BS3 still happening?

[Fri13]

30 minutes ago, Cathnan said:

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.

 

Mechanically it is easy (as far the wing attachment is same, and there is no visual difference in dimensions) and likely takes just an hour from ground crew.

But the question is that how to wire the third station?

It is easy to pull wires through a such wing as it is nothing like F-16 wing wires that can take weeks.

So where would you plug the wires is the main problem. 

 

If the KA-50 was originally designed to have A-A missiles, then it is easier (but not super easy). But if you don't have anything designed for it and systems don't support it, then it is not possible without actually making everything. And that is usually with updated/upgraded avionics and all.

 

The KA-50 standard was changed after the Chechnya to have FLIR, RWR, MWS etc. It was to go through a second serial production upgrade. 

[Sh4rk]

To be honest I'm also a little disappointed with the fictional stuff. In a sim where realism has always been paramount, this breaks the spell a bit.

 

And of course what it needs the most are fixes to the existing systems (Shkval). Say what you will about your skill, in 1.2.x or 1.5.x (before they refactored laser designation for the Harrier's and F18's pods), the Shkval used to work and lock a lot better, even if it already didn't really simulate contrast locking.

 

As for the new features, as I posted earlier I think something much, much simpler (like a directional LED panel, similar to the LWS or Beryoza) would be much more credible.

 

And the Iglas could be mounted on the existing hardpoints - no need to add two more? Just add them in the proper pylons, like in other helicopters. At the expense of carrying some or all Vikhrs or course, but 2 Iglas + 6 Vikhrs + rockets would look like a valid setup and could work in most missions where an airborne threat is expected.

 

 

[Sh4rk]

And where does this "KABRIS" thing come from? Kerbal Space Program? I've never seen it called that anywhere.

 

Instead, here's a pamphlet describing the system. I don't think it includes a missile warning system...

 

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Sh4rk said:

And where does this "KABRIS" thing come from? Kerbal Space Program? I've never seen it called that anywhere.

 

Instead, here's a pamphlet describing the system. I don't think it includes a missile warning system...

 

It doesn't include a data-link either, but there are integration points for this sort of thing.   How well they'd work I don't know, but it wouldn't be unusual for someone to ask for integration points for 'devices'.

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

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.

Do you mean that the lack of frag damage is related to calcullating power? Cuase that power expanded a lot in since DCS release...

[GGTharos]

Frag damage is more complex because you have to calculate an impact point and apply damage to it based on knowing the average fragment mass and from the explosion.   It is a separate calculation from the explosive force - basically you're trying to figure out how many 'bullets' would hit that target and where.

 

This can cause computation problems if you drop a lot of ordnance.   There are ways to cheat like Fri13 pointed out.

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep the topic on the blackshark here.

 

thanks

[Sephyrius]

Wow, okay, didn't know that we couldn't wonder why the development approach is entirely inconsistent from one module to another.

 

So since that means that we can't assume that there's an actual holistic approach (which many, including myself, had done up until now), but rather that it's done on a case-by-case basis, it would be great if you guys could explain specifically for BS3 where you have drawn the line between fact and fiction.

 

That we have to figure it out after the fact with bits and bobs from different language sections of the forum isn't exactly a great look.

[dimitriov]

I think all what has been said on the russian forum needs to be both written in a newsletter and explained in the sale page of the product. Which is fair. 

[3WA]

4 hours ago, dimitriov said:

I think all what has been said on the russian forum needs to be both written in a newsletter and explained in the sale page of the product. Which is fair. 

Lol, yes, the English speaking people here do need to use Google Translate and interact with the Russian side of the board as well, as much more is being discussed there than here.

Edited May 18, 2021 by 3WA

[Cathnan]

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please keep the topic on the blackshark here.

 

thanks

Respectfully Sir, what exactly is off topic in this thread? I would imagine you are referring to the frag damage bits? It would still be nice to get an official statement as to why ED chose to add things to the Blackshark that by all available evidence seem to never have been implemented irl. Especially the third pylon. Does ED have official documentation internally that show the KA50 is capable of three pylon wings etc.? If yes I think it would appease many people if you would share this with the community. In the past ED took pride in being realistic. And while there was use a degree of creative liberty in the past, this now is a degree which for many goes too far. So it is hard for me and others to understand why ED chose to go down this road. You can say "if you don't like our approach to BS3 don't buy it". But this would miss the point that up until now the community thought that ultimately ED and the community were pursing the same goal of being as realistic as possible. How are we now supposed to trust you are doing your best to stay realistic, which is the whole point of this simulator? And considering BS3 is the root cause of this question it seems fitting to post this here.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cathnan

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Cathnan said:

Respectfully Sir, what exactly is off topic in this thread? I would imagine you are referring to the frag damage bits? It would still be nice to get an official statement as to why ED chose to add things to the Blackshark that by all available evidence seem to never have been implemented irl. Especially the third pylon. Does ED have official documentation internally the show the KA50 is capable of three pylon wings etc.? If yes I think it would appease many people if you would share this with the community. In the past ED took pride in being realistic. And while there was use a degree of creative liberty in the past, this is a degree which for many goes too far. So it is hard for me and others to understand why ED chose to go down this road. You can say "if you don't like our approach to BS3 don't buy it". But this would miss the point that up until now the community thought that ultimately ED and the community were pursing the same goal of being as realistic as possible. How are we now supposed to trust you are doing your best to stay realistic, which is the whole point of this simulator? And considering BS3 is the root cause of this question it seems fitting to post this here.

 

The off topic post was deleted. 

 

The DCS: Blackshark 3 is based on a real experimental version of the Ka-50.

 

This is an optional upgrade, you will get more information soon, and then you CAN make your choice. 

 

 

[LeCuvier]

ED is in a difficult position. On one side there are the "comfort gamers" who would like to have an autopilot on the Bf-109K4, and on the other side the realism purists who don't even want to see features of an experimental version. And both defend their positions heatedly, someties dogmatically.

I think we should all be a bit more tolerant and accept that we don't have a monopoly on being right.

[S.E.Bulba]

1 час назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

The DCS: Blackshark 3 is based on a real experimental version of the Ka-50.

Maybe in this case it will not be difficult for you to name on which particular Ka-50 machine this "real experimental version" was implemented? 
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Может в таком случае Вас не затруднит назвать на какой конкретно машине Ка-50 была реализована эта «реальная экспериментальная версия»? 

 

[Shadow KT]

Yeah, which one is it ? Last time it was talked about on the Russian side of the forums it was said that it would Ka-50 ED version.

[Rosebud47]

Dogfighting with a KA-50 against Gazelles, Hueys and Apaches or killing 12 vehicles and 30 insurgents in one sortie is more fantasy, than iglas mounted or mws installed. It´s in anyways a prototype helicopter with a few iterations. As long as the iglas and the MWS is simulated accurately, it´s absolutely imaginable, that ´our´ KA-50 carries it. 

[dimitriov]

3 hours ago, Rosebud47 said:

Dogfighting with a KA-50 against Gazelles, Hueys and Apaches or killing 12 vehicles and 30 insurgents in one sortie is more fantasy, than iglas mounted or mws installed. It´s in anyways a prototype helicopter with a few iterations. As long as the iglas and the MWS is simulated accurately, it´s absolutely imaginable, that ´our´ KA-50 carries it. 

Problem is that they won't, according to Chizh who's kamov dev on russians forums : 

 

"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."

 

This is the problem we're talking about here. Seems that anyway ED made their choice, but then again, they should assume it elsewhere than on russian forums that virtually noone except russian cyrilic readers can read. 

 

TBH what I see on my side is the following : BS3 without 3 pylons wing and MWS would hardly be sold simply because everything "new" which is left should be part of standard free updates. Having to pay say for the Shkval filters would be like asking an F-18 guy to pay again to be allowed to fold his wings. So in the end, as they had to sell it, they decided to put "new systems" on it, even if it would have to be invented. 

 

The fair way to go would be to get BS3 and "BS3 paid version" : BS3 classic being the free update of the current BS2 to 2021 standards. BS3 paid version being the "inovation" version... But nope, you'll have to pay for invented stuff which justify you to pay, eventually, perhaps, being left the possibility with BS3 to have the "BS2 upgraded" version without the inventions... 

 

Cause make no mistakes : the problem is not really that they invent things. The problem is that they don't state it in public. People will buy BS3 thinking they by a simulator... They will instead buy an helicopter "imagined" by the devs. THey are very competent devs, are able to make good educated guesses, but in the end, this is not what you really pay for when you buy a DCS module and therefore should you be perfectly and transparently informed about it.

Edited May 19, 2021 by dimitriov

[Shadow KT]

To me... there is one thing, which really leaves me scratching my head. I get the ED version, but why these capabilities ?

The thing the Ka-50 needs the most is night attack capability. Here comes the irony... there were actually modifications, which existed, with this specific capability. 

All these new defensive systems do seems to exist in some way, but at the end of the day... they do not really have that high of a value. Helicopters are vulnerable in nature. So, it won't really lower the risk of getting shot at and being hit much.

Then you have the fictional 3rd pylon... or supposedly real, as we are not being told....

I am all for an upgrade of the shark, including a paid one, with new features, but it would be very nice.... if the waters around this project are cleared up.

[Cathnan]

10 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

The DCS: Blackshark 3 is based on a real experimental version of the Ka-50.

What I don't get is, when this is a fact, then what is the big deal to share details about the specific model this is based on. Well I guess we can only hope that ED bites the bullet and delivers on

 

10 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

you will get more information soon

What I expect is the specific model this is based on and / or official documents stating that these systems where implemented in this experimental version. Especially the third pylons.

 

I don't mind an experimental helicopter. I wouldn't mind a Comanche module. As a matter of fact, I'd probably buy it. But I want it to be a real helicopter that simulates it's actual flight characteristics. I'm not a die hard sim fanatic that minds the wrong shade of red in a warning light. I'm aware that there are inacuracies in the modules and I don't mind that. As long as it is withing reason. And adding pylons to an aircraft that didn't have them is for now the breaking point for me. I like the KA50 and I want to fly the KA50. Not some developer fantasy based on the KA50.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cathnan

[Raptor9]

After reading the Russian side of the forums, I'm actually quite hopeful that more people will be satisfied with the content of the module than originally thought, including myself.  From what I was able to gather via Google translate (I'm not a native Russian speaker), those individuals that purchase the "Black Shark 3" module will have access to two aircraft:
1) the updated Ka-50 with the Missile Warning System, ability to equip Igla missiles, 6 weapon pylons, and the updated cockpit/3D model
2) the legacy Ka-50 from Black Shark 2 in form and function, but with an updated cockpit/3D model
 

So while it was stated that support for the BS2 module will be ending in the near future (un-clear exactly when), it sounds like players that purchase the BS3 module will still be getting an option to play the classic Ka-50 "Black Shark 2" aircraft (but with an updated graphical appearance to current DCS World standards) as well as the new Ka-50 with all the new bells and whistles.  So it looks like there will be something in BS3 for both ends of the player spectrum.  I think we'll all be fine. 
 

Quotes cited below:

Translated:
NickyBoom "Can you clarify? It will be like with the A-10C or we will have two modifications of the Shark, one BS-3 with sensors and additional pylons, the second with BS-2 functions but without sensors and pylons but also visually updated (I mean the cockpit and the external model) ???"
Chizh "Yes, but only from those who buy CHA3" ["CHA3" seems to translate from "BS3"]

Translated:
NickyBoom "That is, those who bought BS3 will also have a new model of vanilla 25 side such as this one, but without pylons and SPO windows ??? Right?"
Chizh "Right."

Edited May 19, 2021 by Raptor9

[Rosebud47]

Some time ago, the community wanted so hardly a RWR system and AA Missiles for BS3. I guess ED implemented it in favour for the community demand and also to add something more to BS3, like they did with the A-10 II.

 

I don´t fly any of the A-10s available, but I think the price for the upgrade from BS2 to BS3 will be the same as for the full fidelity A-10 Warthog to the A-10 II Tank Killer. Me appreciate very much, that the older modules are still maintained and would like to support this with a small upgrade fee, as I enjoy the KA-50 very much and always wanted it to be perfectionized.

 

The Iglas were just a surprised, when they were announced - me didn´t need Iglas for BS3, but could be quite fun to use them. The real KA-52 does have it anyway. But the RWR (MWR) is really needed for the KA-50. The LWS is only of rare use and useless when you´re trying to engage a SAM side.

 

I´m happily paying a small fee for a complete functional cockpit and a complete overhaul of the key bindings with key abstractions for HOTAS support like the Hornet has got, finally a new pilot body in VR ( hopefully ), also for graphical upgrade / lighting, maybe precalculated RayTracing, like it is announced for the Hind. And a complete new external model. Have you seen the pictures of the external model in last newsletter? Phenomenal grade of detail - even systems under the hood of the Kamov are modelled in detail ( for an updated damage model probably ).  Have you seen the movie "Return of the Jedi"? It makes the StarWars Trilogy complete and answers all open questions. Well, as it is the first time, ED reaches a 3rd episode of one of their models, I would really wish, BS3 will be like "Return of the Jedi" and does not leave any open question or issue to the module.   

 

This whole discussion above is way too overdramatized and the opposite of what has been discussed before by the community. For sure ED didn´t invent Igla rockets or RWR systems in aircrafts or pylons - it all exists in real. They just implement it to BS3, what is in my personal opinion believable.

[Fri13]

On 5/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Sh4rk said:

To be honest I'm also a little disappointed with the fictional stuff. In a sim where realism has always been paramount, this breaks the spell a bit.

 

Well, we don't know what the KA-50 would really have become, and what it was between first serial production standard and after that, but what is known is that it went plenty of upgrades at the end. So most fictional stuff is really still just the MWS integration to KABRIS.

 

On 5/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Sh4rk said:

And of course what it needs the most are fixes to the existing systems (Shkval). Say what you will about your skill, in 1.2.x or 1.5.x (before they refactored laser designation for the Harrier's and F18's pods), the Shkval used to work and lock a lot better, even if it already didn't really simulate contrast locking.

 

It was better yes back then, but maybe there is something with the lighting that makes it very short range one?

 

On 5/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Sh4rk said:

As for the new features, as I posted earlier I think something much, much simpler (like a directional LED panel, similar to the LWS or Beryoza) would be much more credible.

 

Some expo specifications states that the President-S has in those UV sensors a RF antennas too, as well that the turrets has the RF jamming capability against RF missiles. But it doesn't specify is it only for a KA-50 set then (that would be safer to assume).

 

On 5/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Sh4rk said:

And the Iglas could be mounted on the existing hardpoints - no need to add two more?

 

If we consider a common war logistics, less you need to transport and manage a unique parts then better. Meaning that it is safe to guess that in final form of the KA-50 + KA-52 plans it would have been as much as possible with same parts, only having really the front section (cockpit) as different. Meaning that all wings and computers and all would have been pretty much same all way to the MFCD's and sensor pod and all, except KA-52 would have had something little more as extra. Now the logistics and maintenance would have been far more easier when you have mostly same parts shared between your war machines.

 

On 5/17/2021 at 5:10 PM, Sh4rk said:

Just add them in the proper pylons, like in other helicopters. At the expense of carrying some or all Vikhrs or course, but 2 Iglas + 6 Vikhrs + rockets would look like a valid setup and could work in most missions where an airborne threat is expected.

 

What is actual KA-50 collective weapon station hat functions? It was stated that it was mistranslated.... That it is not a Inner + Outer + A/A + All (inner + outer). As if you think about it that way as it has been so far, you don't need a separate A/A switch if you have only Inner or Outer stations. You would always select A/A missiles with that. And ALL (both) is required because if you have both stations with rockets or bombs, you want to be able select separately inner, outer or both. But how you would choose a third station that is only for Igla missiles? You would not make "Outer, Center, Inner, All". 

 

That is why we would need the proper information that what is the station selection hat functions. In the KA-52 later on when it got the MFCD's for weapon selection (first ones were with same as our KA-50), it got as well the three stations and so on you choose wanted weapon from MFCD easily. 

 

And if you have Vikhr with a Anti-Air programming functions, as A/A mode (activate fragmentation sleeve and proximity fuze enabled) and then A/A mode with Head-On mode (proximity fuze delay removed so Vikhr doesn't fly past the fast moving target that flies toward Vikhr), then you wouldn't need some of those buttons with the hat to select A/A mode. 

Example you would have just the collective A/A mode to set Vikhr to A/A mode. And then have own unique button to set Vikhr proximity fuze delayd or instant in other panel.

Or you wouldn't have a A/A in the collective hat as you have A/A mode in the panel next to require A/A HO mode as you anyways need to switch there. 

 

Considering that once you activate Igla missile, you activate its battery and you have limited time to keep it operating. So you don't want to accidentally activate them. Where again a hat with UP position for A/A mode makes more sense as you usually use just left/right ones. 

With Igla you don't want to take hand off from collective or cyclic to do enable them, as in fast situation you need to be just activate them purposely and get them launched. And that is where the collective hat is good place as you can do that, but not too easily by accident.

 

When taking in consideration that you are not going to hunt aircraft with helicopter, it is just for self-defense and for that you don't want to waste your AT missiles or Rockets, you just add third station to allow equipping them if and when needed. Similar thing as with Apache, that capability is there but as it is not required as there is no such scenario, you don't even train pilots for that and everything is hold in the dry dark warehouse for the day when Apaches fly to situation where they really need to be avoiding fighters. 

 

 

[Rosebud47]

@Fri13 These are interesting considerations and make a bit more obvious, that the KA-50 is very much a prototype, which didn´t go into serial production. Its systems are to a certain amount engineered on theory, while they were innovative at its time ( e.g. pilot ejection seat ), but not engineered on practical experience or use. The A/A switch on the front panel is like a theoretical use, which was practically not fully engineered in the prototype version.

Also the A/A mode and A/A mode for aircrafts which approach from front for the Vikhr appear more like a theoretical situation, than a practical tested use.

Same for the LWS. The designers might have thought, that because they use laser guidance by themself, laser guided weapons might be the biggest thread for the KA-50, which is not.

I guess they have took the components, which have been practically approved, like the koax-rotor system, Vikhr for A/G, the engines and most of the helicopter design to conceive a more practical attack helicopter in its systems (KA-52), which the went into serial production instead of the KA-50. 

[3WA]

Personally, I'm OK with the igla's, 3rd rail on the Ka-50.  That would have probably been made standard, because the Ka-52 is carrying the same wing.

 

MWS I'm kind of moderate about, as though it's pretty real, it's being shoved in the ABRIS to make room.  It was meant to fit into the glass panel, like the Ka-52.

 

The REAL thing I think this chopper needs ( and others have voiced it as well ), is FLIR.  We need the Ka-50N modeled.  I don't know what FLIR it was using, but I don't think it is the one on the Ka-52.  That copter uses the the GOES-451 or 452 as far as I can find.  It's a complete system, but I don't know if the FLIR itself was used in some way on the Ka-50N.  However, the Ka-50N was never put into service, so I don't think we are going against any Russian laws modeling it.

 

If you guys really want to argue this though, you need to go on to the Russian boards ( Black Shark forum ) because that is where the mods like @Chizh are debating.

Use Google Translate or Yandex Translate and post in both Russian and English so everyone can understand what you are saying.

Edited May 19, 2021 by 3WA

[martinistripes]

10 hours ago, 3WA said:

The REAL thing I think this chopper needs ( and others have voiced it as well ), is FLIR.  We need the Ka-50N modeled.

 

They're saving that for BS4