Longbow 2 Fans tried this sim out?

[Reticuli]

Well a lot also depends on if your talking flight sim or combat sim. Theres gonna be some compromise. Without a doubt DCS BS is the supreme rotary wing sim on the market, by far.

 

Have you ever flown X-Plane 8 utilizing manual trim, autopilot, and auto-trimming of pitch loads? I have like a dozen modded helos for it that fly stunningly. Even the Werewolf flies similarly to the DCS version, perhaps even better, though it does not have fixed ground trim, use a combined trim-wingsleveling system (fine by me), or model certain types of helo stalls. Some of the stalls can be worked in, like low rpm & retreating blade, if you tweak the aircraft Vspecs with planemaker enough and I'm not sure if 9 has vortex rings.

 

Blackshark's rings modeling is a bit weird, though. Too much cyclic authority when they hit, which also seems to be at too high a speed, and lateral motion does not remedy them as much as it should...considering you still have so much cyclic authority and ability to sideslip, which you shouldn't until you lower collective at least a little. The correct procedure, according to the US FAA, should be to drop collective sufficient to regain some cyclic authority, and use cyclic to get out of it before crashing. EECH's sucked, being closer to what you should do when you have low rpm stall (though your rpms were fine), though it also didn't model low rpm stall. Weird. But at least something is in there on rings in both sims, right? Blackshark is the first time I know of anyone's ever gotten the need to reduce collective at all right. So that's a plus.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Reticuli

[AlphaOneSix]

If you're going to make a combat flight sim that models such scenarios, it's absolutely appropriate to include them. You don't think if we went to war with Iran or Korea and airborne threats were an issue for helos they wouldn't be equiped with them?

 

I will put it simply. DCS is going to model an aircraft based on what was actually in service, not what is in the marketing brochure. No AH-64A's in service had (and still don't have) the ability to carry air to air missiles. Period. If we had gone to war with Russia or N. Korea with the AH-64A, they would have gone in without air to air missiles.

 

Consequently, this also means that the AH-64A should not have the ability to carry IR flares, only chaff, since no AH-64A's in service ever carried them.

[Rhino4]

@ Reticuli: Apaches didn't carry them in the gulf war, and we were going up against modern soviet equipment then.

[JG27_Arklight]

I will put it simply. DCS is going to model an aircraft based on what was actually in service, not what is in the marketing brochure. No AH-64A's in service had (and still don't have) the ability to carry air to air missiles. Period. If we had gone to war with Russia or N. Korea with the AH-64A, they would have gone in without air to air missiles.

 

Consequently, this also means that the AH-64A should not have the ability to carry IR flares, only chaff, since no AH-64A's in service ever carried them.

 

I take it that this is a AH-64D model, correct?

 

Edited January 2, 2009 by JG27_Arklight

[uhoh7]

I can't wait to see the 64a personally.

 

I'm wondering if we will be able to jump to the gunner and back to the pilot, and what kind of flight control we'll have at the gunner.

[Reticuli]

@ Reticuli: Apaches didn't carry them in the gulf war, and we were going up against modern soviet equipment then.

 

Iraq was a generation behind Russia and woefully under-equipped with what they had. Since the Apache's beginning there have been provisions for putting stingers on (just two little boxes/modules and the missiles) and if they actually were operating in a battlespace where enemy helos had Vikhrs (cudely capable of AA hits) and the US did not have air superiority, I don't think anyone on this forum, actual Army aviator or not, can say they wouldn't be equiped with them.

 

If you want to get really geeky and technical about all this stuff, there's just about zero chance Russian aviation would still be in the air even after a day with the enormous edge the US has in targeting sensors, automation, and early warning systems. But if you want to get as strict as you're all trying to be, then a big chunk of Flaming Cliffs never should have been allowed. You see, you're always making some kind of choices with this stuff.

[CAT_101st]

I take it that this is a AH-64D model, correct?

 

 

Neg that is AH-64a,b,c not D the D has the LongBow rdr system mounted on top of the mast.

[thinkr]

you douched your self see...

 

lol

Edited January 3, 2009 by thinkr

[Acedy]

Neg that is AH-64a,b,c not D the D has the LongBow rdr system mounted on top of the mast.

 

Not necessarily. :)

[Enema]

I've been watching this release for quite a while now, as we all know there hasn't been anything great in the way of Helo sims since LB2 as far as realism and complexity go.

 

I can happily report though that this simulation blows LB2 out of the water in terms of complexity, as nearly every system and subsystem is carefully modelled which could be overwhelming to some, or a dream come true to those like myself who appreciate the attention to detail this dev team has presented to us.

 

This is truly light years ahead of LB2, and brother, it's been a long time coming!!

[GGTharos]

Iraq was a generation behind Russia and woefully under-equipped with what they had. Since the Apache's beginning there have been provisions for putting stingers on (just two little boxes/modules and the missiles) and if they actually were operating in a battlespace where enemy helos had Vikhrs (cudely capable of AA hits) and the US did not have air superiority, I don't think anyone on this forum, actual Army aviator or not, can say they wouldn't be equiped with them.

 

You were just told by an Army aviator that they wouldn't be. The same was told by an Army aviator on the Russian forums for the Russian helis.

DCS is in the business of REALISTIC simulation, not speculation simulation.

 

If you want to get really geeky and technical about all this stuff, there's just about zero chance Russian aviation would still be in the air even after a day with the enormous edge the US has in targeting sensors, automation, and early warning systems. But if you want to get as strict as you're all trying to be, then a big chunk of Flaming Cliffs never should have been allowed. You see, you're always making some kind of choices with this stuff.

 

If you want to get really geeky and technical, I have news for you; while the f-15 was equipped with a radar that could easily bring a heli down, other aircraft were not. Further, Russia had large numbers of cheap fighters, and massive ECM - as well as a written and documented plan to open the war by tac-nuking NATO C3. It would have been a huge mess.

 

Lastly, DCS is not Flaming Cliffs. Flaming Cliffs was NOT in the business of realistic modeling.

[Groove]

Reticuli, don't watch THAT much Military Channel :)

[Quarrion]

No amount of accuracy in the modelling of minor subsystems and loadouts can make up for the fact that you can fly through trees unscathed. :smartass:

[GGTharos]

Don't fly through the trees ;)

 

No amount of accuracy in the modelling of minor subsystems and loadouts can make up for the fact that you can fly through trees unscathed. :smartass:

[AlphaOneSix]

I take it that this is a AH-64D model, correct?

 

You're a smart guy, what unit is that aircraft serving with? I'll give you a hint, it's not from any service unit, it's a development aircraft performing tests. No A-model Apache in the U.S. Army from an operational unit ever had the ability to use air to air missiles.

 

Since the Apache's beginning there have been provisions for putting stingers on (just two little boxes/modules and the missiles)

 

No A-model in U.S. Army service (excluding development test beds) had this provision.

 

I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm not guessing. This is fact.

 

During Desert Shield/Desert Storm, there WAS a concern about our helicopters mixing it up with Iraqi aircraft. So we DID mount Stingers on our helicopters (ATAS, Air To Air Stinger)...but they were mounted on our Kiowas, not on our Apaches.

Edited January 2, 2009 by AlphaOneSix

[thinkr]

No amount of accuracy in the modelling of minor subsystems and loadouts can make up for the fact that you can fly through trees unscathed. :smartass:

 

Are you serious? thats disappointing and laughable lol... at least in LB2 if you hit a building or a tank it would making a big banging sound:doh: Can you fly through buildings too?

[Glowing_Amraam]

Are you serious? thats disappointing and laughable lol... at least in LB2 if you hit a building or a tank it would making a big banging sound:doh: Can you fly through buildings too?

 

In Black Shark, if you hit a building, you'll be a wreck before you know it, same applies if you somehow manages to crash into a tank.

And if you hit "SHIFT-J" while in the cockpit, the cockpit will start to "vibrate", which, imo, feels more realistic :)

Edited January 3, 2009 by Glowing_Amraam

[Francous]

Since there is different settings with the scenery i can imagine how difficult this can be on a programmer point of view .

[thinkr]

question is will it be fixed? are the tree's Sprites? er 2 Flat semi-solid plain.?

[EvilBivol-1]

It won't be fixed, because it's not broken. It's a limitation of the engine and changing it would be more costly than waiting for a new terrain engine to be developed. So, a new terrain engine we await.

[wombat778]

question is will it be fixed?

 

Unlikely in the near term. See this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=584265&postcount=67

 

Personally, I don't find collidable trees that much of a big deal...

[thinkr]

Why shouldn't we be able to fly through water falls too then if were trying to be realistic:megalol:

no offense I couldn't make one better, but thats a noticable boobee...

Edited January 3, 2009 by thinkr

[EvilBivol-1]

Why shouldn't we be able to fly through water falls too then if were trying to be realistic:megalol:

Asking for solid trees is one thing; having a nasty attitude about it on the forum is another. The latter will result in a warning next time.

[Vortex]

Just don't buy the game thinkr. At the moment you seem to be finding every excuse you can to belittle BS, despite never actually having played it. I just don't think you want to accept it's a better game, anyone who is a helicopter sim nut would crawl over broken glass to get this game.

[thinkr]

a nasty attitude

Wow you guys sure could use a little humor. Try not sounding a little more desperate.

It was refering to wombat778's post.

Personally, I don't find collidable trees that much of a big deal... Your not getting browney points for being defensive about a video game their bound not to be 100% accurate. You can't tell me thats not funny since the makers keep pushing for realism, and than miss an important aspect like that. I'm sure they even said oops an giggled.

 

I just don't think you want to accept it's a better game

 

better game than what? you have no idea why I havn't bought it yet.

"BROKEN GLASS" :megalol: Actually I'm waiting for Newegg to send the parts for my brand new system since this one can't handle BS, not that I have to explain myself to you. I'm amused you think I have nothing better to do than start a Vendeta about who's game is better...:doh: you could stand to calm down just a bit... were done...:music_whistling:

 

PS. I think BS is Marvelous! kidding aside...

to each his own opinion. Or are we not allowed to have an opinion on this forum? My respects to ED for their excellent effort.

Edited January 3, 2009 by thinkr