How much realistic Black Shark is?

[159th_Viper]

Tell your friend if he wants realism, he should apply for a truck driver in Afganistan.

 

Aye........that would be the 'HellFire' Sim - applications two-doors down :pilotfly:

[Crow_Bar]

I was refering to the real aircraft, used as a reference for modeling by saying that is lacks some essential systems like radar warning system or night capabilities.

Thank....ee:)

[leafer]

Tell your friend if he wants realism, he should apply for a truck driver in Afganistan.

 

LOL :D

[amalahama]

Only amp/voltmeters and breakers modelling to reach the perfection for me!!:P

 

Regards!!

[Kitharodos]

Can I compare DCS with another simulator? Can I name it or is it forbidden?

[mjolner]

I will name one. Though not a military flight sim PMDG 747 Queen and the MD11 are extremely complex flight sims.

 

They run through FSX but have independent flight models seperate from the lame fm that comes with FSX. In terms of systems modelling and avionics and cockpit clickability they are on par with the Ka-50. Each have heavy weight manuals and takes serious study to fully comprehend. Each can be flown following exact airline procedures.

 

Anywho, off topic really because they are civilian, but very cool and worth a look if you want to know how a modern airliner operates.

Edited December 19, 2008 by mjolner

I think the only folks who can truly comment on realism would be the real Ka-50 pilots. However, the attention to detail on the BS is something I've never seen on other PC applications let alone other flight sims!

[Groove]

Can I compare DCS with another simulator? Can I name it or is it forbidden?

 

As long as it don't starts in some flame war contest feel free to call it.

[Kitharodos]

Ok, I hope this will not turn into any flame... Anyway, my friend likes to play Falcon4 as it is one of the most realistic flight sims ever. I told him about DCS and he doesnt believe me. He says that it is very difficult to fully simulate an aircraft especially the F-16 which he likes to fly, because there are too many things you have to simulate such as the radar which Ka-50 does not have and many other things... My question is, will DCS simulate a plane such as the F-16 or the F-15 or even the Su-27 fully as the F-16 is simulated in Falcon4? Lock On was a great job but you couldnt control all the avionics of the aircrafts that were simulated...

[GGTharos]

Yes it will, when those modules come along. It will simulate them better than Falcon has so far. ;)

Falcon simulates the F-16 quite well, though there are still a few missing aspects. I really doubt someone who didn't know the system really well would notice, personally.

 

PS: The radar is just one of the onboard devices .... the ABRIS is easily a more complex device to operate than the F-16's radar.

Edited December 21, 2008 by GGTharos

[skypirate]

I would say that major part of the whole picture is the attention to the details. When flying a sim what is killing me is when looking outside of the aircraft to see a crappy view...

 

Yesterday I flew one of my first missions in BS and even though I could not do the job, the enjoyment of the flying (as real as it gets on a desk) was great - few elements - The sunset over the mountains worth seeing... the red beacon light reflection on the Vikhr missiles... the shadows on the helicopters... the cockpit lighting...... the list goes on.

 

So after many years dealing with simulators I will say the BS is the most realistic combat simulation for home computer ever made...

 

GREAT JOB!

[Guest tazcanky]

Well. I wish to see the F-16 module in the BS as a Falcon Pilot as soon as possible.

Thanks for everything.

[zokier]

Would ED be willing to publish an errata for the simultor, ie all differences they know between the real thing and the simulator? Or is it really that perfect?

[MiG-77]

Quick question. How realistic is weapon and damage modelling? By that I mean other units like tanks, not your helicopter. Example if I fire vikhr to M1A2 front armour does it fail to penetrate? Also can T-72B APDSFS fail to penetrate T-80U and M1A2 frontally?

[asxdef]

Radar

 

PS: The radar is just one of the onboard devices .... the ABRIS is easily a more complex device to operate than the F-16's radar.

 

It's not about the simulation of the interface in the cockpit, the problem with regard to the radar is the simulation of the electromagnetic waves, i.e. how to calculate which objects your radar can see. Falcon4, at least to my knowledge, basically uses tables with information at which range which airplane can be detected. But of course reality is much more complex.

[GGTharos]

Yes, I know that - but believe it or not, the interface can actually be more complex to code than the physical simulation itself.

 

Further, realize that in DCS there are radio physics at play, including LOS, frequency, and signal-to-noise ratio parameters. While it is at this point perhaps less complex than a full-blown radar simulation, the basics are there to pave the way for the future.

 

It's not about the simulation of the interface in the cockpit, the problem with regard to the radar is the simulation of the electromagnetic waves, i.e. how to calculate which objects your radar can see. Falcon4, at least to my knowledge, basically uses tables with information at which range which airplane can be detected. But of course reality is much more complex.

[GGTharos]

While armor simulation is not yet perfect, you do need two vikhr hits on the front of a heavy tank to kill it.

Also at this point, realize that for DCS - even though you see the smoke, it might actually be a mobility or personnel or other type of mission kill, and not complete destruction. However at this time DCS does not model super-accurate armor models or damage models for ground vehicles - but yes, you WILL see differences in penetration power as well as accuracy from various vehicles.

 

Quick question. How realistic is weapon and damage modelling? By that I mean other units like tanks, not your helicopter. Example if I fire vikhr to M1A2 front armour does it fail to penetrate? Also can T-72B APDSFS fail to penetrate T-80U and M1A2 frontally?

[MiG-77]

While armor simulation is not yet perfect, you do need two vikhr hits on the front of a heavy tank to kill it.

Also at this point, realize that for DCS - even though you see the smoke, it might actually be a mobility or personnel or other type of mission kill, and not complete destruction. However at this time DCS does not model super-accurate armor models or damage models for ground vehicles - but yes, you WILL see differences in penetration power as well as accuracy from various vehicles.

 

Thank you. I quess that tank models still take account different sides (so 1 vikhr hit can kill heavy tanks from side). Also do you have knowledge are there plans to improve damage models of ground units (M1A2 front armour can withstand missile hits like vikhr. Ofcourse those can always damage it by destroying sights, etc)? No asking any super armour models, but just simple "missile Y can penetrate X amount of armour and if tank Z has not enought in hit location missile will kill it".

[GGTharos]

Yes, sides are taken into consideration :)

 

Fly the ka-50 in front of a t-80 or m1a2 and pound the front armor with all your 30mm ammo ... nothing happens :)

 

Improvements might happen in the future, but I don't know what the schedule for such an update might be.

[Chizh]

...No asking any super armour models, but just simple "missile Y can penetrate X amount of armour and if tank Z has not enought in hit location missile will kill it".

For guns its done.

For missiles will arrive in patch.

[MiG-77]

For guns its done.

For missiles will arrive in patch.

 

Nice :thumbup:

[RedTiger]

I would say that major part of the whole picture is the attention to the details. When flying a sim what is killing me is when looking outside of the aircraft to see a crappy view...

 

Yesterday I flew one of my first missions in BS and even though I could not do the job, the enjoyment of the flying (as real as it gets on a desk) was great - few elements - The sunset over the mountains worth seeing... the red beacon light reflection on the Vikhr missiles... the shadows on the helicopters... the cockpit lighting...... the list goes on.

 

So after many years dealing with simulators I will say the BS is the most realistic combat simulation for home computer ever made...

 

GREAT JOB!

 

This is so true. If the visuals stink, I find it very difficult to immerse myself in it.

[sobek]

 

- The most important Ka-50 deficency is lack of up-to-date self-protection equipment. Only laser warning receiver and manually operated flare dispencer represent even 1970s vintage standard. In fact there is quite few laser guided SAMs (RBS-70, Starstreak, ADATS and Svir-Reflex dual purpose ATGMs). In contrary majority of short range SAM and AAA systems is radar guided especially on the theatre of military operations created in DCS (ZSU-23-4, Tunguska, Tor, Osa-AKM). So I do not understand why RWR was not implemented at all? I know that old Berioza RWR is not fitted into Ka-50 and new Pastel RWR is kept secret but no RWR is very unrealistic to me - Ka-50 should be very vulnearble to SAMs in current situation. Maybe in reality small number Ka-50 gunships in Russian inventory looks like "abandoned" because Russian MoD chose Mi-28N as a replacement for Mi-24 but that cannot mean they are not modernized at all. So in future patch it would be great to see Pastel RWR and fully automatic flare/chaff programmable dispencer. If possible, Russian MAWS system Mak-U and active IR-guided SAMs jamming device called L-370 Vitebsk should be added. Both have been tested on Ka-50 as far as I know.

 

The real production ka 50 has no RWR, so unrealistic would be to include one. You have to take into consideration that the real ka 50 is currently not used in all out war, thus radar SAMs are a no go for a ka 50 operation. Additionally, although i do not know for sure, i am convinced that many of the systems you mentioned are classified, making it impossible to model them at the level of detail on hand. The ka 52 seems to be very much up to date and equipped with some of the stuff you mentioned, but unfortunately it is also classified, so we won't see it in DCS. :cry:

[sobek]

Yes, Ka-50s took part in Second Chechen War but notice a year ago in practically the same area Russia was involved in war with Georgia which had radar guided SAMs. Thus Ka-50 should possess RWR regardless of economic constraints or so...in DCS game too!

 

It may be that a RWR was planned at some state, but the production aircraft that were built do not feature one, AFAIK. The mission planners would have never fielded the ka 50 in a scenario where it would have been likely to encounter radar SAMs. It is sad that the BS is not fitted with current technology systems, it surely is an awesome platform, but that does not change the fact that russia uses it only for counter-insurgency type missions.

 

I am however by no means an expert on this field, GGTharos or AirTito and others seem to be a lot more knowledgeable, as they commented numerous times on this topic, IIRC. You might want to search the forums, as this topic has been discussed almost to death. :)

Edited January 16, 2009 by sobek

[diveplane]

yeah yeah I know but my friends like to play Falcon4 if u know it, cause it is the most realistic combat flight sim, does black shark simulate ka-50 as falcon4 does with f-16?

 

falcon 4 is now arcade compared to dcs series. just my 2 cents.