...AA missiles and RWR at least.

[Sh4rk]

 

On 1/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, snipes said:

This is my opinion and I maybe wrong.

 

The few numbers of Ka50 produced in real life and the role they played, and the variants pictures you see online, seems like, the Ka50 was actually a "guinea pig". Made and tested in the field and with various systems in such a short time, was actually to pave the way for the Ka52.  First flight of the 50 was in 82, and the 52's was in 97, not too far apart arnt they?

 

No wonder we got the Ka50 in DCS.

Yes. Read "Russian Gunship Helicopters" by Yefim Gordon - the Ka-50 ended up being but a step in the direction of the Ka-52, and they attempted a few things on making a single-seat attack helicopter functional.

 

ED will not make anything out of a fantasy, which means they won't model Iglas and MLWS / DIRCM, let alone RWR into a Ka-50 unless they can find documentation on one of them (even if a prototype) having those capabilities. Though one of them probably did or does have the capability at some point. However they claim the new Russian laws forbid them acquiring the documentation.

 

Spoiler

Conspiracy theory: they're actually making a modern Ka-50 or a Ka-52 for the military version of the simulator, but weren't allowed to put them in the game even if "watered down". Hence we're still getting a new cockpit but not new systems.

 

[3WA]

Actually, in the Russian forums, ED does say they don't care if it's fantasy or not ( because the copter itself was just an experiment, never adopted), and they do intend to give it a third rail, igla's, and a MLWS/DIRCM because they wanted to make what they thought it would have been if adopted, and knew that this would make the Shark pilots happy.  Besides, if they don't, it will be slaughtered by the new AH-64D coming out.

 

If they don't, I don't see really why anyone would buy it anymore, because it feels so half finished.  RWR and FLIR are really needed as well.

I've flown it for years, learned most of the systems well.  It is not very combat worthy.  You can't even lock up helicopters most of the time.  Even clicking lock with the target gates right in front of a moving heli RARELY will lock it.  Even if it's head on, the shkval will rarely lock it.  The only thing it seems capable of is attacking VERY slow moving ground targets.  And only in FULL daylight at that.

Edited February 4, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

On 1/28/2021 at 7:47 PM, Sh4rk said:

ED will not make anything out of a fantasy, which means they won't model Iglas and MLWS / DIRCM, let alone RWR into a Ka-50 unless they can find documentation on one of them (even if a prototype) having those capabilities. Though one of them probably did or does have the capability at some point. However they claim the new Russian laws forbid them acquiring the documentation.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Conspiracy theory: they're actually making a modern Ka-50 or a Ka-52 for the military version of the simulator, but weren't allowed to put them in the game even if "watered down". Hence we're still getting a new cockpit but not new systems.

 

For a decade (yes, a decade) there has been threads wishing ED to add President-S, IGLA-V and rest to the Black Shark as they were seen, photographed and in fact nothing that added requires any documentation to be known when you know basics how those systems work.

 

Example, the president-S official declassified manufacturer video shows how it works that is already more than enough to add it to external model and make missiles "go away"
 in the space. There are few screens about video feedback pilot gets but that is where challenge starts.... What is inside the cockpit. What is visible and what are audible warnings etc.

 

The missile avoidance and countering is easy, as game is so simple.

 

Details like "if you are shot with two simultaneous missiles 30° apart, what will happen" is possible be solved by educated guess. As once system detects missile pulls away (the jamming is successful) then it can switch to another threat. The you use educated guess for the turret gimbal rate from the videos. Does it matter if it is not 100% realistic? No.... Like who knows if official documentation would say 420°/s rate
 if video shows 180°/s rate, as no one is wiser....

The jamming in DCS is as advanced and complex as you rolling dice on the table. 1-2-6 and missile is unlocked from you. 3-4-5 and missile maintains lock to you. Do a check once every second as long the jammer/CM is inside missile FOV or has lifetime.

(In the DCS code the countermeasures are checked once a second and propability is in decimal like 0.15 or 0.3 etc).

 

When the DCS systems are anyways super simple, why people think that one needs to get documentation for a military secret to get it implemented? 
Who cares if the 3D model is 10% larger than real one because size is estimated from videos and photos?

 

So now it is better to leave it unimplemented because one doesn't get official documentation, that wouldn't anyways offer to fix DCS simplifications....

 

But over 10 years later and now we have laws that denies it....

 

Over 10 years ago ED and many others said that system is a myth. That it doesn't exist. That "show a photo or it doesn't exist". Little later photographs appeared, were shown.... And then all changed to "that is just a mock-up, a non-working basket to fool foreign intelligence....". And then later on it was "KA-50 is a prototype and not in production" and now it is more of a "no documentation = no implementation" and that with the law now that you can not even look for the technology....

 

 

[3WA]

Yes, it's ridiculous.  You can't tell me ED doesn't know how Iglas would work in any heli, especially when the switch for them is in the the Ka-50 we have now.

FLIR, RWR, etc. are all simple things modern aircraft have had for decades as well.  Would like to see the IFF switch made functional as well.

Looks like we're going to be doing educated guessing anyway if they can't get documentation from the Russians.

But I'd also like to see a much more scrutinizing look at this new Law, and EXACTLY what it says.  Seems to me, this is all about DCS keeping in good with the Russians.

Cause you know OTHER nations probably have the docs, so what is too keep ED from getting it from them?

[Sh4rk]

On 2/4/2021 at 6:13 AM, Fri13 said:

in fact nothing that added requires any documentation to be known when you know basics how those systems work.

 

The missile avoidance and countering is easy, as game is so simple.

 

Details like "if you are shot with two simultaneous missiles 30° apart, what will happen" is possible be solved by educated guess.

Wrong. That's where you get it all wrong. 

 

The last time ED made "educated guesses" was Flaming Cliffs. And they vowed to not do any Flaming Cliffs-level stuff never more. 

 

They won't simulate a system, like say the NS430, if they can't get the manufacturer's documentation on it, describing how it should work. All the new stuff in DCS is based on both the detailed aircraft manuals and, in some cases, the very aircraft itself, as they have partnerships with manufacturers, the military and museums like The Fighter Collection.

 

For complicated systems like weapon systems etc, they may need to make "educated guesses" on how to properly simulate the behavior of such systems in a PC, and yes, they'll go as far as simulating "what will happen if you are shot with two missiles" if the manual describes it. Rivet counters won't let them fake it.

 

For classified things like IFF, it's implied they implicitly make them wrong so they don't get sued (or arrested) for revealing classified stuff for portraying them right (even if by chance or a "educated guess" on how it actually works).

 

Videos and pictures on the Internet are not sufficient evidence, unless it's a video showing very closely how, for example, the Prasident-S system works. A leaflet of its functions is not enough. They also need to be sure which of said sytem's functions are actually in the Ka50.

 

As a final note, the Ka50 was itself developed in a partnership with Kamov (likely for the military version of the simulator, as the Ka-50 was also touted for export sales). Same applies to the Mi-8 and probably to the Hind. They must have some other contract in the background that allows them to make the export versions of those.

 

Also due to said partnerships, I'd bet they're disallowed to add anything to these modules without both the manufacturer and customer (military) allowing it. And that's what they just told us - they can't touch it anymore because of laws on the classified stuff.

[Sh4rk]

21 hours ago, 3WA said:

Cause you know OTHER nations probably have the docs, so what is too keep ED from getting it from them?

Same thing as in another topic: "can I use a classified F-xx manual I found on the internet, even if I'm not in the US?"

 

The answer is: no. It's still a crime in the US even if you're not in the US, and if you're found and you ever go to the US, you'll be arrested. You can also be arrested wherever else you are by Interpol or Europol, and be deported to the US to face trial there.

 

If other nations got the documents on the Ka50 legally, their contracts might still forbid technology transfer or sharing said documents with individuals etc. Similarly, the very country's laws can also forbid sharing documents pertaining to military hardware of any kind. Hence I can't ask the Air Force or AF personnel for manuals on the F-5, Hind, M-119 Paladin etc. even though my country does use them.

[3WA]

Well, I would say ED is in quite a pickle then.  Hope they can get through it somehow.

[zerO_crash]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:37 AM, 3WA said:

Actually, in the Russian forums, ED does say they don't care if it's fantasy or not ( because the copter itself was just an experiment, never adopted), and they do intend to give it a third rail, igla's, and a MLWS/DIRCM because they wanted to make what they thought it would have been if adopted, and knew that this would make the Shark pilots happy.  Besides, if they don't, it will be slaughtered by the new AH-64D coming out.

 

If they don't, I don't see really why anyone would buy it anymore, because it feels so half finished.  RWR and FLIR are really needed as well.

I've flown it for years, learned most of the systems well.  It is not very combat worthy.  You can't even lock up helicopters most of the time.  Even clicking lock with the target gates right in front of a moving heli RARELY will lock it.  Even if it's head on, the shkval will rarely lock it.  The only thing it seems capable of is attacking VERY slow moving ground targets.  And only in FULL daylight at that.

 

 

You and Fri13 apparently must live under the same roof. For someone who doesn't speak nor write Russian/Cyryllic (you write English on Russian forums, but guess what, your translator won't translate everything correct), you really ought to start quality checking the crap you sprawl. No-where has ED stated that BS3 is a fantasy, rather an educated guess. And even so, there has been much negativity as Black Shark right now is the heritage of this sim and no one wants it spoiled, just updated. It is tested and quality checked by KAMOV JSC. BS3 would never be. And although there were 12 airframes of Ka50, it doesn't mean that it is "fantasy". The given amount of a certain module IRL has nothing to do with it's authenticity. What has something to do with it, is how closely the module resembles it's real life counterpart. For the specific bort #25, it is a spot on simulation. Therefore, all your requests that you've time and again spammed the Russian forums with with regards to FLIR and all the other stuff is simply out of order and question. 

 

As to ED making BS3, what ED proposed was to update the Ka50 to a modern "suspected" standard based on what Ka52 bears now, however with background in all the borts of Ka50. Although not realistic as per specific bort, it would be a sort of collection of all Ka50's put into one. That is still more real than going out and requesting what you and Fri13 have with showing pictures of nada (empty painted boxes hung under the wings or laying next to the helicopter) and requesting it be simulated. That while not taking into account how the systems work, if they ever were implemented, how they are visualized in the cockpit, on the HUD, what military standard they use for data transfer, what computers they are connected to and augmented by, etc... You talk about switches in the cockpit in an aircraft that was of test status, and yes IR rockets were tested on Ka50, but were deemed too dangerous to use due to engine surges, so your point being?! Where is the evidence of anything you ask for, or are you just a professional keyboard warrior that rewrites whatever he feels at the moment, as there is no strength and support to any single one of your statements?! Fri13 writes 13 pages of wall text with nothing specific, as has been proved by us on the RU side, as well as module devs (Gazelle to mention one), and you somehow jump the hype-train and talk KA50N. What do you know about that aircraft? What documentation do you have on it?! Give me ranges (of the optics), the magnification, the optics layout, what screen are the thermals displayed on, how are they displayed, symbology, etc...

 

Furthermore, you must have missed your station with DCS when stating things like: "Lol, wait till the Longbow starts SLAUGHTERING the Ka-50 pilots.  Then we'll see if we get Igla's and FLIR, or not." I mean how cute of you to actually mention "balance" with regards to DCS. If anything of the previous doesn't discourage people to even take you seriously, this single statement has to take the cake, and the cake is a lie. Sorry to have to break it to you kid, DCS is a simulator, not a "game about balancing". People seek DCS because of realism and and the difficulties that come with it. Rather, I cannot wait for, you showing up here again, destroyed by a Ka50 with your Apache (what a senseless fight btw., you must be joking) and wondering how something that's older with fewer sensors managed to swat you out of the sky. Guess you'll be requesting 10 other things just to make you relevant in the air again... Part of the reason why there are pilots, mechanics and other IRL-relevant personnel here is mainly due to the realism, not groundless assumptions asking to model a whole system based on a picture of a box in camo-scheme. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by zerO_crash

[3WA]

So, I guess your calling what Chiz says crap then, eh Zero.  I've learned to just ignore you.

[zerO_crash]

Chizh approximated it, but never stated that it was fantasy. As I already said, a translator does not give you the prerogative. Ignore who you want, truth can be hurtful sometimes, sadly...