Jump to content

How realistic does it need to be?


CQB4Me

How realistic does it need to be?  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. How realistic does it need to be?

    • 100% accurate AH-64A
    • 95% accurate AH-64D/LB with the remaining 5% as an educated guess


Recommended Posts

Sorry guys I'm not saying I only want a AH-64D. I would love a AH-64A model the best it can be model. I'm just saying it would be hard to model anything to a 100% accuracy.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys I'm not saying I only want a AH-64D. I would love a AH-64A model the best it can be model. I'm just saying it would be hard to model anything to a 100% accuracy.

 

 

It rather depends how you define percentage realism, doesn't it? Was fairly arbitrary at the beginning of the thread . . . do we need to nail it down?

 

Clearly some stuff won't happen - for a start, when you get shot down you won't be killed.

 

 

However - if every system in the simulated aircraft responds in the same way to an input as it would in the real aircraft . . . that system would be 100% realistic.

 

If the symbology and procedures in the simulated aircraft correspond exactly to the real aircraft, that would be 100% realistic.

 

 

For the Ka50 most of that's possible. I believe there are a couple of switches in the Ka50 cockpit in Black Shark that don't work . . . so we might have to settle for 98% by that measure ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

A few comments on this subject:

 

1- Given our equal focus on military-grade simulations for non-entertainment purposes, we now only pursue projects that we have ample data for such that we can demo to the military as representative of what we can do for them. Guess work is not an option.

 

2- While no synthetic simulation will ever be 100% accurate given the constraints of the PC platform, we strive to be as close to that as we can. Knowingly making educated guesses is again not an option (see point 1).

 

3- This level of detail is one of the primary hallmarks of the new DCS line of products and just one thing that separates it from the Lock On line and other PC-based helicopter sims.

 

4- While I personally believe games like LB2 and EECH are wonderful products, they just scratch the surface of the true avionics complexity of these platforms (for those that have access to a AH-64D -10, you know what I mean). We have shoot for a much high standard of modeling.

 

5- We realize that this restricts us to the number of aircraft we can model, but even with the aircraft we have good data for, we will be busy for at least the next decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:smartass: Well with a KA-50 model to 98% accuracy and 100% of systems model to 100% accuracy, it will make DCS BS 98% better than any other helicopter simm out there and I will be 100% satisfied:D Sorry could not resist.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

At least that's my impression.

 

I'm wondering how are they going to keep the series compelling. I can forsee a lot of aircraft out there that people would want to have but ED will pass by. Am I imagining this, but didn't someone request a flyable Hornet in Lockon only to have ED say that they needed a manual or SME before considering it? If ED won't put a Hornet in a survey sim like Lockon, even after the Hornet has been done in some detail before and will be again, the chances seem slim of putting some of the more popular aircraft in the DCS series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:smartass: Well with a KA-50 model to 98% accuracy and 100% of systems model to 100% accuracy, it will make DCS BS 98% better than any other helicopter simm out there and I will be 100% satisfied:D Sorry could not resist.

 

I'm about 70% sure we're agreeing on . . . . something . . . :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how are they going to keep the series compelling. I can forsee a lot of aircraft out there that people would want to have but ED will pass by. Am I imagining this, but didn't someone request a flyable Hornet in Lockon only to have ED say that they needed a manual or SME before considering it? If ED won't put a Hornet in a survey sim like Lockon, even after the Hornet has been done in some detail before and will be again, the chances seem slim of putting some of the more popular aircraft in the DCS series.

 

There are popular aircraft that have been declassified ;)

 

 

My opinion - and this may be contentious - is that people who demand a specific aircraft often don't know much about it.

 

It should be pretty clear that that's not the audience ED is going for with DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its good that ED is pursuing this sort of detail but it does put a limit on how many types of aircraft they can model. I wonder if EDs finally got enough info to model the Hornet its quite a cool flyable in FSX acceleration.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its good that ED is pursuing this sort of detail but it does put a limit on how many types of aircraft they can model. I wonder if EDs finally got enough info to model the Hornet its quite a cool flyable in FSX acceleration.

 

My understanding is that ED do now have some documention for the F/A-18A.

 

I'm not certain that they have enough to model it to the requisite level of detail, though.

And in any case, the -A model can only carry the Sparrow - not the AMRAAM.

 

 

We'll have to wait a little longer until we find out what's happening after the Hog and the Apache, I think . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Even the systems on a 64 A are still locked down for the most part.

 

If anyone here is in the Army and they pull OpSec on me, go for it because this is'nt classifyed information.

 

The longbow radar was designed for low probability of intercept for enemy forces. We can come in, sweep an arc of 50 square km in front of the aircraft. moving targets can be detected at 8km and static is knocked down to 6km. after the sweep is done we can display, classify, and track 128 targets. We can't determine what kind of vehicle or aircraft is on our screen with the longbow system, but it uses milimeter waves, so the imagine on our screen is in pretty high res, so were capable of determining what the model of tank or APC it is, but it will tell us if the vehicle is wheeled, tracked, airborne or air defence.

 

you guys are gonna be shocked when you get to this apache project. the 64 isnt some pos russian airframe that can be built out of scrap.

 

you're gonna have to look into the..

 

IHADSS (Integrated Helmet And Display Sight System)

PNVS (Pilot Night Vision System)

TADS (Target Acquisition and Designation System)

 

The defences, the RFI (Radar Frequency Interferometer) is on the top of the mast, constantly scanning in a 360 degree scan for air defence, everything from RPG's to tanks, the forward scan of this is a fine scan and the read is a coarse scan. the aircraft is capable of jamming radar, and IR defence with the disco light

 

even the controls... gunners left hand-grip consists of the

 

weapon trigger

switch to select between sensor modes (FLIR, DVO, DTV)

FoV selection (wide, medium, narrow, zoom)

weapon selection switch (gun, rockets, missiles)

auto-tracking controls

 

 

right hand-grip

laser range-finder/designator trigger

laser tracking controls

laser boresighting controls

FLIR "white hot" / "black hot" selector

manual turret controls

video-recorder controls

 

 

If you guys can manage to get the sim right, I'll buy it... ill prolly have sex with it...

 

If you need information about the 64 A or D, shoot me an e-mail, i'll give what i can, theres more things classafyied on an M1 Abrams than there is on the AH64

 

oh and the A wouldnt be much easier, add some digital screens and you have the D

 

-Attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sofrash, you seem to know your stuff - have you got personal experience on the Apache?

 

If so, I think Wags might be interested in talking to you . . .

 

 

It'd be unfair to say the Ka50 could be built from scrap - in fact in that list of stuff you've given, the the only things I can think of that the Ka50 doesn't have modelled in Black Shark are the radar (not on the 64A either), the FLIR (should imagine relatively easy to tweak in, it's only imagery) and the IHADSS.

 

Actually, the Ka50 has a simplified helmet sight already. No info display on it, but that's a small update.

 

The controls . . . well what you've listed seems peanuts compared to what the testers have been learning in the Ka50 cockpit.

 

You might be surprised when you get your hands on the Ka50 just how well modelled it is ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the systems on a 64 A are still locked down for the most part.

 

No they aren't.

 

If anyone here is in the Army and they pull OpSec on me, go for it because this is'nt classifyed information.

 

All the information you gave has been in the public domain for years. It the specifics that are of concern to the ED team.

 

you guys are gonna be shocked when you get to this apache project. the 64 isnt some pos russian airframe that can be built out of scrap.

 

You are losing credibility fast. Having worked on both the AH-64A as well as several European and Russian helicopters, I can say from experience that Russian helicopters are well-built and very capable.

 

you're gonna have to look into the..

 

Again, everything you listed has been in the public domain for years, and in greater detail.

 

If you need information about the 64 A or D, shoot me an e-mail, i'll give what i can

 

All I'm interested in is what your qualifications are. I know this makes me sound like a jerk, but over the years I've become quite the skeptic.

 

oh and the A wouldnt be much easier, add some digital screens and you have the D

 

Again, this is so patently false that it ruins what credibility you may have had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they aren't.

 

 

 

All the information you gave has been in the public domain for years. It the specifics that are of concern to the ED team.

 

 

 

You are losing credibility fast. Having worked on both the AH-64A as well as several European and Russian helicopters, I can say from experience that Russian helicopters are well-built and very capable.

 

 

 

Again, everything you listed has been in the public domain for years, and in greater detail.

 

 

 

All I'm interested in is what your qualifications are. I know this makes me sound like a jerk, but over the years I've become quite the skeptic.

 

 

 

Again, this is so patently false that it ruins what credibility you may have had.

 

Not to be rude, but I could also say that I don't believe you. I think that sofrash is just trying to make a post, and he even mentioned that this stuff is public domain, no need to harp at him for something he said first.

 

Frankly, I think people need to get over the "biased opinions". Everyone is going to be biased, and they will think that only their opinions matter. Well sad reality, yes, I am sure to some extend that sofrash was a little biased. But isn't ED being biased to some form? Yes maybe they were paid to model the KA-50, but they were choose it over what others wanted.

 

This is like one of these statements - My opinion is that people are to opinionated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't ED being biased to some form? Yes maybe they were paid to model the KA-50, but they were choose it over what others wanted

Maybe - but maybe there's more to it than 'choosing it over what others wanted'

If, as Wags said, ED is in a situation where:

1- Given our equal focus on military-grade simulations for non-entertainment purposes, we now only pursue projects that we have ample data for such that we can demo to the military as representative of what we can do for them. Guess work is not an option.

& given that they

 

1/haven't done any of the new radar modelling yet, & that's likely a big job - so no A2A combat yet, &

 

2/they haven't done the 2 person code yet, so single seaters are first choice, &

 

3/ they already have a viable fixed wing technology demonstrator in the A-10 work they did for the ANG, &

 

4/ they probably want to add choppers to the available aircraft they can offer to military customers ASAP (& they have managed to come to an arrangement with Kamov for access to system info)

 

modelling the only single seat attack helicopter in (albeit limited) service seems like a logical idea at a strategic level, regardless of whether it's the first thing that springs to most of your 'civilian' customer's minds.

 

But I do agree with you about sofrash, writing posts in a hurry can lead to some careless structures? (see - I can't think of the word I want) use of language, that can make the poster look like he has no idea what they're talking about - even when they do ...

  • Like 1

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Weta43

 

Reading your quote from Wags flips on some light bulbs. I didn't know they were intending their work for professional simulators to be used so closely with the entertainment ones. Now it all makes sense! I had no idea. Ok then, carry on! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that ED do now have some documention for the F/A-18A.

 

I'm not certain that they have enough to model it to the requisite level of detail, though.

And in any case, the -A model can only carry the Sparrow - not the AMRAAM.

 

 

We'll have to wait a little longer until we find out what's happening after the Hog and the Apache, I think . . .

 

Well thats good news hopefully someone will make a decent Hornet sim it rocks in acceleration but I still miss shooting stuff and dropping bombs etc.:thumbup:

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that ED do now have some documention for the F/A-18A.

 

I'm not certain that they have enough to model it to the requisite level of detail, though.

And in any case, the -A model can only carry the Sparrow - not the AMRAAM.

 

 

We'll have to wait a little longer until we find out what's happening after the Hog and the Apache, I think . . .

 

Well, not ALL F/A-18A can only carry Sparrow and old stuff... Spanish F/A-18A have the same mission computer than first F/A-18C (and they are AMRAAM, Harpoon, HARM... capable) and Canadian/Australian -As have even APG-73 radars instead -65.

 

Regards!!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with educated-guesses is that it leads to more and more of them and ultimately more and more complaints. Example:

 

Fudge the radar range, but now you have 100% accurate data on a AAA system. The real Longbow could engage and defeat the system, but the sim, because it's fudged some data, isn't going to allow it. Now you have to fudge the AI so that Longbows don't go after this type of system if they're painted by it, but call in an air strike or skirt it. Now your KA-50's are going to get more action than necessary, since AAA is going to falsely constrict airspace. So you're flying along in your KA-50, hunting some artillery, but you've got Longbows all over the place because, statistically, they're occupying less airspace. So you complain on a forum about all the unrealistic air-to-air helicopter dogfighting going on. What's ED to do? From the example, it's not so easy to simply make the Longbows' #DEFINE AIR_TO_AIR_PROPENSITY or whatever a little less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i vote AH64"D"

 

Me too

 

------------------

 

95% is more than enough for PC

 

if someone wants 100% then he must buy a million $ SIMULATOR + a futuristic/utopian G/AntiG device...& then this stuff still won't B comparable with real flying :cry:

 

U know: life is crap... sometimes...but with perfect graphics :D

Atop the midnight tarmac,

a metal beast awaits.

To be flown below the radar,

to bring the enemy his fate.

 

HAVE A BANDIT DAY !

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), American Architect, Author, Designer, Inventor, and Futurist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with educated-guesses is that it leads to more and more of them and ultimately more and more complaints. Example:

 

Fudge the radar range, but now you have 100% accurate data on a AAA system. The real Longbow could engage and defeat the system, but the sim, because it's fudged some data, isn't going to allow it. Now you have to fudge the AI so that Longbows don't go after this type of system if they're painted by it, but call in an air strike or skirt it. Now your KA-50's are going to get more action than necessary, since AAA is going to falsely constrict airspace. So you're flying along in your KA-50, hunting some artillery, but you've got Longbows all over the place because, statistically, they're occupying less airspace. So you complain on a forum about all the unrealistic air-to-air helicopter dogfighting going on. What's ED to do? From the example, it's not so easy to simply make the Longbows' #DEFINE AIR_TO_AIR_PROPENSITY or whatever a little less.

 

It doesn't work that way with such features, for an AH64D you would try to do something similar to Janes LB2 or the latest EECH mod. You would do alot of research and come up with a compromise in the avioinics that allows the use of Hellfires with LOAL modes, radar scan patterns and helmet mounted sights. You would come up with a procedure based on the AH64A and just add to that for the D model. As fresh data is found then you would alter the aircraft to suit since the avionics are modular you can change features without effecting the whole program.(if it were designed that way from the start) This way a similar approach can be used for the other helicopters such as the OH58,UH60, AH1, Hind, Tiger etc. Overall it doesn't take away much from the realism since the pit is designed off the A model in the case of the AH64D in the first place. A similar approach could be used for a Hornet by using some of the features off the F-16 if no data were available. The disadvantages are that the aircraft might have more or less features or capabilities under a microscope the advantages are that anything is possible if you use real pilot input and company/military support you can expect more information to be made available so we're not talking about PS3/xbox arcade games but closer to 95% modeled aircraft.(open Falcon level or higher) BTW don't complain if you do wind up having dogfights with 64s since the only barrier preventing this is CAP and IRL you can expect less support from CAP if there are even sides or the CAP aircraft are unable to support you due to their own workload.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they aren't.

 

 

 

All the information you gave has been in the public domain for years. It the specifics that are of concern to the ED team.

 

 

 

You are losing credibility fast. Having worked on both the AH-64A as well as several European and Russian helicopters, I can say from experience that Russian helicopters are well-built and very capable.

 

 

 

Again, everything you listed has been in the public domain for years, and in greater detail.

 

 

 

All I'm interested in is what your qualifications are. I know this makes me sound like a jerk, but over the years I've become quite the skeptic.

 

 

 

Again, this is so patently false that it ruins what credibility you may have had.

 

I responded to all of this, then I dropped my mouse and when I picked it up I pushed the back button.

 

So I'll sum up what I said.

 

After I say this, I'm watching futureweapons on the Military channel right now, and they're going over the Land Warrior system. I'm from Washington State, which is where the 4th stryker division is located and they were the ones testing out the system at the Yakima training facility before it was "put on hold". Well the host called it YUK-i-ma. Over christmas, my cousin and her BF came up from Oregon to visit one of his friends who managed to come home from Iraq for christmas. We were talking about how annoying it is when people call it YUK-i-ma and not YAK-i-ma.

 

I'm fresh, I wasn't aware that the -10 for the A block Apache had been declassifyied. I assumed that it hadn't been since some of the systems are still shared.

 

I made a point to say that everything I was about to say was public information, next time I'll just post sensative information on a public form, I would'nt mind losing my commission while getting tossed into a federal pen, or if I'm lucky, keep it and fly a desk for the rest of my planned career.

 

I didn't know my credibility was in question while stating public information. The most hands on experience I have with Russian aircraft is a 60, and asside from the manufacturs name, they're not too russian these days. the hokumA is a modern airframe, so there is'nt a doubt in my mind that it's not a capable aircraft and I'm also sure it's well built. But when it comes down to it, it's a product of the Russian military, and like everything in the Russian military, it's strong, it's built to take some hits, but it's also exteremly expendable. comparing the unit cost of the AH64 to KA50 its like a BMW to a Honda (I drive a Honda by the way).

 

Yeah, Yeah public information... I guess I'll point out again that I would be retarded to post anything not public.

 

My qualifications... The internet is the only place I can talk about the Army and flying without getting treated like a red-headed step child (street-to-seat).

 

the A would'nt be much easier, for the level of detail these guys are looking at the A will be a task. To anyone who is'nt a 15Y or a 64 driver, a 64D is a digital 64A.

 

I'm pissing off my gf ATM by typing and not talking... I hate the phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
since the radar is pretty much the point of the $10-billion Longbow upgrade

 

 

Yeah...well that isn't true at all. Most AH-64D's don't have the radar to begin with, I think only about 1/3rd of them come with the radar. Also, the D has so many more capabilities than the A, it's really no comparison. The radar is just the most expensive and most obvious part of the upgrade, but it is by no means the only reason for the upgrade. I didn't read the article you linked, but that one quote really makes him look like he has no idea what he's talking about. I would say that a D-model with laser guided missiles and no radar is still way more advanced than an A-model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...