BS3 still happening?

[zerO_crash]

On 5/11/2021 at 9:23 AM, naizarak said:

 

if DCS were an actual simulator then the ka-50 and su-25t wouldn't be in the game at all

What are talking about!? DCS is an "actual" simulator and it simulates a KA50 bort #25 that was built, tested in combat and was a production-ready model. Same with Su25T. 
 

Don't repeat random crap that you've read on the forums. People here think that Ka50 is a test-aircraft, but obviously it is not! V80 was a test aircraft that evolved into a finished product (Ka50) and ready for production, until the Soviet Union collapsed!

Edited May 13, 2021 by zerO_crash

[13rin]

and sh variant apparently had flir.  I want.

[dimitriov]

Sh was more likely to be a demo "export" version I think, to be confirmed by others. Let's say that our Kamov-50 would probably have been the very first iteration, perhaps with some last minute addition or replacements... (Abris, which is a finnish Transas computer for example...)

[Fri13]

21 hours ago, 3WA said:

The graphics are decent, the flight simulation on the Ka-50 and A-10 are pretty good ( the only two I REALLY fly ),  it's the AI and the systems that need work.

 

Luckily ED hired a veteran RTS game developer to make the dynamic campaign engine and AI. So lots of things can change.

 

But I don't want to see RTS designed based to other industry RTS games history, because they live in totally own world.

 

There is reality right "out there" with a lot of information about real world militaries doctrines and tactics. 

 

It doesn't take much to read the basics about how war is trained or by tactics, and then simple/basic psychology of every individual soldier that is experiencing it. 

Everyone wants to live, they need the moral system, obedience and basic logic. 

 

In a group commanding you basically need to simulate the group leader only. In vehicle the vehicle commander or who ever commands it (like infantry squad leader commands vehicle when mounted, otherwise vehicle commander by orders of squad leader when they are unmounted).

 

And start from the basics all the way up. If someone feels their position is compromised and threaten, they will withdraw or they might even attack if it gives the upper hand. 

 

It ends to basic die rolling in many situations like if you are 1 vs 3 then you will reposition. If it is 1 vs 2 then you hold. And if you have 3 vs 1 then you think about attacking but if you get 5 vs 1 then you definitely attack if possible.

 

A simple logic for AI that thinks by it own point of view only is required. From the information it has at hand, and no cheating.

It means we need to have hundreds of AI's in the combat that everyone is trying to share information, follow the commands and help the higher ranking elements to get the information and they utilize tools to avoid losses when not necessary.

 

Most of the time it is waiting, like infantry squad has their primary and secondary positions, they have their standing orders for defense and then doctrinal experience for attack. Then at some point they can change to offensive mode where they have their commands to achieve goals and again limited information about what happens around. But they deal each engagement when they come to it, with knowledge that what they need after reaching their goals. Like it is no use to kill 60-70% of troops to gain a hill or headland if they don't have required 80-90% alive to hold it when enemy will regroup and attack.

 

We need AI to understand basics like how to perform a quick skirmish, do a raid or simply fake a movement to build a ruse.

 

How to manipulate the troops locations, strengths, capabilities by hiding or revealing them etc.

 

We need system where information is key. And that is what KA-50 should be mainly doing. Reconnaissance behind enemy lines. Gather information of troops positions and possible strengths. Maybe engage some units to distract or when opportunity raises without risks.

 

A AI that would be building the missions based to gathered intelligence can cause sudden surprises that there simply isn't any troops in area or there is other kinds or there is more than intelligence has shown that can result to mission failure.

 

This is challenging as we need AI logic to how to play a poker. As AI needs to know how to bluff or how to read other cards without knowing them at all by just guessing what other might have.

 

AI that would know how to communicate, build a battle plans and especially develope tactics on the fly with other AI's is challenging from programming perspective.

Like how can one AI get a another AI to perform a nasty surprise attacks etc.

 

That kind is what would eventually lead completely different DCS experience where you fight from small sorties to long campaigns where you simply have no good valid/solid/correct situational awareness.

 

Many could enjoy a lot about intelligence gathering by flying with camera pods and ELINT missions etc. Be just playing DCS as a deep RTS game where things can go really in realtime or speeded up.

 

If we could get 10% of the RTS players interested to play DCS Combined Arms, it would change the online community totally.

 

The challenge is that virtual pilots needs to accept that they ain't rock stars, that they are just pieces on large board game and they would have strict commands and goals to achieve. No more random flying, no more picking fight where ever and how wanted.

As losing 20% of the planes in carrier means more than 20% less sorties and hence whole fleet performance drops dramatically.

 

Having a eight KA-50 in some FOB and losing two of them is big loss.

 

How many would like to be the guy in online server who destroyed 10 fighters and 6 helicopters in one session, that lead to losing a control of half of the map in few days?

 

 

 

[ebabil]

new shots

 

 

 

[Sh4rk]

23 minutes ago, ebabil said:

new shots

 

 

 

 

As far as I believe the Ka50..52 to have MLWS and want it in BS3, that new display in the ABRIS does look game-y.

 

I was kinda expecting the (real or fictional) system to be more like the existing LWS (4-directional) or, at most, similar to Beryoza.

[pepin1234]

the President-S is out right?

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Sh4rk said:

 

As far as I believe the Ka50..52 to have MLWS and want it in BS3, that new display in the ABRIS does look game-y.

 

I was kinda expecting the (real or fictional) system to be more like the existing LWS (4-directional) or, at most, similar to Beryoza.

 

Why on gods green earth would you expect a MLWS to have that bad angular accuracy? They are imaging systems.

 

[GGTharos]

Some of them are single sensor types.  They're cheaper.   I don't know if anyone would equip them today.

[Fri13]

13 hours ago, Sh4rk said:

 

As far as I believe the Ka50..52 to have MLWS and want it in BS3, that new display in the ABRIS does look game-y.

 

I was kinda expecting the (real or fictional) system to be more like the existing LWS (4-directional) or, at most, similar to Beryoza.

 

The display page looks more realistic than I expected. 

 

We do have at least two real presentations of the warning display. One is from a manufacturer video, and one is photograph from the weapon expo table. 

 

They have rings with 1/2/4/8 km threat ranges. 

 

 

You can see the missile estimated (optical tracking of missile position) as big red missile symbol. Then a red line from center toward each threat. Where you have every 30 degree markings and good accuracy for threat direction (because symbol and line is between them).

 

In the screenshot the missile is being tracked that is flying toward President-S system (not a false alarm, but a identified threat) from about 230° heading (so about 8'clock). It is as well between 2-4 km range as symbol is on 4 km ring (the compass has 1-2, 2-4 and 4-8 km threat zones).

 

The missile symbol should adjust itself based to estimated impact time by tracking it. 

If we would get the proper full system, we would see at close range the system activate countermeasures and missile would perform crazy max turn to steer away.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Why on gods green earth would you expect a MLWS to have that bad angular accuracy? They are imaging systems.

 

I would too accept it as compromise, if alternative is to have none.

 

Example the A-10C has just a single small/tiny LED to blink, telling a pilot that something triggered the sensor (a cannon, small arms fire, a flare, a wingman missile... Or maybe a MANPADS).

 

 

I don't really even consider that A-10C has a MWS as it doesn't work if you are not middle of nowhere and have automatic single flare program so you notice that someone shot below you.

 

If we would have that in KA-50, I would just likely ignore it too.

 

But having a 90 degree accuracy or even mainly 180 degree, it would be enough to know which side you need to take cover in KA-50.

 

But having such display as shown, it will be very accurate system to inform such manner that it is only question anymore that what is it logic. What can it detect, what it does when it detects something and what it does if it is a missile coming at it?

 

Example if the A-10C RWR would flash the quadrant where launch is detected, it would be far better than current tiny LED with small audio signal.

 

 

14 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

the President-S is out right?

It ssees we don't get turrets, but we get the MWS sensors and President-S display emulated in ABRIS display instead own dedicated one.

[Sh4rk]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

The display page looks more realistic than I expected. 

 

We do have at least two real presentations of the warning display. One is from a manufacturer video, and one is photograph from the weapon expo table. 

 

They have rings with 1/2/4/8 km threat ranges. 

 

 

You can see the missile estimated (optical tracking of missile position) as big red missile symbol. Then a red line from center toward each threat. Where you have every 30 degree markings and good accuracy for threat direction (because symbol and line is between them).

 

In the screenshot the missile is being tracked that is flying toward President-S system (not a false alarm, but a identified threat) from about 230° heading (so about 8'clock). It is as well between 2-4 km range as symbol is on 4 km ring (the compass has 1-2, 2-4 and 4-8 km threat zones).

 

The missile symbol should adjust itself based to estimated impact time by tracking it. 

If we would get the proper full system, we would see at close range the system activate countermeasures and missile would perform crazy max turn to steer away.

You took that from a CGI video talking about the system, not from a cockpit or a picture of any real object or screen.

As much as it's meant to portray the system, it's not a good (reliable) source.

 

Care to share the other cited source (photograph)?

 

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Why on gods green earth would you expect a MLWS to have that bad angular accuracy? They are imaging systems.

 

 

Because the Ka50 is old, and if its other systems are anything to go by, a high accuracy, high resolution missile cue on a MFD doesn't fit with the rest.

[Fri13]

16 minutes ago, Sh4rk said:

You took that from a CGI video talking about the system, not from a cockpit or a picture of any real object or screen.

As much as it's meant to portray the system, it's not a good (reliable) source.

 

Yes, as I said it is the other known image of it. And it is same as the one photograph from table system.

 

16 minutes ago, Sh4rk said:

Care to share the other cited source (photograph)?

 

It is difficult to find. Would have if i would have saved it years ago.

 

16 minutes ago, Sh4rk said:

Because the Ka50 is old, and if its other systems are anything to go by, a high accuracy, high resolution missile cue on a MFD doesn't fit with the rest.

 

The President-S has own separate packages for different helicopters. It is not one and same for all. And the high resolution display was the common one.

 

That is my critique as we don't know how the system would have been wired to the KA-50, but it is clear it wouldn't have been integrated to KABRIS as page. But it would had own display if not possible be integrated to MFCD.

 

But instead ED trying to model the new display, try to find a way to reallocate cockpit to fit that in it, it is easier to make the fictional compromise and make it used as KABRIS page is otherwise the best choice likely would have been a full cockpit redone as glass cockpit and it is far greater work than adding few minor things with fictional systems integration by not knowing how they would be inside cockpit, but knowing they were externally.

 

[Fri13]

Quote

 

– UV detector for detecting and transmitting the location of air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles as soon as they are launched

 

– Equipment for the detection of laser irradiation and locating the coordinates of its location

 

https://russianmilitaryphotos.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-l370-5-president-s-countermeasures-suite/

 

 

Could that second redline in the first screenshot on newsletter be about laser irradiation direction? (Likely a second missile but outside specific range and the other is priority threat with a circle)

 

 

I am as well wondering what that yellow line means at the right from 45° to 135°.

 

Or what is the meaning on bottom right with "32"?

 

 

 

 

[dimitriov]

They said in newletter that the second red dot is a second missile discriminated as non prioritary by the system.

 

I have heavy doubts on the usefulness of this thing. Would have been far better if it got displayed over the map. 

 

Really looks like someone got lazy here anyway... Abris is a finnish system... I don't think they would have put it this way. Plus Abris probably never was expected to be used in mass production. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by dimitriov

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

They said in newletter that the second red dot is a second missile discriminated as non prioritary by the system.

 

Odd, I read it twice (the forum version) and didn't catch that...

 

22 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

I have heavy doubts on the usefulness of this thing. Would have been far better if it got displayed over the map. 

 

Maybe that is a one option for it? Like now it is as a HSI with strongest contrast with black background, and then you can get it as overlay for the map view if aircraft is centered there. As I see the problem that if aircraft is at bottom, your situational warnings are severely cut to 210 degrees only.

 

 

22 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

Really looks like someone got lazy here anyway... Abris is a finnish system... I don't think they would have put it this way. Plus Abris probably never was expected to be used in mass production. 

 

What is the other names for it than ABRIS/KABRIS? I have in years find the source of this "Off-shelf" navigation computer but there has been only few mentions it elsewhere.

[3WA]

At this point, I'm beginning to wish they would just do the Ka-52 with whatever they can find, and educated guess, since they seem to be launching into total fantasy with the Ka-50 now anyway.  We need glass cockpit.

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, 3WA said:

At this point, I'm beginning to wish they would just do the Ka-52 with whatever they can find, and educated guess, since they seem to be launching into total fantasy with the Ka-50 now anyway.  We need glass cockpit.

The only fictional part so far is the MWS implementation inside cockpit.

 

[dimitriov]

No clue flr real name, had found out it was produced by Transas company, which is finnish. I'll look for it it was findable on old abris russian forums posts... 

[dimitriov]

Here you go for the picture. I hardly imagine Oleg and Pavel from the VVS engineering department deciding to implement their brand new MWS on this... Thing. Anyway why not after all... But anyone would think it kinda weird... Russians are not the best when it comes to onboard electronics(they tend to use israeli or french tech depending on planes or tanks) ... But they still are able to produce their own screen with their own code, without having to go through using a 20 years old foreign tech. Particularily for something as simple as displaying a circle with 1 red dot. Don't know man I'm very surprised by this ED choice and am (from what I see like everyone here) very doubtful about its realism. Not like if making the 3d for a small added screen attached somewhere in the pit was complex. 

 

I suppose we should have the glass cockpit version for it. My philosophy like most of you is to fly the real thing. When I ask for FLIR say I'm talking about getting the sh version not a weird mix from a paper drawing... If in the end FLIR never really existed and was a mockup on the sh, then that's fine if I don't get it. 

 

ED perhaps could be a bit more ambitious on this update and rework the cockpit. If I get a full glass cockpit I'd think it's legit for me to pay full price as it would not be anymore the same aircraft. Here... I don't know. 

 

I've always been proud to learn and teach one of the best modeled helicopters available on the market. I'm honestly sad to see that I won't be able to say it anymore with bs3... Or at least, seeing the complete opacity and very vague explanations from ED, permanently doubt about the reality of this product. Like you I never saw any ka with 3 pylons. I'm embarrassed cause of course, I don't want to spit on the idea to get iglas... But in the end if I get a paper plane like in some tank games where you get to use the "plausible prototype", I'll loose what I come for which is simulation. 

 

Eagle Dynamics has built its reputation of realism with the shark. It's a bit sad to break this reputation with the very same aircraft 13 years later... So much work was spent on other planes to fulfill the dreams of so many, I sincerely feel sad to see the shark becoming the first example of an inaccurate work. 

 

So if it's realistic then please Eagle Dynamics, give us complete explanations and not a tweet or something like this. Black shark users are among your oldest customers, you owe them a lot... It would be fair for us to know. 

 

Nicolas 

Edited May 16, 2021 by dimitriov

[3WA]

I'm still waiting for the Shkval to be able to lock air targets.  It shouldn't be a problem.  Black heli against light blue sky.  Yet the shkval locks up ground targets hiding in brush and trees without a problem.  Crazy.  It should be the reverse.  We wouldn't even need iglas if we could lock air targets, and the vikhr was given an actual fragmentation effect.  I have to set my fuse to ground / moving target right now to have any chance of killing helis ( and that's in the rare case where I can lock them ).  Air burst does nothing.

Edited May 16, 2021 by 3WA

[S.E.Bulba]

6 часов назад, dimitriov сказал:

So if it's realistic then please Eagle Dynamics, give us complete explanations and not a tweet or something like this. Black shark users are among your oldest customers, you owe them a lot... It would be fair for us to know.

06.05.2021 в 20:27, Chizh сказал:

Зачем технические комментарии к несуществующему борту?

Мы сами его придумали, мы сами и реализуем свою концепцию. Предупреждение о пуске это то чего сильно не хватает этому вертолету не оборудованному СПО.

Иглы - хорошее средство для ведения воздушного боя даже с самолетами.

Могло бы и этого не быть.

[Arikaj]

4 hours ago, 3WA said:

I'm still waiting for the Shkval to be able to lock air targets.

It is funny how you mention it all the time. I know one squadron of around 20 people who are flying primarly Red helis, including the Shark. They are even able to lock up fast moving jets. Just adapt to how it works now. 

[3WA]

Well, you must have some magical touch.  Cause none of the rest of us can get them to lock.  Only after about 20 to 30 tries.  Maybe.

 

Jets - NEVER.

 

And with Chizh blessing iglas, it doesn't sound like they are ever going to fix it.  The only limit it should have is not locking targets moving over 250 kts or so, IIRC.

Edited May 16, 2021 by 3WA

[Stratos]

So guys we're getting a Ka-50 designed by ED with Ka-52 wing with three pylons (new pylon for Igla's only) and a non complete Vitebsk MWS, it will have no automatic flare launching neither the L-370 underfuselage balls. No idea of how the cockpit will look but I supose we will see no changes there.