BS3 still happening?

[Stratos]

3 minutes ago, 26-J39 said:

Seriously are you for real?  Do you not think ED have restrictions on what they can model?   Do u think just because some guy has info on a system ED will just jump on it ?   There are so many factors you have not considered.

And of course you considered all the factors, right?

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Stratos

[26-J39]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

And of course you considered all the factors, right?

 

 

 

 

 

So from your post you want ED to break all Laws and just implement systems just because some dude on the internet has info ???

 

[Stratos]

13 minutes ago, 26-J39 said:

So from your post you want ED to break all Laws and just implement systems just because some dude on the internet has info ???

 

C'mon mate! A dude with info? There are tons of info freely anb publicly available in the web about those systems, Sebulba just told you too, and they break the law adding all the Vitebsk, but don't break it If they add half of it?

[26-J39]

19 minutes ago, Stratos said:

C'mon mate! A dude with info? There are tons of info freely anb publicly available in the web about those systems, Sebulba just told you too, and they break the law adding all the Vitebsk, but don't break it If they add half of it?

All im saying is..   If ED could model the systems they would.   Its not as easy as getting public available material.   That can get you in legal shit.    ED know what they are doing, if they dont model a system its because they CANT not because they just want to shit stir the community.  fm lol

Edited May 23, 2021 by 26-J39
Addition:

[S.E.Bulba]

51 минуту назад, 26-J39 сказал:

… if they dont model a system its because they CANT…

If you CAN'T, then it is better NOT TO DO, than to do something obviously INCORRECT.

 

IMHO, @zerO_crash very correctly summarized the objectives of the simulator above.

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Если НЕ МОЖЕШЬ, то лучше НЕ ДЕЛАЙ, чем делай что-либо заведомо НЕПРАВИЛЬНО.

 

ИМХО, @zerO_crash очень правильно выше резюмировал цели симулятора.

 

[BranchPrediction]

Well, with these imaginary upgrades, with this imaginary KA-50 ED, i will be shooting down a bit of everything. Looking at apache and the jets.

 

KA 50ed will be pretty capable, except for when the shkval acts up, but shkval performs pretty good for me. Ofc bs2 was already capable.

[Schmidtfire]

15 minutes ago, BranchPrediction said:

Well, with these imaginary upgrades, with this imaginary KA-50 ED, i will be shooting down a bit of everything. Looking at apache and the jets.

 

KA 50ed will be pretty capable, except for when the shkval acts up, but shkval performs pretty good for me. Ofc bs2 was already capable.

It won't change THAT much. You will still be shredded by a BTR machinegun or a sneaky BMP launching anti-tank missile. Iglas can be helpful if you catch someone flying low and
slow, but most of the time you will get hit by AIM-120, 9X or R-27ER with the new MWS and SPO-10 screaming at you. It's a nice upgrade but don't expect a gamechanger.     

[Fri13]

On 5/23/2021 at 9:40 PM, S.E.Bulba said:

If you CAN'T, then it is better NOT TO DO, than to do something obviously INCORRECT.

 

This is not medical Hippocratic Oath "Do no harm" where if you don't know how to help someone, then don't try anything because doing harm would be wrong....

 

This is about making educated guesses, a base of science by making observations, making hypothesis that eventually lead to answers. Even if you don't have all the possible information at hand, you can make very good educated guesses that how things work or how they should work by using logic. 

If you can't get everything 100% correct, then it is better do things with 80% correct than do nothing because you are fearing that you would make something incorrect. 

 

I do agree there that when not knowing anything and regardless having access to information, it is incorrect to ignore that information and just do something based pure assumptions.

That example has been major problem with the Razbam. Wild assumptions in the M2000C and Harrier for so basic features like a CCIP, CCRP, Radar etc systems.

Even the real manuals say things are wrong and yet it takes time when developers start to insist things are correct because "as intended". If it takes higher authority to join to discussion (like with M2000C it took Ada pilots to enter the chat) before even developers start to understand that simple common knowledge from other systems allows to make educated guesses that are correct, but when those are purposely ignored it is causing trouble. 

 

If we would follow your argument, we wouldn't have anything in DCS because we can't do missiles, we can't do electronic warfare, we can't do a proper full avionic systems, we can't do even proper flight performances because military has said that those can not be used, so developers has opted to make something not so correct because classification...

 

ED could very well go and implement a almost completely functional IFF systems to the DCS World without braking any laws, because the principles and logic in the IFF systems are very well known unclassified public information that everyone can find from any better equipped public library. There are nation public funded research papers about how IFF systems work and what is their purposes and everything. You just do not get the classified frequencies, code, encryptions etc. All that is anyways irrelevant for the game standpoint. 

 

ED could make a 70% proper IFF system just with unclassified information, use some educated guess methods to implement own simple code sharing system for multiplayer and mission editor (require players to input a invented code to the panel and that is it). In basic form it would be a same as shared password where guy in the guard yells "Halt! Password" to approaching personnel, that will reply with a proper password like "In the beginning....", if that is correct then the guard replies with the second part of the password like "god created the heavens and earth" to confirm the approaching party that it is a proper guard they are approaching. But in this case it would be numeric value to enter to the system... 

 

Like how much information would the ED need for the IR jammer pods in the KA-50? After all we have so simple IR counter measurement as generating a random check once a second that does a missile IR seeker lock on the flare or not. More flares you pump out, more checks are rolled every second and higher change you have that missile will lock on one and be gone. This even regardless if the flare is so far from the target that it should never be seen by the missile seeker. Same thing is with the radar missiles, where chaff is considered same way as a flare.

 

Would it be so wrong to make the whole aircraft with those IR pods be rolling a virtual dice on missile seeker that does it lose a lock or not, once every second?

Instead a 0.15 probability give it a 0.7 probability... There is no information required to know about the whole pods. They just turn toward primary threat and "beam it".

All based to basic educated guess that how a IR seeker works, how a IR sources look like and what is the idea of IR jamming, again unclassified information. And no need to go any deep to model any lamps, any electronics, any pulse frequencies or powers etc. Just like chaff, flare etc are not properly modeled either. Just like radars are not properly modeled but based just to educated guesses and public unclassified information. 

 

So if we would not implement anything that we can't get completely correct, we would never have anything at all.

 

Legally there are various methods across different countries, some applies and some not. But methods like "clean room design" exist. As well there are laws about patent searching, where you can be fined harder if in IP cases you are found searching patent databases for the infringed patent, than if you made something that just happened to do so without pre-knowledge that such patent existed.

 

Just by watching the manufacturer demo video of the President-S system, one can get everything required to implement the IR pods for the KA-50. Everything for the 3D model, for the textures, for the pods rotation speed, for its reaction time, its wiring etc.

 

Only reason really not to do it is that if the manufacturer is ready to sue you for any resemble of the system for design, copyright etc... Just like the Bell is suing companies from modeling a AH-1 and UH-1 in the games because design patents they have for them. But that is a legal case for any other than "Can I do it close-enough with educated guess?".  The lack of even a basic IFF system in DCS is doing more harm than good. If we would have even little more advanced IFF system, the online multiplayer would change radically over night as risks to shoot down friendlies because they are "unknown" would increase dramatically because human and technical errors. But sure, if they shouldn't do it at all if they can't do it 100% correct in the first place....

 

 

[3WA]

Yes.  Anyone else besides me starting to lose a little faith in ED in what appears to be a new "overwhelming fear" of the Russians?  Even War Thunder simulated the Ka-52.  I don't see them shaking in their boots.  I don't see anyone caring one bit.  Arma 3 simulated the Mi-28.  Again, no concern seen.

 

Really ED, what is your future plans on Russian forces?  Are they just not going to be modeled and were going to put Red Stars on the Apache and F-18?  Because that's what it's beginning to look like.

 

If you can't get the exact information on the craft, I don't see what the problem is using publicly available information that is EVERYWHERE, and good educated guesses.  Otherwise, you're going to end up with a fictional craft you can't sell.  I don't see how Russia can yell spying when 1980's technology is simulated.

Edited May 25, 2021 by 3WA

[Arikaj]

3 hours ago, 3WA said:

Even War Thunder simulated the Ka-52.  I don't see them shaking in their boots.  I don't see anyone caring one bit.  Arma 3 simulated the Mi-28.  Again, no concern seen.

 

 

You can't compare an arcade game with a simulator game. In WT you start the engines with pressing the "I" button and here...ah you know how it goes here. Basically it's not a simulation of a Ka52 in the game.

 

In regard to Arma. How is your point valid if the company is Czech and doesn't have any offices in Russia?

 

[Arikaj]

4 hours ago, 3WA said:

Anyone else besides me starting to lose a little faith in ED in what appears to be a new "overwhelming fear" of the Russians?

Do you follow the political situation and what is currently happening in Belarus and Russia? If I were politically active or a dev who was working on a simulation of war machines, I would be scared too. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Arikaj

[BIGNEWY]

This thread has run its course. 

 

DCS:Blackshark 3 is still happening, 

It is based on an experimental version of the Ka-50

The upgrade is optional and will have a discount for existing DCS:Blackshark 2 users

 

Thanks the ED team.