Question for those who've flows BS and Falcon 4.0

[RedTiger]

I've asked this question elsewhere, but I want to ask here too. For any tester who's flown both the Ka-50 as represented in Black Shark and the F-16 as represented in stock Falcon 4.0 or Allied Force (as opposed to Red Viper or Open Falcon), how does the Ka-50 compare in complexity? If it is more complex, is it because there are more options available for the pilot or is it due to less intuitve avionics?

[GGTharos]

Um ... I really don't want to compare before BS is out and you can see for yourself ...

 

I would say in a way it might be both. Then again, avionics aren't really 'intuitive' unless you're a pilot :D

 

The Ka-50 also lacks a radar, so that's one less thing to manage. In general, if you were to compare navigation for example, I think the Ka-50's is, in general, more complex - but others may have other opinions on the matter :D

[EvilBivol-1]

In terms of reality, I would say the F-16 is undoubtedly a more complex aircraft. It can deliver many more weapons in many more ways, not to mention the radar, RWR, targeting pods and other avionics. However, I think what is more interesting to us as simmers, is the complexity of the aircraft model in the sim. In this regard, I believe Black Shark is quite simply unprecedented. Given the dynamic nature of not only the FM, but many of the component models as well (fuel, engine, etc.), the entire aircraft feels real, as if a living, breathing machine inside your PC. IMHO, this is a new generation of flight sims, where hitting 'X' does not necessarily result in 'Y' as defined by a script in the code. Instead, hitting 'X' merely initiates a process of virtual parts, fluids and temperatures interacting in the code, which may or may not lead to 'Y'. Those that have flown and enjoyed the Su-25/T in Flaming Cliffs will be familiar with this sensation, but in Black Shark, it extends further to include the full breadth of systems modeling, both avionics and mechanical. As I did with FC, I have probably spent more time in Black Shark simply flying around and playing with the model. No kidding - I adjusted the chase-camera view to put it under the fuselage and spent a few hours just watching the landing gear bump, turn, compress and break as I took the chopper around the airbase, on top the control tower, onto a ship, on top of a truck, into the maintenance hangar, etc. Just when you think you've had enough, you remember this is a combat sim and you have guided missiles, rockets and a whopping big 30mm gun onboard with ricocheting AP ammunition. Yup, satisfied....

 

 

<SLAP>

 

Focus, man! Focus!

[RedTiger]

Let me clarify (I haven't read your response yet EvilBivol, just clarifying based on GG's response):

 

As represented in Falcon 4.0 and Allied Force, there are some systems that are not modeled. Of the ones modeled, you mainly have the ICP and the MFDs to worry about. The ICP can be complex, but many of its functions are not things you're going to mess with in every mission. Even then, you're about 3 or 4 button presses away from most of the systems it controls. As for the MFD's I found them pretty intuitive with practice. You have to fool with OSB buttons in the beginning, but most of the time the HOTAS is used to control them.

 

I'd say that all of this is "complex", but is heavily mitigated by how well designed the avionics are, as presented in the sim. Also, the F-16 is supposed to be an easy plane to fly in reality, and the rather simplistic FM in Falcon makes it all the more easy to keep it in the air while you focus on tactics.

 

So, how does the Ka-50 compare to this? I'm not going to take your opinion as gospel, nor will it affect my decision to buy it (I'll buy it no matter what :D ).

[GGTharos]

I'll reiterate my opinion: This stuff is intuitive when you're a pilot ... or vPilot, whichever :D

 

The PVI Nav panel in BS is NOT intuitive for anything but the simplest of operations, and language barrier there is one of the problems (all of the switches are in Russian)

 

Like you said, the ABRIS, HSI, PVI, probably the CMD will be used in the simplest of operating modes by most people - ie. bring up the moving map, etc.

 

Once you decide to sit down and 'do it like a pilot', input all your WP's into the PVI and ABRIS BY HAND (and yes! You can plan your route IN GAME!), use the various advanced functions, check for occluded sattelites, do the INU fixes; I find all -this- is more complex than it is in F4AF, but not by a HUGE load, at least for me. In terms of pilot workload, BS is 'harder' because stuff isn't quite as tightly integrated in some cases, not as neatly displayed in others.

 

Because as you said, most of it is 'intuitive', or at least similar. On the other hand, if you so much as think as adjusting your instruments during even a medium-speed low altitude dash in the valleys, now is a good time to use your ejection seat, 'cause if you don't, you'll wish you had :D

 

As EB said, the Ka-50 simulation is fairly complex as a whole when it comes to the helicopter itself. Where there are analogous instruments in F4AF, I would say the complexity scale weighs in towards BS due to what EB mentioned.

 

I'm also asking ED to model my little ninja guy who'll go duct tape your pitot tube. (j/k) :D

[RedTiger]

Sorry for skipping your post EvilBivol, I was pressed for time at the time!

 

I get what you're saying about what goes on under the hood, you and GG have basically answered my question.

 

nce you decide to sit down and 'do it like a pilot', input all your WP's into the PVI and ABRIS BY HAND (and yes! You can plan your route IN GAME!), use the various advanced functions, check for occluded sattelites, do the INU fixes; I find all -this- is more complex than it is in F4AF, but not by a HUGE load, at least for me. In terms of pilot workload, BS is 'harder' because stuff isn't quite as tightly integrated in some cases, not as neatly displayed in others.

 

This is pretty damn cool. I didn't even think about planning the mission by hand. Is this the way its usually done in reality, or is it pre-planned and uploaded on a disk?

[mvsgas]

This is pretty damn cool. I didn't even think about planning the mission by hand. Is this the way its usually done in reality, or is it pre-planned and uploaded on a disk?

I was wandering that also Red Tiger. On the F-16 pilots can do ether or. They can input all coordinates in the aircraft or input them in the DTC and upload them to the jet.

[GGTharos]

Depends on whether your aircraft isntruments are equipped to take a programming cartridge. I don't really know about the PVI; the ABRIS seems quite capable of this, but I don't know if this is a feature that is in fact enabled/used on the real Ka-50.

 

For aircraft like an F-15C or F-16C you program your cartrige off-board, bring it in, and load up your routes and other stuff when you get into your plane.

[Rhino4]

Cartridges....like the nintendo from a bygon era...Our military is so out of date it's scary.

 

...And before I get flamed: I'm IN the military. TRUST ME. It's out of date.

[Avimimus]

Doesn't the B-2 have a 286 processor? Which means some data has to be entered by hand during the mission by the crew?

 

Meanwhile the Russian's have almost perfected the aircraft gun (eg. GSH-301 or GSH-23-6 vs. M-61 in dimensions, weight, firepower and reliability)!

 

Seriously though: the impression that I get from the videos is that, in terms of both the simulated world's modeling fidelity and avionics detail, will easily surpass any of the Falcon 4 derivatives. I almost think there is a small chance the game will be prevented from release at the last minute for security reasons or that the Kamov production line models will have a "start up abort switch" stuck in place of one of the switches in the sim in order to prevent people from taking one for a joyride...

 

Of course, I have no better basis for these wild beliefs than you do (and I'm not talking to the beta testers this time, unfortunately...)

[Rhino4]

I've always wondered about the possability of some f4af nut sneaking onto an airforce base and trying to take one for a joyride...Too bad it's never happened. It would be an interesting read...

[LastRifleRound]

I can say this as an avid Falcon 4.0 AF (and Open Falcon) simmer, but NOT someone who has flown BS: BS is an infinitely mroe complex representation of an aircraft than Falcon 4.0 is of the F-16.

 

To put this in perspective, read the -1 manual for the F-16. So many things are missing from that sim (INS fix, GPS is 100% accurate always, cursor slews not implemented, ICP vastly simplified, HSI auto-updates, IFF not implemented, mult-AMRAAM engagement avi's are off, on and on and on). As realistic as F4 is, it is still miles off the real thing.

 

If (and I hope the real question is when) ED gets their hands on the F-16, and models it like their modeling the Ka-50, even with the sweet HOTAS and MFD/ICP setup the Viper has, you will find your workload tripled and your knowledge humbled.

 

I love F4, don't get me wrong, but I've NEVER seen this level of detail in anything except maybe Steel Beasts ProPE.

[mvsgas]

I've always wondered about the possability of some f4af nut sneaking onto an airforce base and trying to take one for a joyride...Too bad it's never happened. It would be an interesting read...

That could never happen. Some one might get close to a jet, but more than likely he or she would end up in the ground with a M-16 to the back of the head or some angry mechanic would tackle the intruder to the ground and take all of his or hers aggression on the person intruding, mechanics have a lot of anger issue.:D You should try one day, you said you are in the military:smartass: that would be a bad Idea, you might lose some rank or other stuff :D so please do not try it.

USAF cops love this sign, Specially the part that says:" Use of deadly force is authorize"

[Bucic]

That could never happen. Some one might get close to a jet, but more than likely he or she would end up in the ground with a M-16 to the back of the head

 

Or AK-47/74 :D

 

P.S. IFF is already implemented. I don't remember if it's the case of F4 Red Viper (Free Falcon 4) or Open Falcon or both. I think I used it so it had to be Red Viper.

[mvsgas]

Besides, I think most falcon 4.0 player would just be sitting there trying to figure how to open the canopy, not to mention the rest of the things required before even starting the jet. Not all but most.

[Bucic]

Besides, I think most falcon 4.0 player would just be sitting there trying to figure how to open the canopy, not to mention the rest of the things required before even starting the jet. Not all but most.

 

We ;) would first look for hidden PC keyboard to press the right key combination :joystick: :D

[RedTiger]

I can say this as an avid Falcon 4.0 AF (and Open Falcon) simmer, but NOT someone who has flown BS: BS is an infinitely mroe complex representation of an aircraft than Falcon 4.0 is of the F-16.

 

To put this in perspective, read the -1 manual for the F-16. So many things are missing from that sim (INS fix, GPS is 100% accurate always, cursor slews not implemented, ICP vastly simplified, HSI auto-updates, IFF not implemented, mult-AMRAAM engagement avi's are off, on and on and on). As realistic as F4 is, it is still miles off the real thing.

 

If (and I hope the real question is when) ED gets their hands on the F-16, and models it like their modeling the Ka-50, even with the sweet HOTAS and MFD/ICP setup the Viper has, you will find your workload tripled and your knowledge humbled.

 

I love F4, don't get me wrong, but I've NEVER seen this level of detail in anything except maybe Steel Beasts ProPE.

 

Here here! You're thinking like I am. I'm looking forward to the Ka-50, but I think that a really, really obvious choice of aircraft to model is the F-16. I'm looking forward to sitting down in a vcockpit I will assume to be familiar and just looking at everything thinking "Huh?". :)

 

BTW, my question was also answered by watching Beach's video at SimHq. When his ABRIS started acting crazy due to blocked satallites, I had my answer. :)

[GGTharos]

Yeah, now can you imagine the posts every time a new player will see his ABRIS go crazy? ... :D

[VMFA117_Poko]

Yeah, now can you imagine the posts every time a new player will see his ABRIS go crazy? ... :D

:D No doubt that's gonna be.

[EvilBivol-1]

To put this in perspective, read the -1 manual for the F-16. So many things are missing from that sim (INS fix, GPS is 100% accurate always, cursor slews not implemented, ICP vastly simplified, HSI auto-updates, IFF not implemented, mult-AMRAAM engagement avi's are off, on and on and on). As realistic as F4 is, it is still miles off the real thing.

To be fair, we should mention that ED has not modeled the IFF system on the Ka-50, either. IFF and defense suites are very sensitive subjects and ED has to tread carefully in these areas to avoid problems. If IFF does get implemented (and I think it will at a later time), it will likely be a pretty basic on/off deal, where the AI will recognize you as friendly when it's on and not so much when it's off.

[Shaman]

Cartridges....like the nintendo from a bygon era...Our military is so out of date it's scary.

 

...And before I get flamed: I'm IN the military. TRUST ME. It's out of date.

 

You haven't been in the Polish Air Force, that's even more hardcore, TRUST ME :smilewink:

[Bucic]

To be fair, we should mention that ED has not modeled the IFF system on the Ka-50, either. IFF and defense suites are very sensitive subjects and ED has to tread carefully in these areas to avoid problems. If IFF does get implemented (and I think it will at a later time), it will likely be a pretty basic on/off deal, where the AI will recognize you as friendly when it's on and not so much when it's off.

 

In latest Falcon 4.0 versions I mentioned earlier IFF is modeled at quite higher than just basic level IMO. One can just download docs for F4 RV or OF and check it out the IFF section.

[VMFA117_Poko]

But there is US IFF - not Russian mate ;) Russians even insist that the IFF gear is built to self-destruct during a crash of the aircraft.

[Bucic]

But there is US IFF - not Russian mate ;) Russians even insist that the IFF gear is built to self-destruct during a crash of the aircraft.

 

I see the subtle difference in the approach to comercial activities :D

[RedTiger]

To be fair, we should mention that ED has not modeled the IFF system on the Ka-50, either. IFF and defense suites are very sensitive subjects and ED has to tread carefully in these areas to avoid problems. If IFF does get implemented (and I think it will at a later time), it will likely be a pretty basic on/off deal, where the AI will recognize you as friendly when it's on and not so much when it's off.

 

I'm surprised they'd even model it then. You said that pressing a button in the cockpit was less of a programming script and more of activating a series of actions in simulated machinery. I can imagine that IFF in most sims would probably just be some sort of script -- hit a button, contacts change shape depending on what they are. Not much else going on under the hood.

 

In latest Falcon 4.0 versions I mentioned earlier IFF is modeled at quite higher than just basic level IMO. One can just download docs for F4 RV or OF and check it out the IFF section.

 

Its just based on supposition on how its supposed to work though, right? I've heard that JDAMs (which are absent from F4) as presented in Red Viper feel kinda arcade-ish for some people due to the same reason.