chaff that was way outside the radar beam and far away from target, but it was rolled and found Yes and it was inside missile seeker gimbal limits so missile goes there. And that is why dumping chaff and flare works as each has few seconds lifetime only, and each one is rolled individually. So 10 flares is 10 checks each time. And if example flare has 0.25 probability to lock missile to it, you better release flares as crazy as you get almost always away it. Then there are missiles like AIM-9X that's flare attraction is set to something drastic like 0.015 and you really need to get lucky to have it go to flare.

Does that brake the immersion? Yes... Knowledge is pain. And it goes both ways. You learn that specific module functionality ain't realistic, be it a R-77 on Su-27S or LAU-66 tripple Maverick launcher on A-10C and it is personal question for everyone, realism or gameplay?

DCS is under heavy redesign, and we should eyes toward future to improve things and go toward reality instead fantasies.

Some things we know how they work but we can't simulate them. But we could implement them properly.
One of these things is IFF systems. We can go to library and find books about IFF systems in detail, but we do not have algorithms, codes or anything such. But we learn the principles and we could very well implement such in DCS that acts and work as realistic, beign untrustworthy and causing situations where wrong or old codes are in use etc. But we wouldn't have anything secret simulated.

approximation, then I don’t know how you have been playing DCS for so long. I can’t think of a single game with actual contrast locking. Or a single game with ray casted RCS, or RWR getting false incorrect signals. [/Quote]

DCS does that already with hornet radar. Not ray casting but radar beam is simulated. Not just by scanning but as well calculate RCS based target attitude and you can slip in and out from hornet radar scope by using that advantage. In F-14 it is simulated that how you need to adjust radar to find target and track it, easy to lose a target if not prepared for possible maneuvers.

DCS has changed in last 5 years more than since Flanker. And it is going to change even more as ED has in situation where they can do those things.

I’m sure this post will get another war and peace from you, but I guess everyone will have to agree to disagree on this thread. I understand why the developers said the Shkval is close to the real thing(for a simulation), I’m sorry you don’t

Sorry that you don't expect more from ED and you accept a old statements that nothing needs to be improved.
If you can't find that there are missing features and lack of function. You don't need to buy "Black Shark 3" or hope anything new from it.
As of you look new cockpit and you look old manual and it's "not implement", don't then use those in future.

All other modules get their core functions improved, why not helicopters too? WW2 are soon to receive a new damage modeling, drastically changing ways to combat as different calibers has different effect at different parts of aircrafts.
Fighters has received radar scans and FOV etc.

But helicopters targeting systems to stay same since KA-50 was released is just ignoring the improvements ED does.

AeriaGloria · May 23, 2020

The new radar simulation is a huge step forward, but it’s not ray tracing. The air to ground radar is great, looks amazing, but is still simplified for the sake of performance to the extent it’s hard to notice. I’m sure the FLIR system will have limitations also, contrast locking is not confirmed for that AFAIK.

I want all these things improved, but simulations go hand in hand with compromise, I expect things to operate in a way that mimics real life but I know that they will never operate off the exact same principles as reality for many reasons no matter how technologically possible.

Anyways cheers. I just wanted to say that there has to be compromises especially in sensor performance, and that the lack of contrast locking does not disqualify it from being well simulated.

Fri13 · May 23, 2020

Do not compose. Or quote me your message in which you asked me about it.

You said:

I asked you:
[/Quote]

So you quote my question and you still don't get it.

If you have (?) enough experience flying KA-50 in DCS, then you will eventually come to conclusions that it's targeting system doesn't work. But it requires time and understanding that what the system principles are (like is it radar, IR, laser etc tracking system) and that info speeds up.

That was the open question that anyone who has the time in KA-50, will find it's problems in Shkval and can't agree with ED.

So do YOU have enough time to acknowledge that Shkval implemented in KA-50 is flawed, or not?

You said that ED said thing is correct, so you agree with ED and you acknowledge that there ain't simplification in Shkval that makes it fantasy system. And so on you haven't found any problems as otherwise you couldn't defend ED statement (from year of X).

It is not translated. In the Russian segment of the Internet, there is only a reprinted part of the complete manual of the Su-25T. In this part there is also a section devoted to the operation of the Shkval automatic TV sighting system.[/Quote]

I can get it translated in few days as I have friends working for government translation office, translating documents with Russian government.

Give a link in PM.

I repeat, do not compose. I asked you, but you declined to answer. After that, you started talking to yourself, inventing some supposedly my "arguments", and yourself answering them. :)
[/Quote]

It is irrelevant what personal experience one have with using real Shkval in a one of the KA-50's, let's say in some air shows.
I made question that you ignore, and I answered to you much earlier but you ignore it as you don't read.

This is of great importance. Since you do not have any technical documentation for the Shkval automatic TV sighting system, and also do not have any real experience with this old Soviet sighting system. You do not know the characteristics of its optical system, the threshold characteristics of the light filters of the contrast system, etc.[/Quote]

Again, irrelevant claims as even the logic from the KA-50 in DCS proof you to be completely wrong. You don't read, you don't understand, thats it.

All words about knowing how the color contrast system works in general, without knowing the technical characteristics of a particular system, is nothing more than ordinary blah blah blah.[/Quote]

Actually just opposite as you have zero understanding of anything in optical targeting systems if you do not understand concepts of contrast detection systems. They are all by principles the same, and I don't need to know specific what method someone uses, when a computer model is even conflict with itself and the whole principles of optical tracking.

You can go and demand manuals about every wiring length and thickness and specifications, but you don't learn anything by reading manuals alone.

You, too, stubbornly did not answer my question. In addition, you led the discussion with yourself, since I did not participate in it at all.[/Quote]

I answered you already long time ago, but you have not at all.

Based on what you have made such a conclusion? Do you think others are dumber than you?
[/Quote]

I made question to you for you to answer. You didn't.
I asked you to clarify things, you didn't.
I answered to your questions, you don't read.
You can be stupid if you want, but you have proven it by yourself that you don't answer questions, you don't know, you don't care.

Discussion is over as you can't do more than ad hominems.

In my opinion, in your attempts to evade the answer, you simply simply got lost in the chronology of your conversation with yourself. :)[/Quote]

Says a man that publically is proud that ignores what other reads and wants to stay ignorant and then calls other stupid from answering to his own question that is not willing to read.
As I said, as you don't read, you can't participate to discussions.
It is ended.

Thus, you also have no idea how the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system works. All your theoretical fabrications are nothing more than unsubstantiated arguments of a theoretical couch-based "expert".[/Quote]

If you say so....
Say a man that that believes that optical targeting system is perfectly fine when it can track a target obscured by another object, and system that can't detect proximity than already defined one is not cheating and unrealistic.

Again you shy away from the answer. In addition, all your unfounded accusations are nothing more than demagogic tricks.[/Quote]

Says a man who is unwilling to read answers he so demand to be answered.

I see no reason to continue the conversation if you do not provide any technical documents on the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system. Because I already told you that chatter about how it should work in theory, without the specific light-contrast characteristics of its optical system, is nothing more than a fortune-telling on coffee grounds.

[/Quote]

So again we go to that, you don't understand logic and your own experiences and you can't provide any documentation that I asked before you that would show evidence for Shkval capabilities in DCS.

See, problem is that you don't want to answer questions, you don't want to read answers and then you flip all around that when one asks from you (with expectations that you would know your stuff), you just make claims that the questioner should provide evidence for himself and to you.

Discussion ended when you didnt answer for the first question and you didn't read and provide evidence that why Shkval is so magical targeting system for that era with all the fantasy capabilities.

Or you simply could accept the conclusion, you accept the ED word because you have no better understanding how tracking in Shkval works at all even in it's principles. And you will think forever that it is very close simulation of real Shkval and ain't broken. Until ED says otherwise.

As if you have enough experience with it, you would have found it is broken and you would accept that it is broken and not accept ED statement because it wouldn't explain why Shkval targeting system has such fantasy capabilities as explained.

So my question is well answered by now; You don't have. I didn't want to believe it, but I must now.

Fri13 · May 23, 2020

The new radar simulation is a huge step forward, but it’s not ray tracing. The air to ground radar is great, looks amazing, but is still simplified for the sake of performance to the extent it’s hard to notice. I’m sure the FLIR system will have limitations also, contrast locking is not confirmed for that AFAIK.[/Quote]

I didn't say that it is ray tracing, only said that I could be made such in future when possible. But to this date it is better than previous systems with instant finding. And A-G radar what has been talked about is the challenge that it is not faking. As they really want to get it to see things that it could see and no more. Like park a vehicle behind a tree and it is invisible. Cover that vehicle with camouflage net etc and it is invisible to radar and FLIR, as well for naked eye.

As I explainedz if ED would have gone the easy route, we would had A-F radar two years ago already. But it is just super easy and fake thing. And ED knows better.

And we don't know much about new FLIR, but contrast detection is part of every optical guidance system that does tracking. It is core principle of any of such systems. In DCS it has not need to be done as we have unit ID and object ID. You simply keep a virtual camera pointing at those and it ain't problem as it is perfect information. Now, you can add some random checks etc to make it more realistic kind, but you eventually run a problem where you must call out your own cheating. So it becomes easier to actually perform the real deal and you get it working far better.

Like example with the AV-8B harrier it has capability to use it's FLIR to point a heat sources on HUD. In reality it will blink carrots everywhere as there are lots of false sources. But in DCS a terrain can't have a object ID for heat sources and the system would perfectly blink on any unit ID. And only way to get around it would be randomly blinking various positions on HUD and sometimes ignore unit ID's and this way make it unreliable like inreality. But it wouldn't work so well eventually. So if ED can add way to detect hot spots and such on camera, and hide actual ground units heat signature by their temperature and times etc, you would not need to cheat but simply show what FLIR sees in it's FOV.

It would bring the FLIR to point where it sees more realistic terrain temperatures and all objects etc. So no more always hot-hot vehicles and buildings etc. And making a FLIR can be made with it's system specifications to be able detect various ranges and temperatures. So more modern is better than older limited ones.

And now contrast detection system becomes valuable as you can have a realistic behavior like having a IR seeker lock on similar heat source when getting close, without just faking it by rolling random number does it lose a lock or not. We could make better weather conditions effects for all heat sources, as well optical ones, be it then a IR seeker going through a cloud or misty weather etc. And trying to target a unit that engine is down and is cold as surroundings, it is just no go.

I want all these things improved, but simulations go hand in hand with compromise, I expect things to operate in a way that mimics real life but I know that they will never operate off the exact same principles as reality for many reasons no matter how technologically possible.[/Quote]

Many things can be improved, but at some point simulation becomes either unreal by either accuracy or inaccuracy.
And we can't see these things quickly etc. But we shouldn't either just deny their possibilities in the future. And when one is creating the system first time, it is easier to design the capability in first time, than try to patch it later.

Like example hardware resources were low when Quake came out. And there is a reason why John Carmack is highly regarded programmer in game industry, as he has done lots of very clever hacks how to fake things. Like everyone should read his code for how they made the water effect in quake. It is just a few lines of code, very efficient and very clever. Almost like Albert Einstein E=mc². Then other ones like how to fake the lighting angles, without having actually lighting to be calculated. Or like how when the Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun came out, how they got AI to move in groups such a way that they don't melt the CPU for pathfinding and jam all to one position, that simply by cheating that there never was more than one unit by each unit point of view. So all moved correctly as they didn't need to perform collision check and pathfinding around other units, and yet you had hundreds of units moving together without clipping or passing through others.

In the software development hackers are the greatest, and hacking is that you fix things with a clever ways. (Hackers Not to be confused for crackers).
And it is similar in real life, you can have something that any Ph.D would say is impossible by theory (not to be confused to hypothesis that people mean when they say "in theory"), but it in reality works. Because some clever people get around theories.

But if the faking becomes too obvious, it breaks the immersion. Even today a Doom from 1993 is amazing. Yet it is super simple. And it is still very enjoyable.

When complex things gets faked bad way, it just is bad fake. And it likely could be faked in believable good way.

Anyways cheers. I just wanted to say that there has to be compromises especially in sensor performance, and that the lack of contrast locking does not disqualify it from being well simulated.

It is interesting how fighter pilots has far more demand for reality than helicopter pilots when it comes to sensors and weapons accuracies.

As if you can lock on another fighter behind a mountain, they call faul.
If the missile flies trough buildings, they call faul.

And they are ready to argue about smallest flight modeling changes to the end. And they can't do that just with real manuals charts, as those don't yet prove anything, but are just some specific scenario templates.

But if we have a Shkval detecting live units from dead, no problems.
Shkval to lock and track targets obscured by other obstacles, no problems.
Shkval to incapable lock on perfect target but lock on impossible target, no problems.
Vikhr proximity fuze detecting only living units but ignores buildings, trees and ground, no problems.
Shkval laser ranging randomly ranging to 0.2 km and designating below helicopter while nothing pressed, no problems.

There are bugs, there are design flaws, there are system limitations and there are user errors.

And all of those needs to be solved somehow.

AeriaGloria · May 24, 2020

Still no guarantee the new FLIR will have contrast. I don’t know if you flew JF-17, but maybe when the Hornet comes you will see that AG radar is not a 100% reproduction, for example it creates synergetic bricks instantly even before that area has been scanned. There are shortcuts to make its performance work and they probably won’t go away.

It’s fine to not like it becuase DCS lacks contrast lock. But I don’t think you’re going to convince many people that’s it’s the hill to die on right now, and that it makes it not as good a simulation as it’s ssuppossed to be, as well as there being no current plans we are aware to add contrast lock. If it’s a deal breaker for you, I’m sure there’s lots of other planes you can fly that don’t rely on something no other game has

S.E.Bulba · May 24, 2020

Google Translate

So you quote my question and you still don't get it…

It was a question?! Haha. Actually, I thought that was a statement (probably everyone also thought). However, you cleverly turn everything upside down, throwing your ignorance on some issues onto your opponent, and skillfully applying demagogic techniques. :doh:

… That was the open question that anyone who has the time in KA-50, will find it's problems in Shkval and can't agree with ED.

So do YOU have enough time to acknowledge that Shkval implemented in KA-50 is flawed, or not?..

I fully agree with AeriaGloria.

… Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

… You said that ED said thing is correct, so you agree with ED and you acknowledge that there ain't simplification in Shkval that makes it fantasy system. And so on you haven't found any problems as otherwise you couldn't defend ED statement (from year of X)…

Can you quote me my posts, where did I write this? You turn my words over again, interpreting them in your own way, expounding them in the sense you need! Avoiding my question, which I asked by the way first, you even now continue to talk to yourself, coming up with my answers that I supposedly said. :)

… I can get it translated in few days as I have friends working for government translation office, translating documents with Russian government.

Give a link in PM…

There is no secret to this. Since 2010, this part of the manual has been posted in the Russian-language section of this forum (attachment 39704).

Частичное РЛЭ Су-25 и Су-25Т
<…>
[ATTACH]39703[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]39704[/ATTACH]

As for the rest of the endless writings that you continue to write tirelessly, I have already told you, and am forced to repeat again. I don't see the point of talking without technical documentation for a specific automatic TV sighting system, and besides, I absolutely do not have time to read all these unproven streams of words from forum-based "experts".

Original in Russian

So you quote my question and you still don't get it…

Это был вопрос?! Ха-ха! Вообще-то я считал, что это было утверждение (вероятно и все также считали). Однако Вы ловко переворачиваете всё с ног на голову, перекидывая на оппонента свою неосведомлённость по некоторым вопросам, и умело применяя демагогические приёмы. :doh:

… That was the open question that anyone who has the time in KA-50, will find it's problems in Shkval and can't agree with ED.

So do YOU have enough time to acknowledge that Shkval implemented in KA-50 is flawed, or not?..

Я целиком и полностью согласен с AeriaGloria.

… Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

… You said that ED said thing is correct, so you agree with ED and you acknowledge that there ain't simplification in Shkval that makes it fantasy system. And so on you haven't found any problems as otherwise you couldn't defend ED statement (from year of X)…

Вы можете процитировать мне мои сообщения, где я такое писа́л? Вы опять переворачиваете мои слова, толкуя их по своему, излагая их в нужном для вас смысле! Уклонившись от моего вопроса, который я кстати задал первый, Вы даже сейчас продолжаете разговаривать сам с собой, придумывая мои ответы, которые я якобы сказал. :)

… I can get it translated in few days as I have friends working for government translation office, translating documents with Russian government.

Give a link in PM…

В этом нет никакого секрета. Эта часть руководства уже с 2010 года выложена в русскоязычном разделе данного форума (вложение 39704).

Частичное РЛЭ Су-25 и Су-25Т
<…>
[ATTACH]39703[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]39704[/ATTACH]

Насчёт всей остальной бесконечной писанины, которую Вы продолжаете без устали писа́ть, то Я уже сказал Вам, и вынужден опять повторить. Я не вижу смысла ведения разговоров без технической документации на конкретную автоматическую прицельную ТВ-систему, и кроме того у меня совершенно нет времени читать все эти бездоказательные потоки слов форумных «экспертов».

Edited May 24, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

BranchPrediction · May 24, 2020

a contrast based lock for shkval would be a very nice feature to have, i mean i can lock a jet against the clear sky only if it is close enough and coming pretty much right at me. but it that jet is going from left to right against a clear sky it is not possible to lock it. in this scenario a real contrast lock would be very very helpfull but in other scenarios it would be less effective, but at the end of the day, it would be much more realistic. but i think this might be hard to implement for dcs, or maybe not who knows.

S.E.Bulba · May 24, 2020

Google Translate

@Fri13

I read your 'multi-volume novel', although I must admit that solving machine translation took me quite a lot of time. Frankly, I was surprised why it was necessary to spend time writing 3 pages when there were enough 3 sentences? Let me give you advice to continue to be more concise if you want the interlocutor to understand what you had in mind. :)

Now I understand what you were talking about. Yes, I agree with you that at the moment the target lock-on by the Shkval in the DCS: Ka-50 based on the principle of object identifiers, and not on the principle of color contrast.

However, I am not a programmer, so it's difficult for me to judge how difficult or simple this process is to implement using program code. In this regard, I have to repeat once again that I completely agree with AeriaGloria.

… Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

At the same time, when you began to dispute my message addressed to 3WA, I wrote a little about something else, namely that I wrote a little earlier to blunt_waco. I wrote about the dynamic limitations of the Shkval that cause problems with target lock-on that moves at an angular velocity (I hope you will not dispute the fact that in the DCS: Ka-50 it is very problematic to lock a moving target, according compared to a stationary target?).

This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote about simulating the operation of the Shkval, as the ED developers said, "close to real". That is, specifically the implementation in the game of the problem of targets lock-on that move at high angular velocity.

I hope now I clearly explained to you? I also want to ask you to continue not to come up with some supposedly my "arguments", which I never wrote, and also not to make erroneous judgments based on your misunderstanding of my words, or on their absence.

Original in Russian

@Fri13

Я прочёл Ваш «многотомный роман», хотя должен признать, что разгадывание машинного перевода отняло у меня довольно много времени. Откровенно говоря меня удивило, зачем нужно было тратить время, чтобы написа́ть 3 страницы, когда достаточно было и 3 предлодений? Позвольте дать Вам совет впредь быть более лаконичным, если Вы хотите, чтобы собеседник понял то, что Вы имели в виду. :)

Теперь я понял, о чём Вы вели речь. Да, я согласен с Вами в том, что в настоящее время захват цели «Шквалом» в DCS: Ка-50 основан на принципе идентификаторов объектов, а не на принципе цветового контраста.

Однако я не программист, поэтому мне трудно судить насколько сложно или просто данный процесс реализовать посредством программного кода. В связи с этим вынужден ещё раз повторить, что целиком и полностью согласен с AeriaGloria.

… Yes it makes it a little different then the real thing, but in principle operates the same and is made to be accurate within the confines of the code. A real Shkval operates is going to do the same thing as DCS pilots, slew it and change gate size until you get a lock. Is that not enough to call it “pretty close” to how the real one operates?

В то же время, когда Вы стали оспаривать моё сообщение, адресованное 3WA, я писа́л несколько о другом, а именно то, что я писа́л несколько ранее blunt_waco. Я писал о динамических ограничениях работы «Шквала», которые вызывают проблемы с захватом цели, которая движется с угловой скоростью (надеюсь, Вы не будете оспаривать тот факт, что в DCS: Ка-50 захватить подвижную цель очень проблематично, по сравнению с неподвижной целью?).

Именно это я имел в виду, когда писа́л о симуляции работы «Шквала», как говорили разработчики ED, «близкой к реальной». То есть конкретно реализацию в игре проблемы с захватом целей, которые двигаются с большой угловой скоростью.

Надеюсь, теперь я понятно Вам объяснил? Также хочу попросить Вас впредь не придумывать некие якобы мои «аргументы», которые я никогда не писа́л, а также не выносить ошибочных суждений, основанных на Вашем непонимании моих слов, или же на их отсутствии.

Edited May 26, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

S.E.Bulba · May 25, 2020

Google Translate

a contrast based lock for shkval would be a very nice feature to have, i mean i can lock a jet against the clear sky only if it is close enough and coming pretty much right at me. but it that jet is going from left to right against a clear sky it is not possible to lock it. in this scenario a real contrast lock would be very very helpfull…

What you want is not always possible IRL. In order for the Shkval to lock a moving object, you need to rotate the Shkval lens at about the same angular velocity with which the lockable object moves relative to you.

However, there will be problems if the Shkval lens is stationary, or rotates with an angular velocity much lower than the angular velocity of the lockable object. When you try to lock an object at the moment of its passage through the optical axis of the TV sighting system, approximately the following picture will be projected on the target of the TV camera's vidicon of the Shkval (see photo below under the spoiler).

As a result, the teleautomatics of the Shkval will not be able to properly process the incoming video signal to determine the contrasting boundaries of the lockable object, and therefore will not be able to remember the correct reference picture of this object.

Original in Russian

То, что Вы хотите, не всегда возможно в реальной жизни. Для того, чтобы «Шквал» захватил движущийся объект, Вам нужно поворачивать объектив «Шквала» примерно с той же угловой скоростью, с которой относительно Вас движется захватываемый объект.

Однако будут проблемы, если объектив «Шквала» неподвижен, или поворачивается с угловой скоростью намного меньшей, чем угловая скорость захватываемого объекта. Когда Вы будете пытаться захватить объект в момент его прохода через оптическую ось прицельной ТВ-системы, то на мишени видикона телекамеры «Шквала» будет проецироваться примерно следующее изображение (см. фото ниже под спойлером).

В результате, телеавтомат «Шквала» не сможет должным образом обработать поступающий в него видеосигнал, чтобы определить контрастные границы захватываемого объекта, и следовательно не сможет запомнить правильное эталонное изображение данного объекта.

Edited May 26, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

Weta43 · May 25, 2020

The Shkval doesn't use contrast to lock targets, and I have another secret for you - the flight model doesn't really use air either - just numbers to approximate the results you get from air.

Whether the Shkval uses contrast or an algorithm that detects 'objects' to decide if it can lock a target is irrelevant, if the target is locked - or fails to lock - under conditions similar to the real thing's capabilities.

Some of your points (that the proximity fuses are not set off by trees for example) are interesting (though the question of how you expect the fuses to work in MP when some players have more trees than others, or in the design of SP missions where the maker has no idea how many trees the end user will have - has been skipped over).

Most of your text though seems simply a complaint that you find the system too difficult to use, want something easier, and for some reason think replicating an early Soviet version of contrast locking will solve your problems.

If everyone was having trouble locking A2A targets, maybe your arguments would carry more weight, but that's not the case.

S.E.Bulba · May 25, 2020

Google Translate

By the way, correctly noticed. You can still recall another example, and say that in the DCS World ground units are not implemented close to real ones. Because, starting with the DCS World 2.5 version, aircraft crash into trees, but for ground units the same trees remain "transparent" and they pass through them. Different people may not be happy with a lot of things in the game, but it's important not to forget the border where reality ends and the game begins. :)

Original in Russian

Кстати, верно подмечено. Можно ещё вспомнить другой пример, и сказать, что в DCS World наземные юниты не реализованы близко к реальным. Потому что начиная с версии DCS World 2.5, летательные аппараты разбиваются об деревья, а для наземных юнитов эти же деревья остаются «прозрачными», и они проезжают сквозь них. Разных людей может много чего не устраивать в игре, однако важно не забывать границу где кончается реальность и начинается игра. :)

BranchPrediction · May 25, 2020

Whether the Shkval uses contrast or an algorithm that detects 'objects' to decide if it can lock a target is irrelevant, if the target is locked - or fails to lock - under conditions similar to the real thing's capabilities.

Yeah sure but this is simply not the case, i doubt i have to give u any examples as u undoubtedly should have seen them urself. But its alright i suppouse, which is why i said that it would be a nice feature to have, not a must.

M1Combat · May 26, 2020

^^^

Exactly.

It isn't even close. It "might" be close if you are only expecting it to be "close" in relation to saying "sometimes it locks and sometimes it doesn't". Aside from that... There's basically not even any similarity :).

Also...

I just read through the last couple pages of the "beef" between some folks here and it seems to me that almost everyone involved is being very petty. Lets just all sit back and realize that we want a more accurate simulation. Yes... "good enough" is, by definition... good enough. The targeting logic of ED's KA-50 simulation is not good enough though. It just isn't.

I get that some folks want to argue the point from the "good enough" perspective. Fine.

I also get that some folks want to argue the point that it's a "simulation" so should be as close as programaticaly possible. Fine.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread specifically with either of those statements. Everyone here generally falls on one side of that fence though.

We're on the same team though :).

Arguing over whether someone has actual experience with specific systems in an attack chopper vs. whether they just understand something more than the basics of an optical contrast based tracking system and are asserting that the current system CLEARLY does not approximate that is pretty crappy. To put it mildly.

Honestly S.E.B... It really reads like you're intentionally trying to make a point to not read what Fri is saying because you've realized you were wrong a while ago... but now you're just unwilling to admit that you just didn't realize he was correct and now you're using the "this is way too long to expect me to read and you didn't answer some question a while ago so why should I anyway" lines so that you can excuse the fact. Or at least that's how it reads to me... coming in and just reading it from the middle.

Just my 2c :).

3WA · May 26, 2020

The problem is not in how the shkval is simulated, the problem is that it doesn't work. Not only can you not lock a jet against a clear blue sky, you can't even lock a slow moving HELICOPTER against it.

LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK ...

Nothing.

Now, after all this time of trying to lock it, the enemy heli is now in gun range of you and quickly kills you (usually because it's an Apache with a two man crew, and so the gunner can casually take you out while the pilot maneuvers).

BranchPrediction · May 27, 2020

M1Combat, good points but u might be wrong about S.E.B. tho. He speaks Russian and uses machine translation, there are 2 problems with that. 1 machine translation isnt perfect and 2 when translating military terms it will definitely have problems. So S.E.B. has to translate the text and then spend quite some time figuring out what was said. Im not anyone's side specifically here. Just pointing something out.

zerO_crash · May 27, 2020

^^^

Exactly.

It isn't even close. It "might" be close if you are only expecting it to be "close" in relation to saying "sometimes it locks and sometimes it doesn't". Aside from that... There's basically not even any similarity :).

Also...

I just read through the last couple pages of the "beef" between some folks here and it seems to me that almost everyone involved is being very petty. Lets just all sit back and realize that we want a more accurate simulation. Yes... "good enough" is, by definition... good enough. The targeting logic of ED's KA-50 simulation is not good enough though. It just isn't.

I get that some folks want to argue the point from the "good enough" perspective. Fine.

I also get that some folks want to argue the point that it's a "simulation" so should be as close as programaticaly possible. Fine.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread specifically with either of those statements. Everyone here generally falls on one side of that fence though.

We're on the same team though :).

Arguing over whether someone has actual experience with specific systems in an attack chopper vs. whether they just understand something more than the basics of an optical contrast based tracking system and are asserting that the current system CLEARLY does not approximate that is pretty crappy. To put it mildly.

Honestly S.E.B... It really reads like you're intentionally trying to make a point to not read what Fri is saying because you've realized you were wrong a while ago... but now you're just unwilling to admit that you just didn't realize he was correct and now you're using the "this is way too long to expect me to read and you didn't answer some question a while ago so why should I anyway" lines so that you can excuse the fact. Or at least that's how it reads to me... coming in and just reading it from the middle.

Just my 2c :).

On a technical level, S.E.B. knows what´s up with Ka50 (we talk together on the Ru side) and Fri13 doesn´t. That´s a fact. We can argue all day about inconsistencies with Shkval, why Vikhr for example doesn´t detonate around trees (proximity fuse). But the question is, who really asks for that? We have tons of other systems/units that are more important than nitpicking on such small "lacks". We have a temperature setting for Vikhr which no one knows what does precisely. That´s far greater than "having a fuse that explodes around trees"... The matter is that ED did as best as they could for the time and technology they had to simulate this, but the locking parameters are relatively close. And to be honest, no it´s not as perfect as you read about it in the manuals. Search YT for videos on Ka52/Mi24/Mi28/AH-1Z/AH64D and you will see that even with IR, pilots relatively often have a problem maintaining lock based on picture contrast. This is not a perfect system IRL. So even though locking-logic works different in DCS than in real life, claiming that it´s breaking the simulation is bollocks, because although different, it´s lock-on parameters are very similar to that of what those machines are capable of IRL. And that is going by YT videos and seeing how gunners often have to fiddle around with the sighting-system to maintain the lock or even acquire it. It´s not uncommon at all to see them guide ATGM´s with manual sight-correction. Pretty common actually. But as Weta43 rightfully mentions, this is a ranting thread for Fri13 where he struggles with the sighting system and getting a lock, and thus venting himself here. We all fly the same Ka50 here, but some of us, rather than complaining all the time (complaining, don´t confuse it with with constructive criticism), are finding work-arounds and practicing those. When pilots IRL take a new aircraft to a different continent and climate, and find out that things don´t work like the manual states they do, they learn and adapt to the situation and try to make it work in the climate/continent. So if you want to simulate reality, find ways for it to work. To be quite honest, with a bit of tactics and training, you are fully capable of guiding the missile manually while attacking a moving plane or helicopter. Pro Tip: Use the incredible autopilot of the Ka50. I pretty much gave you a golden egg here. (Don´t be like many people here who don´t understand the trimming and AP in Ka50 and therefore fly without them. That´s like trying to walk without a leg).

We have discussed all these tings on RU side and they are being looked at. That´s also why ED made the claim that they want to fix all the bugs and problems plaguing the Ka50 really since BS1. But claiming that they are breaking everything is a exaggeration. Even with these systems fixed, if you struggle now, you won´t magically make it work after BS3 is released. What Fri13 is going on all about in all his threads is: why don´t we get a Ka50 that has all the systems ever proposed or tested on it, add FLIR, TGP, Anti-Radiation Missiles, and everything possible to make this helicopter become a multirole... And his prerogative is: "I am right, unless you prove me that what I state does not exist." He makes a statement, and now you have to prove it´s incorrect, otherwise in his mind, it´s the case. There is no single helicopter or plane that has all the systems, be it offensive or defensive regardless of nation. That´s because IRL each machine has a role to do and thus no one has a budget to outfit each and every of their aircraft with all of the systems. The primary complaint is from people incapable of dealing with what they have, and rather wanting the impossible just because let´s have a transformer that does everything out there. It´s just not realistic, neither from an economical nor from a strategical standpoint.

When F35 was first announced, all former: frontline bombers, fighter jets, attack aircraft, CAS aircraft and EW-aircraft were supposed to be replaced by 5th gen JSF only. But guess what, the government took the economy to the knee and realized the services (Air force, Marines and Navy) don´t have the money nor budget to swap out all their planes with 5th gen JSF... And so, most squadrons running 4th gen ++ planes will maintain those and only be supported by a minority of JSF. Some people will understand that, while those who are ignorant of anything but their own POV will wonder why everything Air Force isn´t JSF. Back in the Ka50 days, the Soviet Doctrine relied on illumination flares during night-fighting besides NVG´s (there wasn´t too much emphasis on doing "search and destroy" (Air Force) kind of warfare during the night in a wartime scenario) and so it was initially deemed that Shkval was enough for Ka50. Times have changed, and so have the requirements. But the Ka50 we have is a production-ready proposal for that Doctrine (Soviet). Thus people asking for FLIR and this and that are basically uniformed of what the Ka50 was designed from a tactical standpoint. When FLIR was tested on Ka50, it was already known that it was for the future Ka52 which was a new machine designed for a new doctrine. Making a FLIR Ka50 makes no sense whatsoever for realism purposes.

People here keep asking about RWR. Have you ever wondered why RWR wasn´t put in the Ka50 variant we have (that indeed is a production proposal from Kamov JSC)? Ever wondered why Mi24 had RWR? Because Mi24 was supposed to operate at the frontlines and often beyond them. Mi24 would be the helicopter that would first and foremost engage enemy SAM threats if there were any left while assaulting enemy positions and support infantry and motorized units (In offensive: 1st Wave: Su27 to clear out enemy figthers. 2nd Wave: Su24 for frontline bombing + SAM neutralization. 3rd Wave: Army would move in). But Ka50 was given Vikhr and the range to snipe out enemy targets while still staying within friendly-held terrain. Even if Ka50 would move in behind enemy lines, it was sent on special missions, and in any of such places, SAM would have been already neutralized. Yet still people complain about Ka50 not having RWR. Just to give an example.

Edited May 27, 2020 by zerO_crash

S.E.Bulba · May 28, 2020

Google Translate

… He speaks Russian and uses machine translation, there are 2 problems with that. 1 machine translation isnt perfect and 2 when translating military terms it will definitely have problems. So S.E.B. has to translate the text and then spend quite some time figuring out what was said…

Yes you are right. Unfortunately, this is a problem for me. Very often, Google/Yandex Translators produce such unthinkable options that I myself can't understand what I wrote. :)

… We have a temperature setting for Vikhr which no one knows what does precisely…

DCS BS2 Flight Manual EN (p.6-94).

2. "ББ/ТЗ" selector. Outside temperature setting for anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) flight control system pre-launch adjustments. No function.

IMHO, I believe that this switch sets the temperature of the powder charge of the ATGM propulsion system, which accordingly depends on the temperature of the surrounding air.

The burning rate of powder depends on its initial temperature: the higher the temperature, the greater the burning rate of the powder charges. I don't want to torment anyone with physical terms, so I'll go straight to the final conclusions: the higher the initial temperature of the powder charge, the stronger the propulsive force of the powder charge and its unit impulse, which in turn affects the increase in the initial velocity and range of the ATGM flight. Naturally, when the temperature of the powder charge of the ATGM propulsion system decreases, everything happens the other way around.

I suppose that IRL, switching the "ББ/ТЗ" selector adjusts the rate of change of the angular dimensions of the 'laser cone' during command laser-beam control of the ATGMs. That is, it makes it so that the 6-meter information field of the 'laser cone' does not lag behind or outstrip the ATGM, the initial velocity of which will be different, depending on the initial temperature of the powder charge of its propulsion system.

At the moment, to implement this function in the DCS: Ka-50 probably does not make sense… due to the lack of a 'laser cone' as such. :)

Original in Russian

… He speaks Russian and uses machine translation, there are 2 problems with that. 1 machine translation isnt perfect and 2 when translating military terms it will definitely have problems. So S.E.B. has to translate the text and then spend quite some time figuring out what was said…

Да, Вы правы. К сожалению, это является проблемой для меня. Очень часто Google/Yandex Переводчики выдают такие немыслимые варианты, что я сам не могу понять, что я написа́л. :)

… We have a temperature setting for Vikhr which no one knows what does precisely…

DCS BS2 Flight Manual RU (стр.6-84).

2. Галетный переключатель ББ/ТЗ. Ввод температуры заряда ПТУР. Не реализовано.

ИМХО, полагаю, что данный переключатель устанавливает температуру порохового заряда двигательной установки ПТУР, соответственно зависящей от температуры окружающего воздуха.

Скорость горения пороха зависит от его начальной температуры: чем выше температура – тем больше скорость горения порохового заряда. Не хочется никого мучить физическими терминами, поэтому перейду сразу к конечным выводам: чем выше начальная температура порохового заряда – тем сильнее увеличиваются сила тяги порохового заряда и её единичный импульс, что в свою очередь сказывается на увеличении начальной скорости и дальности полёта ПТУР. Естественно, при понижении температуры порохового заряда двигательной установки ПТУР, всё происходит наоборот.

Предполагаю, что в реале переключение селектора ББ/ТЗ регулирует скорость изменения угловых размеров «лазерного конуса» при лазерно-лучевом командном управлении ПТУР. То есть делает так, чтобы 6-метровое информационное поле «лазерного конуса» не отставало или не опережало ПТУР, начальная скорость которой будет различна, в зависимости от начальной температуры порохового заряда её двигательной установки.

В настоящий момент реализовывать эту функцию в DCS: Ка-50 вероятно не имеет смысла… по причине отсутствия в ней «лазерного конуса» как такового. :)

Edited May 28, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

Mars Exulte · May 28, 2020

@Zero Crash

You forgot the part where the average DCS pilot has the tactical acumen of a caffeine hyped teenager playing Call of Duty. Very little thought given to working as a team or even the overall environment. Case and point : the number of people calling for Iglas because it gets munched on by fighters... cause the problem is not AT ALL them, you know, wandering off by themselves assuming the righteousness of the Socialist Cause will protect them from enemies, no matter how idiotic their flight plan is.

Sign In

Black Shark 3 official photos.

Recommended Posts

S.E.Bulba

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Fri13

Blackjack_UK

S.E.Bulba

AeriaGloria

Fri13

AeriaGloria

Fri13

AeriaGloria

Fri13

Fri13

AeriaGloria

S.E.Bulba

BranchPrediction

S.E.Bulba

S.E.Bulba

Weta43

S.E.Bulba

BranchPrediction

M1Combat

3WA

BranchPrediction

zerO_crash

S.E.Bulba

Mars Exulte

Recently Browsing 0 members