Real Black Shark 3

[dimitriov]

Thing is though that it is not modernized ^^

 

You still have 1985 onboard computers and technology and invented stuff above. It's the same level of what if than attaching Rafale wings on a Mirage 3 expecting it to work properly and coding the main page of Spectra defense and jamming system on the 1960' Cyrano radar screen because it would be cool. Indeed it would be... But 30 years of huge technological and computer evolution separate the ka-50 we have from the systems supposed to be plugged in. And anyway calling it President S as explained in post 3 is an extraordinary exageration.

I don't have any problem with people buying it. But they have to be properly informed on what they spend their money in. That's the least ED could do. They should not learn about it in an obscurd forum sub. They should read it on the product page.

Not everyone is a hardcore simmer and it is understandable, but people should know when it is hardcore modeling, when it is midcore, and when it is pure invention. Maintaining the confusion is quite a bold move and not a very good signal for the future products.

Edited December 19, 2022 by dimitriov

[janitha2]

oh damn i thought the new black shark 3 was realistic with the MWS 

[dimitriov]

Noooope lol

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, dimitriov said:

I don't have any problem with people buying it. But they have to be properly informed on what they spend their money in. That's the least ED could do. They should not learn about it in an obscurd forum sub. They should read it on the product page.

This is not the only module where pieces were glued together. By following your logic half of the modules should be removed as non-realistic (ranging from invalid FM, DM to reverse engineered weapons). The only which could qualify might be WW2 and early cold war birds, and even there these are missing SMEs.

I can understand why you do not like it, but do not need to buy it. You can still fly your apache and enjoy considerable advantage, especially what it planned to come.

 

[stonewall197922]

I think, that all ED planes and helicopters to some degree have fictional parts. As far as i remeber they said it already, but i don`t find where now. Even if plane are old, some systems are classified, at least to common folk. I think Ed can make  let`s say su-34 but with avionics based on f/a-18 for example. 

Цитата

But then again, why no modern russian fighter is possible?

At some point it will be. The question is when? A plane with fictional avionics is better from my point of view then nothing.

Edited December 19, 2022 by stonewall197922

[dimitriov]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

This is not the only module where pieces were glued together. By following your logic half of the modules should be removed as non-realistic (ranging from invalid FM, DM to reverse engineered weapons). The only which could qualify might be WW2 and early cold war birds, and even there these are missing SMEs.

I can understand why you do not like it, but do not need to buy it. You can still fly your apache and enjoy considerable advantage, especially what it planned to come.

 

This is not plausible arrangement because you lacked for a number, a variable or the exact shape of a vertice line on your MFD. This is an upgrade which is sold as something realistic while nothing about it ever existed and its arrangement in the cockpit with other already really existing systems is utterly incoherent. The level of plausibility and realism is the same than for an X-Wing module. The difference between a partial simulation and an invention is not only about semantics. 

 

I simply state that it should be written in the module description when you buy it. Else it's consumer misleading if not a pure and simple lie. And I litteraly and morally don't and can't buy this. When you sell something telling it's realistic while you know that you literally made up everything about it, you're in a kind of business scheme which does not lead me to want to work with you. Therefore they must write it, this is everything I say, as this is morally the right thing to do. 

 

So instead of this "DCS: Black Shark 3 is a further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter."

 

Write this : DCS: Black Shark 3 is a fictionnal further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter.

 

As actually, you tell me "don't buy it", if I was not to know about this stuff I would buy it thinking it's an actual real thing, further misleading my judgment on the value of my investment. This is an elementary worldwide business rule and is even decorrelated from the actual product which is in question. A good deal is a fair one. Anyway I go back on 3DS max, forum chat never changes anything ^^

Edited December 19, 2022 by dimitriov

[BalticDude]

10 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

For what it's worth, I'd view this as the closest we'll get to the Ka-52 for the foreseeable future.

Ka-52 is coming as a free 3rd party mod (not module) that requires Ka-50 to function. It's not a proper Ka-52 module but it's something and doesn't stop people from trying to do a Ka-52 in the future.

[stonewall197922]

 

37 минут назад, dimitriov сказал:

This is not plausible arrangement because you lacked for a number, a variable or the exact shape of a vertice line on your MFD. This is an upgrade which is sold as something realistic while nothing about it ever existed and its arrangement in the cockpit with other already really existing systems is utterly incoherent. The level of plausibility and realism is the same than for an X-Wing module. 

 

I simply state that it should be written in the module description when you buy it. Else it's consumer misleading if not a pure and simple lie. And I litteraly and morally don't and can't buy this. When you sell something telling it's realistic while you know that you literally made up everything about it, you're in a kind of business scheme which does not lead me to want to work with you. Therefore they must write it, this is everything I say, as this is morally the right thing to do. 

 

So instead of this "DCS: Black Shark 3 is a further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter."

 

Write this : DCS: Black Shark 3 is a fictionnal further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter.

 

As actually, you tell me "don't buy it", if I was not to know about this stuff I would buy it thinking it's an actual real thing, further misleading my judgment on the value of my investment. This is an elementary worldwide business rule and is even decorrelated from the actual product which is in question. A good deal is a fair one. Anyway I go back on 3DS max, forum chat never changes anything ^^

 

If  look closely, you will not find mention that is EXACT simulation of real helicoptercraft either. So placing comment "Fictional" is useless. You will never get EXACT simulation in a commercial product for common civilians. There will be always fictional parts, due laws or classified information. It can be preaty realistic but not the same as real. This is a game aftrer all. A damn good game.

Edited December 19, 2022 by stonewall197922

[BalticDude]

31 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

This is not plausible arrangement because you lacked for a number, a variable or the exact shape of a vertice line on your MFD. This is an upgrade which is sold as something realistic while nothing about it ever existed and its arrangement in the cockpit with other already really existing systems is utterly incoherent. The level of plausibility and realism is the same than for an X-Wing module. The difference between a partial simulation and an invention is not only about semantics. 

 

I simply state that it should be written in the module description when you buy it. Else it's consumer misleading if not a pure and simple lie. And I litteraly and morally don't and can't buy this. When you sell something telling it's realistic while you know that you literally made up everything about it, you're in a kind of business scheme which does not lead me to want to work with you. Therefore they must write it, this is everything I say, as this is morally the right thing to do. 

 

So instead of this "DCS: Black Shark 3 is a further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter."

 

Write this : DCS: Black Shark 3 is a fictionnal further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter.

 

As actually, you tell me "don't buy it", if I was not to know about this stuff I would buy it thinking it's an actual real thing, further misleading my judgment on the value of my investment. This is an elementary worldwide business rule and is even decorrelated from the actual product which is in question. A good deal is a fair one. Anyway I go back on 3DS max, forum chat never changes anything ^^

 

You really want people to say that it's fictional when it's clearly semi-historical lmao. Just because it couldn't have worked as it was tested doesn't mean they couldn't have modified systems for future use to be similar to how they are now. Ka-52 has systems similar to how they are now, and Ka-50 DCS BS3 is basically what if the Ka-50 was properly developed and in-service. I don't consider this as "fictional" especially since these weapons were tested IRL in THIS configuration without the 3-pylons (Iglas went on the 2nd pylon). I love BS3 and I hope for more updates and other prototype vehicles in the future!

[nessuno0505]

@dimitriov I understand your point. Nevertheless, Wikipedia states ka-50 can shoot igla and even r73. If that's true, then why adding a fictional and unrealistic mws? Iglas and r73s would have been enough to justify the 10 $ upgrade (1.50 $ using my ED miles) and the module would have kept its realistic label. Again: I've bought it to promote the idea of the mini upgrades and I hope further will come for other modules, but the choice of a totally fictional system bothers me a bit. At least you can set your ka-50 100% realistic from the mission editor and that's a good thing.

[Mike_Romeo]

8 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

If a bit of fiction / imagination is allowed, then why we can't have a modern su-27 or mig-29 variant done using this imagination?

The KA-50 was built in so low numbers that it was considered to be just a prototype. Because of that, ED allowed themself a little bit more freedom regardes "what if"

Source:

"I just wanted to make my own modification of the Ka-50ED.

Those who do not need Needles can simply not use them. Also on servers.

Since the Su-25T and Ka-50 are initially non-combatant, test aircraft, we can afford to experiment with them."

-Chizh

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mike_Romeo

[nessuno0505]

I would have preferred an upgrade with iglas and r73s (stuff actually tested on the ka-50) but without mws and a third pylon (100% imagination with nonexistent and non plausible systems to manage their use).

The problem is that such a choice constitutes a precedent that undermines the primacy of accuracy and simulation of dcs modules. What awaits us in the future after the black shark 3?

Edited December 19, 2022 by nessuno0505

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

I would have preferred an upgrade with iglas and r73s (stuff actually tested on the ka-50) but without mws and a third pylon (100% imagination with nonexistent and non plausible systems to manage their use).

The problem is that such a choice constitutes a precedent that undermines the primacy of accuracy and simulation of dcs modules. What awaits us in the future after the black shark 3?

 

You have a choice not to use them. Its one of the great things about DCS. 

[trevoC]

I kind of hope they stay up to date on the new systems hoping that it will relate over to a ka-52 in the future.

Hoping black shark 4 is alligator 1

[nessuno0505]

21 minuti fa, NineLine ha scritto:

You have a choice not to use them. Its one of the great things about DCS. 

That's a great choice and in fact I've gladly bought the upgrade. The discussion is more about a "philosophical" debate on what a simulation has to be intended in a commercial product that - at the end - is for entertainment (i.e. a "game").

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, nessuno0505 said:

That's a great choice and in fact I've gladly bought the upgrade. The discussion is more about a "philosophical" debate on what a simulation has to be intended in a commercial product that - at the end - is for entertainment (i.e. a "game").

Yes, this is a simulation game. The Black Shark was its own standalone game long ago as you might remember. It was added to DCS World along with our other existing products. 

All our products are as close to the real thing as we can legally or realistically do. In the face of missing information, or classified information we may have to take artistic liberties with things. Even the most detailed and closest to the real thing modules in DCS have aspects of this, at the end of the day this is a game based on combat flight simulation. 

Going back to my point, you can choose which aircraft you have in your mission, what year, what weather, what weapons, what country, etc etc. We give you as many options as we can in order for you to have as much gameplay and enjoyment out of DCS. The Black Shark is unique, no doubt, the Russian Air Force is not something we can or are allowed to take much from. The fact that we have the Black Shark is simply a bonus. I cant imagine DCS world without it. In fact without it you would not have such an advanced attack helo in DCS. And once more, if you do not want it in your missions, you can choose that as well. 

I see no issue here at all. 

[janitha2]

To be honest yeah there is no problem since we can change to year in the mission editor but the problem i have is that in multiplayer i can only find the 2022 version 

[okopanja]

@NineLine

Air Combat Sim #25, which covered the launch of AH-64D, we got for the first time solid news on BS3.

Around 26:49 interesting question is asked, and we get very intriguing response from Wags.

Please forgive me if I did not manage 100% to transcript the conversation.

Quote

 

Host: Obviously a lot of your thought is going into George, are you going to backfit it (George) to the previous helicopters, once its read so to advance them as well?

Wags: If you are referring like to the Huey and Blackshark, not exactly the backfit, also you have to remember that a George is specifically made for the 64, particular in terms of the hover pop up, transition to cruise type flight mode, so we have it for it. Others elements, that later that we certainly look again, it always come back to time resources, but it takes, that is exactly what it takes, to backfit something like that to say like Ka-50 or UH-1, but you know hopefully, with Black Shark 3, we will do something like that, where we can do something like Petrovic, adapt it for Ka-50.

 

Does this mean we can expect two seat Ka-50 in near future ? Or is this the new way to command the wingmen?

 

 

[jubuttib]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

@NineLine

Air Combat Sim #25, which covered the launch of AH-64D, we got for the first time solid news on BS3.

Around 26:49 interesting question is asked, and we get very intriguing response from Wags.

Please forgive me if I did not manage 100% to transcript the conversation.

Does this mean we can expect two seat Ka-50 in near future ? Or is this the new way to command the wingmen?

They did explain elsewhere that Wag's comments were about using what they've learned with Petrovich and George to make smarter AI wingmen for the Ka-50. So no, not a two-seater Ka-50.

[okopanja]

23 minutes ago, jubuttib said:

They did explain elsewhere that Wag's comments were about using what they've learned with Petrovich and George to make smarter AI wingmen for the Ka-50. So no, not a two-seater Ka-50.

Emil Mazey: "I can't prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I'm certainly going to assume that he is a duck."

Waiting for R-73 on any pylon...

Regarding MAWS reality:

And about certain other IR missile:

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by okopanja

[okopanja]

And let's not forget very "unrealistic" Iglas. The ED modeled something that awfully resembles this on Ka-52:

Note the mounts for cooling here:

Looks like station 2, 1 and 5 have same pylon:

null

Edited December 19, 2022 by okopanja
Uploaded missing file

[Bernardi]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but is there any further development for the BS3 planned? Is there even more stuff to be added? I saw talks about r73 but that's it.

[Beirut]

56 minutes ago, Bernardi said:

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but is there any further development for the BS3 planned? Is there even more stuff to be added? I saw talks about r73 but that's it.

 

I'd like to see 4x S-24 rockets.

 

Edit: And the gun pods like on the Mi-24 with 1x12.7 and 2x 7.62 in each pod.

 

And I'd like a pony.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Beirut

[trevoC]

I'm hoping like BS2 and the original, BS3 will be a full product with a number of campaigns built in etc... BS3 wouldn't feel complete without it IMO. FC and BS have always had many options for campaigns unlike the modules for DCS that may come with one. I think the BS3 module price would be a little high for first time buyers without the full experience with campaigns. (Obviously the upgrade price is a no brainer but I'd like to fly the think with some purpose at some point)

[amalahama]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:59 AM, dimitriov said:

This is not plausible arrangement because you lacked for a number, a variable or the exact shape of a vertice line on your MFD. This is an upgrade which is sold as something realistic while nothing about it ever existed and its arrangement in the cockpit with other already really existing systems is utterly incoherent. The level of plausibility and realism is the same than for an X-Wing module. The difference between a partial simulation and an invention is not only about semantics. 

 

I simply state that it should be written in the module description when you buy it. Else it's consumer misleading if not a pure and simple lie. And I litteraly and morally don't and can't buy this. When you sell something telling it's realistic while you know that you literally made up everything about it, you're in a kind of business scheme which does not lead me to want to work with you. Therefore they must write it, this is everything I say, as this is morally the right thing to do. 

 

So instead of this "DCS: Black Shark 3 is a further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter."

 

Write this : DCS: Black Shark 3 is a fictionnal further development of the well-known Black Shark and Black Shark 2 projects, which are dedicated to the Russian Ka-50 attack helicopter.

 

As actually, you tell me "don't buy it", if I was not to know about this stuff I would buy it thinking it's an actual real thing, further misleading my judgment on the value of my investment. This is an elementary worldwide business rule and is even decorrelated from the actual product which is in question. A good deal is a fair one. Anyway I go back on 3DS max, forum chat never changes anything ^^

 

Although I'm absolutely happy with BS3, I think you made a very valid point. Nowhere, neither in the shop page or in the official documentation, it's mentioned that BS3 new features are fictional and non-existing in real life. Since DCS mantra is "as real as it gets" I think it's fair to at least create awareness to the potential buyer that this product deviates even slightly from the regular addon full fidelity policy