How realistic does it need to be?

[CQB4Me]

I'm looking far ahead into the future. Past BS, past the A-10 and to the Apache addition. It sounds like the AH-64A is going to be modeled and not the "D" or LB variants. This is due to the fact that there are some aspects of the "D" and LB models (radar, etc) that are still classified. I'm just wondering what your guys' thougts are. I look at it like this... If the FM, cockpit, avionics, ect of the AH-64D/ LB can be modeled 95% accuratley, does it really matter if the devs make an "educated guess" as to the classified stuff. I mean if they guess that the LB radar has a range of 20 km, but in reality its 24 km, does it really matter? I am all for having a hardcore helo sim, heaven knows its been a long time since anything good (10 years for LB2???) has come out. But, I'd be just as happy with a more modern feeling 95% accurate AH-64D model, with its MFD displays, etc than a 100% accurate "A" model. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. And devs thanks for your hard work on getting us a great helo sim.

[Boberro]

Hard to say... From one side I would like to see newer version but from second side i would like to have full real helo. It is matter which part of classified helo part is important. Remember the parts of heli avionics are connected to self and change one of them make change of another. Thinking about it and considering it i rather would like to see 100% real heli than un-done with fictional things newer version.

[EvilBivol-1]

Why do you assume 95% realism for the Longbow? I would guess that, in terms of combat avionics, ED would be able to achieve far less. LB2 and EECH, for all the credit they deserve, lack much of the avionics modeling.

[thereminqblank]

I don't think it's a good comparison. I would imagine that if the Longbow systems are classified, the accuracy at which it can be modelled would be far less than 95%.

 

I'm happy with either to be honest. Would be nice to fly a highly modelled Apache, doesn't matter which model to me!

[mvsgas]

I vote 95% accurate AH-64D but I think for different reasons. First, one question. Is the Long Bow and AH-64D basically the same helicopter except ,obviously, for the Long Bow radar? OK anyway, I would rather have a 95% accurate AH-64D because I think it would complement the KA-50 better than a A model. I would not mind a AH-1Whisky or Zulu nether. Also a 100% accurate helicopter, to me, means also the helicopter would suffer faults in flight. I'm sure it would not happen every flight but, I would hate having a engine or a ABRIS (TAMS for the AH-64 right?)fault after flying for 10 to 20 minutes to get to target area, forcing me to just fly back without any kills. I'm not even talking about combat damage, that is expected. I'm talking about just normal system fails that happen from time to time on aircraft. Worst case scenario, not even being able to take off with a group of buds because your helicopters had a major system fail on the tarmac (or ramp) and you could not even leave base. But in the end I radder have a really good AH-64A than a half ass AH-64D

[CQB4Me]

Your right. 95% is probably a bit high :doh:. I guess I was just wondering if people would mind a helo sim, that has incrediable FM, clickable cockpit, great graphics, great AI, damage modeling but there are a few parts of the aircraft which are not 100% accurate. Like the example I gave, if the radar range for a LB is 24 km in real life, but the devs made a educated guess at 20 km is it really that big of a blow to the hardcore simmers? I mean, other than real life LB or D variant pilots are we really going to know the small differences?

[arneh]

There is no such thing as a 100% accurate sim. There will always be something the developers don't know, can't model or just gets wrong.

 

And don't take this for critisism, ED are doing a fantastic job getting it close to the real thing. But 100% is impossible.

[VMFA117_Poko]

There is no such thing as a 100% accurate sim. There will always be something the developers don't know, can't model or just gets wrong.

 

And don't take this for critisism, ED are doing a fantastic job getting it close to the real thing. But 100% is impossible.

Second that. But I always choose more realistic thing than less.

[plane00]

I'm a member of party of simulation rather than just shooter game

 

I favor 100% same as real

[airea]

I favor a less realistic (in terms of some combat avionics) AH-64d sim over a %100 realistic vanilla AH-64 sim. Think about a-10, su-27 or su-33 or f-15... They are currently too far from realistic flight models, avionics etc and they are still great fun to fly. Of course, we all beg for a more realistic FM for above mentioned aircrafts. But we will have a realistic FM and avionics (not combat avionics) for Ah-64D and IMO some educated guesses will not spoil our flight pleasure...

 

In the end, who has ever flown a real apache here? I dont think there are many of us here and a nice flight model, nav avionics, mechanical systems modellings with an acceptable level of combat avionics realism for 64d would be more then enough for me...

[GGTharos]

ED favors more realistic, so ... that's how it's going to be. :)

[-sulan-]

I certainly would'nt mind a 95% realistic flyable, I expect something like that from the planned flyables. 100% real is only the real thing.

[-akyla-]

100% accurate seems to be much better..

[mvsgas]

Some games out there have random faults. Please excuse the spam but, Open Falcon has it.I don't know many people that activate the random faults but the one that did activated got frustrated and took it off. If you have the game you should try it. Once you activated you can set up how many flight hours between faults. Just look in the main foulder for FalconBMS.cfg and open with word. In there you should see this

set g_bEnableRandomFailures 1 (1 is enable 0, disable)

set g_fMeanTimeBetweenFailures 40.0

That is how you activated. Remember to back up or you might do the falcon dance. Wow, pretty long spam, so sorry guys my bad.

 

Back on topic, sorry I tent to derail and yap along, at this point I just want to be able to play with the KA-50 when ever ED decides they are ready. If no other mod ever come out , the Ideas ED mentions sound pretty cool and should keep me entertain and occupied for quite some time. So many new and different things between helicopter combat and fix wing aircraft combat. I guess it relay does not matter as long as Back Shark eventually gets release. (Chernya Akula... is that how it is said in Russian? sorry I get easily distracted)

[CAT_101st]

If it ever gets to be dun I would like a %100 longbow.

[kiss4luna]

A 100% realistic may not be possible to reach for a sim, i think

 

and why i like D model than A model is that, i heard that D model reduces the thousands of switches/buttons in A model to just hundreds of switches/buttons. so i think D model should be more handling than A model.

[Focha]

I voted for the second option of the 95%. As some of you said here it is impossible to make a 100% realistic sim. Even if ED will do an AH-64A will not be 100% realistic to the real counterpart even if ED will do it just a way that will simulate around 90% of realism alike the real thing. What I am in favor is that should be an AH-64D that even if not 80% it could be 70% on realism, why, because if itґs impossible to models all the parts of the aircraft 100% some of that would be realistic in some parts and "not so realistic but a guess" on others, that will still be a great simulation. Why not making an AH-1W if we do not know where the X button is on the Y panel... Or if we donґt know about that particular system at 100% well if we know it at 60% itґs a great advance because almost anything to do with military is a bit hard to access to it. What I am here saying is that if we have some info but not all but if we can have a simulation why not make an airplane that in overhaul will be a 70\80% of realism? It is still a good simulation. About the AH-64D I think the problem will only be the systems, because the flight dynamic is identical to the AH-64, more power, more height, more fuel, some more drag, etc... Obviously that maybe the fuel system is different, the electric one too... But I guess that even in the Ka-50 you cannot always simulate the systems as it always should be in real life. About the AH-64A you will have a great simulation with all the systems simulated as should be, that is great indeed, but why not have an AH-1 that is as close to the real as it can be (even if that means 70\80% of realism), and talking about the AH-64A why not have an OH-58 best friend of the AH-64!? Even if the OH-58 is about 60\70% of realism it is a big deal already. To finish my idea and to organize the idea, it is really cool to have an accurate simulation on the personal PC like the Ka-50 with all the systems simulated close to 100% but if we have an AH-1 that is simulated to 60% I would like to fly it too, if that is the close thing we can have to the real thing, plus it would improve the simulation environment. I know that ED guys want to have the aircrafts simulated close to 100% but donґt forget that this is a simulation for us not for military guys who have to train on it. Longbow2 was not great only because it simulated some systems on 3 air machines, it was the interaction with the 3 aircrafts, with the world, the missions, the sounds, etc. Even if that was not 100% realism. I guess you all understand my opinion, sometimes I cannot express myself well enough and you can understand me wrong. I hope not.

 

Again my dream is to have an accurate simulation not only on aircrafts but as well on the environment around it. Some one talked on Black Hawk in another thread and it was reply that it is pretty complex to simulate the systems on it and flight dynamics, but if you cannot be 100% realist at least be the close you can to the real thing.

 

Best regards.

 

EDIT: I guess that when Ka50 will be release it will be a lot more fast the release of AH64 and A10. We will be a lot more occupied! :pilotfly:

[britgliderpilot]

As GGTharos points out, it has to be realistic enough to satisfy ED's requirements.

 

The criteria are many and I don't know what they all are . . . but modelling something to the possible limit is on the list. That does NOT include making stuff up.

 

My understanding is that for the AH-64D, you would have to make up some fairly significant chunks of the systems . . . . so it's off the list for now.

 

 

Hardcore simmers may well be able to justify the position that once you make something up, it's no longer a simulator . . .

[Avimimus]

Some of us like the A...

[RedTiger]

Independent of what ED does, I voted for the 95% choice.

 

There's a fine line between a study sim and a sim thats only good for academic study of a given aircraft because its boring as hell for anything else. Its often times the parts that you -don't- know about an aircraft that make it cool or desireable to fly -- like, surprise surprise, the radar on the Longbow!

 

For example, how much public info is out there on about the exact specific capabilities of the F-22? Now how much general information do we have? It is well know what its general capabilities are. There are pictures of the cockpit that are easily found. The science behind things like AESA and stealth can be readily understood. We can take info from existing platforms that are better known and have also influenced the Raptor like the datalink of the F-15 and the HOTAS on the F-16 for example, and apply them to the Raptor. Do we have enough for a true "study sim"? Not yet, but we're closer than just throwing up our hands and saying "impossible".

 

I'd rather fly a more sophisticated aircraft in a study sim with more educated guesses than a less sophisticated aircraft that can be simulated down to the last nut or bolt any day of the week. As long as those guesses are reasonable and perhaps on the conservative side, thats fine with me. :)

[Focha]

@ Avimimus- I like the A too but please ED make an OH-58D (I know it is almost impossible due to the data available)!

 

@ GliderPilot- I understand the ED position and their objectives. And itґs pretty rare that someone in this industry make a accurate simulation. Which is pretty cool and and I said rare. So for me I will receive Ka50 with my arms. And I am 100% that I will need a lot of time to know all about that machine! Along with the AH-64A and A-10A (I guess itґs A here). I guess we will really experience what would it be to pilot and control the systems in a bird like those.

 

Best regards and continue the great work. I really hope that Ka-50 is near itґs release. Pretty anxious about it.

[Alex_rcpilot]

I voted for the latter, yet I'm not even expecting 95%. Actually it's hard to define a 100% 'realism'. The only thing we can do is keeping getting better. It's a tradeoff between efforts and effects. I'd say it's quite 95% satisfactory when the amount of noticeable flaws becomes insignificant enough for 95% players.

[britgliderpilot]

I'd rather fly a more sophisticated aircraft in a study sim with more educated guesses than a less sophisticated aircraft that can be simulated down to the last nut or bolt any day of the week. As long as those guesses are reasonable and perhaps on the conservative side, thats fine with me. :)

 

Fair enough - but you won't get that sim from ED any time soon :)

 

 

The more advanced the aircraft get, the more difficult it is to figure out their capabilities in order to model them.

 

The list of stuff we don't actually know about the F/A-22 is endless. It starts with about 2 million lines of code . . .

[mvsgas]

Well, I thought not even the KA-50 is a 100% model. I mean, do you have cockpit damage models? Would I see bullets damage on the windshield? Would that be consider part of the 100% model? On producers not 3, if i remember correctly, wags open the door just before touch down. The door did not flap around and stay in place. Would you be able to do that in the real helicopter with the same results? Sorry just wandering

[GGTharos]

As far as ED is concerned, no operator's manuals and SME's = no flyable.

At least that's my impression.