BS3 still happening?

[zerO_crash]

8 hours ago, dimitriov said:

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 

 

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. If anything, Russians have always been great with electronics and software. When Mig23 was flying, it had it's radar picture integrated in the HUD, that while the rest of the world was running with a dedicated radar screen that you had to look down in the cockpit for. Russians are pioneers of automated systems, and have had, and still have the most advanced (hardware- and software-wise) within a unified air defense umbrella and target interception. Those are just examples, but there are many of them. What you mention with Israel and France is for the export market. Because those countries can deliver westernized electronics for export countries that so desire. Russians don't export their best radars and equipment, thus it might seem underwhelming to a potential customer outside. That's the only case.

 

As for buying up technology from outside, in addition to making your own. Well, every single superpower does that. Regardless of how much technology you have, you still buy foreign technology, mainly to accelerate your own research. Guess what, US buys hardware and software from Sweden (eg. automated turrets with calibers of up to 40mm), UK (eg. Harrier, expertise for F-35), Belgium (eg. FN Scar), Germany (eg. software for analyzing faults and issues with a tank (it's an equivalent to EKRAN that you know, only that it's for maintenance crew, not as sophisticated)), Heckler & Koch, etc...), Norway (Kongsberg defence, automated turrets up to caliber 50 (12.7mm) meant for light scout vehicles), etc... French air force pilots use Google tablets as portable computers (maps and datalink), and German foot soldiers are running around with GPS/Mission computers with Android... 

 

We do not live in an isolated system where a country invents everything itself. Everyone cooperates. Superpowers focus mainly on major technology relating Air/Sea/Long range systems, and keep them near and dear for themselves and their allies. All the small things like small arms and less important systems are imported and software recalibrated for indigenous use. Imagine that 8 countries cooperated and supported F-35 with technology. If not for foreign help and pre-sales (funding), this project would never happen. Also, they keep cutting down orders each year. Let's see how the situation develops now with Corona and major cutbacks. 
 

There is really one thing that Russian electronics (software included) have always been challenged with. That is weight. They have always been heavy, durable, but heavy. The weight was the concern of Artem Mikoyan and Pavel Sukhoi, and they were right. With that said, times change and technology along with that. Weight was a problem back in the day, however with the digital age progressing, circuit boards are lighter and better than ever. It's not an issue today.

 

As to BS3, we are all complaining that ED went this route and killed their reputation in one go. That just to satisfy the average consumer which read about the existence of DCS between today's sports news and five-minute advertisement. It's a shame that something fictional, completely detached from reality finds it's way to DCS. There will be many asking about the new systems, but no real manual exists on them, nor is their implementation solidified by any technical drawing or document. This is now a game, and not a simulator. For them it's business and income dictates their practices. It's really sad, terribly sad that such a fantastic simulator, is going to feature mutant aircraft because the crowd demands it. Today everything is about fantasy and unfulfilled dreams. RIP DCS.

 

I might as well trash my HOTAS, VR and all there related, as the sole purpose of it was enjoying real, simulated aircraft. I got no joy in flying something that NEVER existed. The fact that such a practice even entered DCS is beyond me. They were doing everything right up until now. What is the point of even making Modern Air Combat, when they are doing imaginary what-ifs here!?

 

 

"Imagine, you can now take out 24 tanks, and 460 trucks (2A42)" #Sarcasm

Edited May 16, 2021 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

And one more thing. Up until this point, there were relevant and good discussions on the forums with regards to an aircraft, where even IRL personnel could chime in and explain why or how something was like it was. There was a certain level to discussions, not always but most of the time. If there was a request for a change, a document proving one's case had to be presented in an orderly manner, and everything explained properly. A grain of uncertainty, and it was deemed not fit for a change, because "we don't guesstimate here". For all this time one had to prove a point through diagrams, documents or official procedures. Everything is nice and dandy.

 

Now, all of a sudden, Chizh comes in an obliterates this great ED-practice (for realism) by saying this:

 

"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."

 

Their explanation is as follows; "We know it's not real, it's a predicted estimation of what this aircraft would be like today if it was in active service, it was our choice because it's our software and simulation"

 

Since when is that a valid argument on the forums here, or our interaction (customer - corporate) in ED's history ever!? All the values that were built by this community and devs have been sent into oblivion by this one statement - "...it was our choice because it's our software and simulation". So what was the point of ever having all those argumentations, and going through what constituates a valid proof, if you are now killing that value and practice with your - "it was our choice because it's our software and simulation". It was pointless for all these years, if this is your new tactic of doing business! Is - "I want x and y regardless of realism, because it's my money" the new norm you wish to build on further?

Edited May 16, 2021 by zerO_crash

[dimitriov]

On 5/16/2021 at 8:40 AM, S.E.Bulba said:

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.

 

 

The'd never dare write this on the english written newsletter... I'm extremely disappointed. 

 

Litteral translation for others :

 

 

We invented it ourselves, we implement our own concept.

 

Launch warning is something that is sorely lacking in this helicopter. The red arrows are a good tool for aerial combat even with aircraft. 

 

It may not have existed at all. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by BIGNEWY
removed profanity

[Northstar98]

On 5/15/2021 at 11:55 AM, Fri13 said:

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.

 

Don't missiles detected by the MWS also show up on the RWR display? 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Don't missiles detected by the MWS also show up on the RWR display? 

 

IIRC only the radar ones.

 

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

IIRC only the radar ones.

 

 

Hmm, I'll check because I swear I've seen non ARH missiles show up.

 

EDIT: Yep, they do, I've just had the SA-9 (purely IR no RADAR anything) show up as an 'M' inside a circle on the RWR, accompanied by the MWS tone. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Northstar98

[S.E.Bulba]

1 час назад, zerO_crash сказал:

… This is now a game, and not a simulator. For them it's business and income dictates their practices. It's really sad, terribly sad that such a fantastic simulator, is going to feature mutant aircraft because the crowd demands it. Today everything is about fantasy and unfulfilled dreams. RIP DCS.

 

1 час назад, zerO_crash сказал:

"Imagine, you can now take out 24 tanks, and 460 trucks (2A42)" #Sarcasm

"+ 4 airkills for a fee." 

[Arikaj]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

IIRC only the radar ones.

 

no true as it does show both. A "M" in a circle will show. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Arikaj

[dimitriov]

Gonna make a vid about it on my YT channel, most of the french kamov community will be aware... I suggest people who can to do the same. This kind of thing simply is not acceptable. Else call it Digital Combat Simulator and our Personnal Inventions. As a buddy on another forum told me : next step will probably be a TGP on the Huey because rockets are not judged accurate enough...

Edited May 16, 2021 by dimitriov

[veenee]

For me, ED can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't at the same time keep saying 'we strive for 100% realism' which they do in almost every interview.

[zerO_crash]

14 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

Gonna make a vid about it on my YT channel, most of the french kamov community will be aware... I suggest people who can to do the same. This kind of thing simply is not acceptable. Else call it Digital Combat Simulator and our Personnal Inventions. As a buddy on another forum told me : next step will probably be a TGP on the Huey because rockets are not judged accurate enough...

 

 

We are fighting on the Russian side of the forum against this. The moment this gets released, it will be a shame and a blur to ED and their name. At this point, it becomes hard to recommend DCS for anyone serious about flying and willing to experience a real aircraft within the boundaries of a simulator.

 

Just so you know Dimitriov, they have stated the same on the western-side of the forum. The reason why most of the talking is on the Russian-side is that ED is mostly comprised of Russian-speaking devs, including the top notch. Also, it seems like the ones who are mainly against this are Russians. Blackshark is the heritage of this sim, and seeing it get modified to some standard that NEVER existed is a shame. I haven´t invested time into this sim and all my hardware just to see it get ruined now. At the end of the day, it´s ED´s choice, either they respect their old-time customers and tell the new ones that want fancy-shwancy to man up, or they go with with wish of new customers willing for the impossible (modern classified aircraft and non-existing ones) and thus lose the old-dogs. No one is against DCS evolving, but not in this way. 

[dimitriov]

5 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

 

Can't agree more with you zero. This is something people need to know, as they blindly trust ED on this matter. This is not acceptable again. There is no debate about it. Usually we wonder if this or that could be done like IRL other prototypes like the SH or things like this. Here it's a complete different subject : this simply does not exist and the dev himself admits it. 

 

Nicolas

Edited May 16, 2021 by dimitriov

[Sephyrius]

As someone who was looking forward to the Shark upgrade, it's distressing to see that not only are there a thing here or there that might be off, but all of it is completely made up?

 

Because if so, that's an absolutely insane business decision, fidelity and ED's prior commitment to it is the bread and butter of why we're all here and are paying for multiple $80 modules.

 

What's next, a Su-25 II  with R-77T missiles?

[dimitriov]

We really must not let this go through. Whatever being our approach : midcore or hardcore, we in the end pay for the same thing : a real aircraft. 

 

This is not simulation. 

[Fri13]

6 hours ago, Arikaj said:

no true as it does show both. A "M" in a circle will show. 

 

 

Yeah true. I had totally forgotten that RWR did show it. No wonder I had the faint idea about RWR having it but didn't call it. 

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Sephyrius said:

As someone who was looking forward to the Shark upgrade, it's distressing to see that not only are there a thing here or there that might be off, but all of it is completely made up?

 

It is not all made up.

IGLA-V is real, equipped.

MWS is real, equipped.

New wing is real, equipped.

President-S is real, equipped.

 

But, none of those has likely be seen in single airframe or what was the final production standard. 

Because ED is improvising with the MWS display and makin educated guesses for hints there floats around, it doesn't mean that everything else is fantasy/fictional etc. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Fri13

[3WA]

Well, the real problem is, can we get information from the Russian companies anymore, and are ED allowed to simulate it?

 

The next problem is, the Western side is getting far more advanced, because we can't get information on aircraft such as the Ka-52.

 

I'm in the middle on this.  I want everything to be realistic, but then again the Russians seem to be cutting us off information wise.  So, does ED start making aircraft where they have to make educated guesses with some known information, like the Ka-52?

 

And on the other hand, some systems have just not been developed yet, like realistic Electro - Optical that has contrast locking.  I really don't need a lock on the ground for the Ka-50 to work "most" of the time, but when it comes to helicopters in the air, you need it.  This is why ED is guessing at a future ( i.e. modern ) Ka-50, and putting iglas on the wing.  Which does make sense to me since the Ka-52 has the same wing.  MWS the same, but you can see this is where we are entering the "educated guess" and also, some pretty bad manipulation of the ABRIS, IMO.  It's obviously a crutch to bring the Ka-50 up to survive on the battlefield.

 

So, do any of you Russian guys know at what level the Russians are at on Electro Optical?  From the videos I have managed to find from the Ka-52, none of them seem to be locking.  It looks like they are guiding the vikher in on manual.  Also, the box seems to be large, and they are guiding in on the line that comes up to the middle of the box from the bottom, almost like a gunsight.  Can Russian EO actually get a lock?  How about in the sky?  I would really like to see realism in this game, but can't find anything on Russian EO tech.  From what I see in American EO tech, you expand a large box around the target, the computer looks at images in it's database and the contrast around the target, and then the box shrinks down around the target, showing what the computer has guessed it is supposed to lock on.  Haven't seen this at all in any Ka-52 vidoes.

 

Also, if ED looks like they are starting to do educated guesses with the Russian planes ( since lack of information ), how would you guys feel about just doing a full blown Ka-52, from what can be found, and educated guesses?  We do have a good amount of realistic info on the Ka-50.  I guess it would really be the best we could do with what we could find, and would be somewhere between FC3 and normal DCS.  Maybe this could be their Modern Warfare lineup.

Edited May 16, 2021 by 3WA

[BranchPrediction]

We will release a free update to the BS2 cockpit that will address issues with the visibility of the LEDs (autopilot leds). This completes the support for BS2.

 

Мы выпустим бесплатное обновление кабины ЧА2, которое будет устранять проблемы с видимостью светоиндикаторов. На этом поддержка ЧА2 будет завершенa

 

Quote from Chizh on ru forum.

 

Did u guys know this? No choice but to buy BS3 now haha, good move ED, good move.

 

Btw, @dimitriov whats ur yt channel name?

Edited May 16, 2021 by BranchPrediction

[CaptainX]

I'm pretty disappointed with this direction. All I really wanted was better lock and fuse to use vikhrs against air targets. Radar warning is kinda meh, don't think it's worth sacrificing fidelity for it.  I guess they need to justify charging for continuing supporting the shark and this was the best excuse. Would rather pay another "upgrade" than to have less fidelity. Been flying the shark since before DCS world came to be.

[Cathnan]

I was quite looking forward to BS3 and never doubted I'd buy it the second it is released. There are things like the MWS I'd have probably even looked past not being realistic. But as things stand I'll most likely not buy BS3. The claimed realism of this sim is what kept me here for the past year, and I will continue to fly what I have. But from now on I'm going to be much more sceptical when ED claims something is real the way it is modeled when in the past I ususally gave them the benefit of the doubt. I hope @BIGNEWY @NineLine @Wags and everyone else at ED realize it's their reputation that is at stake here. I don't know how much the average DCS players cares about realism. But I would imagine it's quite a lot. And I am VERY happy not to have preorderd BS3 (I know it was never up for preorder, but if it was I would regret it now). At the very least the claim to strive for as much realism as possible should never be stated by ED again.

[3WA]

What makes me angry is that they are crutching the heli.  Instead of fixing what ails it, they are putting on iglas.  The igla's are nice, and I can see that they WOULD have been included on a future Ka-50, because the Ka-52 has the same wing ( no need to make two wings ).  However, this is all to "crutch" what is the REAL problem.  And that is that the shkval DOES NOT WORK.  THAT and the fact that the vikher has NO fragmentation effect ( i.e. USELESS against air targets ).

 

One wonders if Russian EO is really that bad.  Is it?  I have never seen any video of shkval or GOES trying to target a helicopter or jet, and all the videos I see of the GOES, they never look like they are trying to lock, and are only guiding manually ( and this is in real combat! )

Edited May 17, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, BranchPrediction said:

We will release a free update to the BS2 cockpit that will address issues with the visibility of the LEDs (autopilot leds). This completes the support for BS2.

Quote from Chizh on ru forum.

Did u guys know this? No choice but to buy BS3 now haha, good move ED, good move.

 

That is..... I don't even know what to say.

 

Does that mean that any hopes to see a properly modeled Shkval, Cannon targeting functions, the required actually working contrast lock system etc are then completely out of the question for the Black Shark 2?

 

It would be logical that one can not have the BS3 new features in BS2, but at least 3D models (internal and external) should be same from all the parts that are shared (so 2 station wing vs 3 station wing, a KABRIS difference etc are left to BS3) and systems like Shkval, Cannon, Vikhr, HUD etc etc be shared by support.... 

 

 

[Sephyrius]

14 hours ago, Fri13 said:

It is not all made up.

IGLA-V is real, equipped.

MWS is real, equipped.

New wing is real, equipped.

President-S is real, equipped.

 

But, none of those has likely be seen in single airframe or what was the final production standard. 

Because ED is improvising with the MWS display and makin educated guesses for hints there floats around, it doesn't mean that everything else is fantasy/fictional etc. 

Yeah, I guess to clarify I meant by "completely made up" that there is no actual reference helicopter in existence, but rather that it's just a bunch of bits and pieces from later airframes cobbled together into something that never was a thing.

I mean, if the KA-50 was very modular and effectively allowed for adding and removing these things from any airframe with ease, then okay, but that seems like a far more modern approach (e.g. Gripen E) and doesn't seem likely when entire stub wings are changed.

[Cathnan]

That's something I'm wondering about. How much effort would it take to equip the KA50 with the three pylon wing. But even if it's easy I wouldn't want it unless it's an officially allowed loadout. I wouldn't even mind it as long it's possible like the three Mavericks on the viper. But not if it isn't even within specs. And from what I've seen so far, it is not like the viper.

[Fri13]

50 minutes ago, 3WA said:

What makes me angry is that they are crutching the heli.  Instead of fixing what ails it, they are putting on iglas.  The igla's are nice, and I can see that they WOULD have been included on a future Ka-50, because the Ka-52 has the same wing ( no need to make two wings ).  However, this is all to "crutch" what is the REAL problem.  And that is that the shkval DOES NOT WORK.  THAT and the fact that the vikher has NO fragmentation effect ( i.e. USELESS against air targets ).

 

1) Fix the contrast lock system across the DCS (not just Shkval, but as well Litening, ATFLIR, DMT, LANTIRN, all SAM systems with TV/FLIR tracking capabilities etc etc) so it becomes actually performed and realistic. No more "Is the unit ID inside the crosshair to lock-it" but actually performing system, even at so small as 8x8 - 16x16 pixels it would make huge difference, and it wouldn't hurt performance at all (this can be run even with 8 Mhz processor). 

 

2) Fix the fragmentation effects across the DCS (not just Vikhr, but all missiles, bombs and such. We are running simulation, we already know where a rocket or bomb etc is going to hit before it does, and we know where the target direction is because we can cheat.

 

 

As we know already before the weapon impact happens that where it will happen, we can allocate already resources to perform a check that what is the impacts that are suppose to have capability to affect something else. 

Once you know that (because we know where every object is going to be in X seconds in time) we can eliminate wasted calculations from sectors that doesn't matter what is going to happen in those areas. They are just visual effects. 

 

We have differences in the aircraft and ground vehicle dynamic modeling. A missile exploding near the aircraft has affects to its flight modeling why it should be priority in calculations.

A rocket exploding next a vehicle has secondary value as it does not cause instant affect on it, such calculation can be delayed further in time to allocate resources better for moments where example 32 rockets are launched in 1.5 second period on target area. Instead calculating everything in 1.5 seconds period when they impact, it can be delayed and spread to happen 1-2 seconds after impact and happen in 2-3 seconds period. As for a player firing rockets it is meaningless what happens as the unit is stunned on that period from impact to calculation, and when damages take affect (broken optics, engine dies, track is damaged).

 

When a helicopter gets hit by a AA missile, it is basically instant destruction and effect if tail boom is lost, the airflow is disturbed and fuselae is thrown around. There can't be delayed effect that missile explodes and 2 seconds later things goes apart, a 50 ms delay can be, as it is not required that it is performed in 50 cycles of the impact as player doesn't even realize it. If a bomb kills a vehicle crew inside vehicle by spalling and impact force, it is not visible to people outside than that vehicle will just either slow down and stop or that it will become uncontrolled and drive somewhere randomly (as foot on pedals etc).

 

 

DCS really needs a great damage calculation scheduler to decide what is the damage.

 

 

50 minutes ago, 3WA said:

One wonders if Russian EO is really that bad.  Is it?  I have never seen any video of shkval or GOES trying to target a helicopter or jet, and all the videos I see of the GOES, they never look like they are trying to lock, and are only guiding manually ( and this is in real combat! )

 

I think this is the best one, and I bet you have seen it:

 

 

That should be taken from a Su-25T.

There are the other you talk about, where there is FLIR, automatic target recognition and targeting.

 

Those systems are not amazing compared to something like Litening G4 with 1024 px CCD/FLIR. But they are not so terrible that you can't utilize them.

The problems appear in the low contrast scenarios (mist, sun angles, background/target shape separation etc etc). So if you are required to postpone attack because light rains, or you need to launch at 1 km range instead 5 km then it is not good.