Everyone buy this title!

[LastRifleRound]

Seriously, I hope Black Shark is wildly successful. The first sim to actually simulate naviagtional fix-taking. The amount of detail is what the niche sim community has been waiting for ever since they first fired up Falcon 3.0 or DI's Tornado.

 

I understand DCS is only working on aircraft they have extensive technical data on as to the precise working of their systems. I think this is wise and I don't mind flying the AH-64A as opposed to the -D model. I'd rather have a perfect A model than a half-assed -D with "guesses" thrown in as to how precisely the Longbow system functions. Heck, they have to model TADS/IHAADS perfectly anyway, as the -D model uses them. Makes sense to start with the -A.

 

One question: Just which A-10 is modelled? I thought it was the -A model, but I've seen conflicting information on this forum that it could be the -C model? Probably too far out at this point to ask this.

 

Just one request for the DCS team: The info out there right now for the F-16C is extensive. I would love to see a DCS F-16 modelled with the first A-G Radar that actually LOOKS like an AG Radar. However, knowing that DCS is Eastern Europe-based, what Russian aircraft out there has extensive AG radar capabilities that is old enough for there to be extensive unclassified data on it? Mig-27 perhaps? That would be cool, too.

 

Either way, I hope Black Shark blows the doors off of your accounting department with financial success, so we can see all these other installments reach their full potential. This is the first time I believe and independent developer with now mediocrity-inducing producer (ahem...Ubisoft..ahem...Atari...) will be able to write entirely their own simulation code and market it. We may finally see a company able to finish what they start!

[warthogmadman987]

ED will be modelling the A-10A, not the C, due to the fact that there is some classified information.

 

I beleive that an F-16 is in store. I think once they are finished with DCS, or what not they will do one. Or atleast lets put it this way, I remember that before DCS had been conjured up I heard talks if it going something like... Ka-50, A-10A, Apache, SU-25t, tank killers, then an f-16. I dont exactly remember, I just recall the f-16 being somewhere in there near the end.

[GGTharos]

More like, I would put money on there being an F-16 DCS module. Why? The F-16 info, as mentioned, is out there, and so many countries use it ... it's just natural to include it - plus, it has been talked about before.

 

However; that said, I'm only guessing here. I have no knowlege of ED's future plans beyond what's been mentioned.

[EvilBivol-1]

One question: Just which A-10 is modelled? I thought it was the -A model, but I've seen conflicting information on this forum that it could be the -C model? Probably too far out at this point to ask this.

Without getting specific yet, here's what the magic FAQ says on this topic:

"Note, in the case of the A-10, we are modeling one of the later upgrades to the "A" version, which remains in active service today with a number of USAF squadrons."

[LastRifleRound]

Ahhh. I wonder how they could possibly make an A-10 more involved than it is now w/LOMAC save for a fully modelled INS and engine model. Not many bells and whistles there. Though the Pave Penny really didn't get too much love in LOMAC either (And can we have binoculars in the cockpit now, please?).

 

F-16C would be excellent. There is much data out there as to the exact operation of this aircraft. The amount of missions it can perform, and the amount of militaries out there that could be potential customers make it an exciting proposition.

 

TBH, I'm really really excited about a high fidelity Apache sim. Full modeling of the TADS and other features has never been attempted in any sim (Longbow 2 somewhat, but nowhere near DCS level).

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I know alot of folks are upset that older aircraft are being used. I fully support this approach. I'd rather have the most realistic experience possible than 15,000 flyable cockpits that use the same avionics set.

[Kuky]

More like, I would put money on there being an F-16 DCS module. Why? The F-16 info, as mentioned, is out there, and so many countries use it ... it's just natural to include it - plus, it has been talked about before.

 

However; that said, I'm only guessing here. I have no knowlege of ED's future plans beyond what's been mentioned.

 

Just imagine all the Falcon 4 fans that would divert to ED's F-16 if they were to make it as part of DCS :book:

[LastRifleRound]

You're talking to one now!!!

 

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/APG-66.pdf

 

This is a link to a simple brochure to sell the An/APG-66 (earlier model F-16 radar).

 

Check out Page 11 of the document. The delivery type mentioned here is IMPOSSIBLE in all sims. Offset aimpoints and true blind bombing have never been implemented by anyone. Can't wait for someone to actually get this done.

 

Off-topic: have any adjustments been made the Shkval operation (more realistic operation, etc.) or is it essentially the same as the Su-25t in LOMAC:FC?

[Weta43]

Yep,

The old Fighter Collection weapons system vid had some use of the shkval shown (early beta) & there's been (in passing) mention in the forum of various changes to the system that have been made.

(separate range finding & guidance radar modelling, automatic operation of guidance radar, etc, GG mentioning many times that the "walking" of the target box over consecutive targets with a train of missiles in the air is not something you'll be doing so much of .. - maybe watch one of GA's movies & pay close attention to the shots there...)

[EvilBivol-1]

LastRifleRound, it may be helpful if you posted any further DCS questions in the dedicated Q&A thread. That way, the answers will benefit others in the future and minimize repeat questions.

 

To answer your question however, the main difference in modeling the targeting system that will actually impact gameplay is the new laser missile guidence channel model. It is now much more restrictive on the engagement parameters. For example, the pilot has to maintain the aircraft along a narrow line of sight to the target before getting permission to fire and minimize maneuvering after firing to maintain the missile inside the laser control zone. Only a single target can be engaged at a time, with no more than two missiles in salvo. Also, because the Ka-50 is not equipped with a night-vision sensor, it is depended on artificial target illumination for night-time operations, except for what the pilot can do with his helmet NVGs, which is not much.

 

Although the various knobs and switches of the system are all (or almost all) modeled, the overall operation of it is generally similar, outside of the above differences.

 

P.S. Welcome to the forum. :)

[LastRifleRound]

Glad to be here! :)

 

I will remember to use that thread from now on.

 

What's the best resource at this time for all known facts of the sim so far? (Aside, of course, from the prodcuer's notes themselves.)

[shaggy]

So you will be able to fly Jets in Black shar aswell, and not just helicopters ?

[Kuky]

So you will be able to fly Jets in Black shar aswell, and not just helicopters ?

 

No, Black Shark is for Ka-50 only. Later DCS modules are to have more flyables (one by one) and eventually it'll get to fighters

[EvilBivol-1]

What's the best resource at this time for all known facts of the sim so far? (Aside, of course, from the prodcuer's notes themselves.)

Well, since this is an open forum, with Devs and testers participating on a regular basis, there is not really one, neat collection of all known facts. We try to keep the information packed into the FAQ and the Q&A thread, but it's impossible to stuff them with every single informative post made on the forum. There is probably at least a couple of days worth of reading throughout the DCS General Discussion sub-forum.

 

I would suggest you first go through the following resources:

 

The Ka-50 model description on the website:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default&lang=en

 

The Official Announcements and Updates thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27213

 

The Q&A Thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27097

 

The Dev. Update Thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694

 

After that, just browse through the forum threads. Almost everything that can be publicly mentioned has probably been so already.

[159th_Viper]

....... (And can we have binoculars in the cockpit now, please?)......

 

 

You can - just tweak your Viewing/Zoom distance specific to the A-10/T-Toad and it's akin to having 12X Zoom Bino's in the Pit :)

[Bucic]

Just imagine all the Falcon 4 fans that would divert to ED's F-16 if they were to make it as part of DCS :book:

 

The whole F4 thing is not about F-16 specific. I would say it's about having a fighter in a certain enviroment features for it. I'm speaking for myself ofcourse.

 

Dynamic campaign and sophisticated radio chatter in LO and you'll see hordes migrating even today! :D

 

As for thread title - I've always considered LO (barely) worth buying only after the Flaming Cliffs Add-on release. I think DCS BS will be just worth buying. ;)

[mvsgas]

:smartass: Sorry I can't resist.

 

LastRifleRound, I'm glad you told me to buys this. Now I know why I have being hanging around here for almost a year talking about this game (among other things) :music_whistling::thumbsup:Sorry, I mean no harm, I just could not resist:D

[CAT_101st]

:smartass: Sorry I can't resist.

 

LastRifleRound, I'm glad you told me to buys this. Now I know why I have being hanging around here for almost a year talking about this game (among other things) :music_whistling::thumbsup:Sorry, I mean no harm, I just could not resist:D

 

I am with you on this. It is a worthless post to tell the people that have ben going crazy over the wait to buy this game too go and buy it. It you want to make post like this, make thim on other forums directing thim to the main DCS web page and theas forums. :thumbup:

[LastRifleRound]

The title was more of a superlative, but I understand the sentiment. No offense taken :thumbup:

[rogue_blade]

man the talk of their future models....like why even think of what gonna come after the a10...hell the apache will be yearssssss an f16 ill be married and have kids

[VMFA117_Poko]

Some are married and have kids already.

[nscode]

Don't be so pessimistic. The time we see being spent now is for both the model and the simulator it self. The future steps are in developing models only, and some of them already being developed.

[Feuerfalke]

The whole F4 thing is not about F-16 specific. I would say it's about having a fighter in a certain enviroment features for it. I'm speaking for myself ofcourse.

 

Dynamic campaign and sophisticated radio chatter in LO and you'll see hordes migrating even today! :D

 

As for thread title - I've always considered LO (barely) worth buying only after the Flaming Cliffs Add-on release. I think DCS BS will be just worth buying. ;)

 

Agreed. An F-16 in DCS would be really great, but there is more to Falcon4 than just that bird:

The interactive fully dynamic campaign, that is also playable as an online campaign, the idea of not only having targets along your route but actually participating in a whole war, with ten-thousands of units in the air, on the ground and on the sea being simulated is still a completely other league IMHO and it is a lot more immersive than virtually any other sims I've flown - except Janes Longbow, perhaps which had at least an AI that reacted to you, changed positions according to your actions, etc.

 

I hope DCS can simulate that, too, sooner or later. Then we'll see a LOT more players and customers here.

[159th_Viper]

Some are married and have kids already.

 

Indeed (2 rugrats) - and as for getting older, well............I assume that dexterity with a Walking Stick will definitely aid in HOTAS management :joystick:

 

 

It's All Good!

 

:pilotfly:

[leafer]

I seriously doubt ED are modeling one aircraft at a time; it doesn't make business sense. I'm thinking the majority of their staff are working on the current title while a few have started on future releases. Remember the Apache and A-10 pits?

 

And who in the world have been giving me rep and why? I try to think of one instant where I contributed to this site and couldn't. So who got a crush on me! ...mmm? :D

[deviletk]

Response to title of this thread: Ooh yes i will buy it allright. Even got a handfull of friends that will buy it as well. Hard working people bringing us candy like this deserve to get paid. :)

 

Regards

Alex