Ka50 insted of ka52?

[Reticuli]

Yes, Wags produced JF-18 and I think JF-15 also.

 

:notworthy:

[Reticuli]

Some things have to be guesswork I suppose, even when you have the other 99% of the info. Anyone who's played Falcon 4.0 without IFF and then played with IFF can probably testify with me that it makes a big difference on gameplay. Well it did to me!

 

Isn't it off in F4AF? How do you get it on?

 

I would be totally happy if the only IFF in shark was just like little colored dots next to all friendly units, like IR lights, or something. Hmm...that's got me thinking.

[Reticuli]

 

Didn't we get enough of the daggon' A-10 in the LockOn series ... ? Really ...

 

 

.

 

 

Agreed, but they're already making it for the military. They have to make their real money. I don't think it's going to be a huge leap in flight modeling and difficulty, since X-Plane's Warthogs are all very well behaved, even with art stab and yaw dampening all off. Nice, classic airframe design. So it will be a big leap in systems modeling and switches over lockon. Not gonna complain, since that will be two DCS flyables.

[Reticuli]

I'm assuming the A-10's eventual Russion counterpart in the sim will be the Su-25T carried over, right? Sounds reasonable.

 

I thought there were some WIP screens shots of the Apache VC cockpit in this forum somewhere? Is it being modelled just in case it comes after the A10?

 

Oh and I would just like to say I think I would prefer the 52 over the apache if it's up for a decision. I have to admit that a) I prefer helecopters and b) I prefer russian aircraft. They just seem more "real", I don't know what it is about them.

 

I like 'em all, but I wouldn't mind an 80's or 90's-era Cobra instead. I think the Apache is in another class than the Ka-50 and the Kamov won't be much of a match on the multiplayer battlefield. Plus, there are navalized sharks and navalized Cobras, so marine and boat ops would be nice with both. Then I'd recommend the Hind and weaponized Blackhawk versions with rockets & stuff. Troop inserts, SAR, and transportation are such an important part of what military helos do. Certainly the Hind would be easy to get info on considering how old it is, and there is already a publically available flight model for the UH-60 called GenHel from Ames/NASA/USArmy written in FORTRAN. If ED promised to give them a copy of the converted flight model code in C (or whatever language ED uses) back to the US Government and research establishment afterwards, I don't see any reason why there would be a problem. Canada, Australia, and a few other countries use it frequently for many of the academic and military simulations and research. The language conversion and flight performance verification process should be pretty doable for some code pros like ED. Otherwise, they'd need to use an intermediary like Penn State and University of California have done to have the flight model code communicate with an external flight sim for the interface, graphics engine, and, in this case, battle simulation.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Reticuli

[CE_Mikemonster]

Sorry for OT; PM seemed a bit personal.

If you like your multiplayer stick with F4AF, but if you want better graphics, AI updates, IFF (can't remember what else lol..), download and install Red Viper (free/shareware made by the Free falcon team).

That said Free Falcon 5 is coming out soon[ish], which is a massively updated Red Viper, so you may want to wait. Both should install over your AF cd, you won't need the original Falcon.

[Frakin Toasters]

Ah the 52, what a sexy looking beast. Man i'd so love to fly that thing. It'd be really sweet to hang out next to your buddy in a multi-player cockpit (if they manage to pull it off in the Apache). The canopy also looks really interesting as it's more curvaceous than the Shark's.

[Kurtz]

The KA52 and Havoc in EECH1 are still great fun to fly when modded to the latest build. I would suggest that those that want to fly the 52 should generate some cash and hire Damir Dokic to capture ARNEH and put him to work in an Austrian basment until he has a completed 52 pit ;)

[diveplane]

i would at least like to see a ai ka52 model

[159th_Viper]

......Didn't we get enough of the daggon' A-10 in the LockOn series ... ? Really ...

 

The difference is.........this time around we get to Do It Properly!

:)

[LupinYonder]

Ha, Yay and old thread of mine reborn! I must say that when playing DCS blackshark, I wish there was a filter for the era that other units come from.

 

I'd like to restrict the battlefield that the KA-50 files in to one that resembles the era the KA-50 was designed for.

 

And as for the apache, i'd love to see the Augusta/Westland version for us brits :-)

 

 

On a side note is there a UK army skin for the KA-50 yet?

[Frakin Toasters]

 

On a side note is there a UK army skin for the KA-50 yet?

 

Do you mean just dark drab green? If there isn't one around i could probably whip you one up if you want it badly enough

[DarthElvis]

Makes sense it would be the A-10. If I remember correctly, back in the day, the A-10 in LOMAC had a partially completed Advanced Flight Model. Why wouldn't they just finish the flight model, add the clickable pit and update textures. On that note, wouldn't it also make sense to port the SU-25T over from FC ? Just need a clickable pit.

[GGTharos]

It's funny how people say 'just' ... the clickable cockpit takes a very long time to develop, as does the underlying instrumentation model.

 

The DCS A-10 AFM is new. There was no AFM for the A-10 before this.

Similarly, the Su-25T has only the AFM, and none of the other things present in the DCS simulation. I also don't expect there will ever, ever be a military contract asking for a Su-25T simulation since no one in the world is using them AFAIK.

[LupinYonder]

I also don't expect there will ever, ever be a military contract asking for a Su-25T simulation since no one in the world is using them AFAIK.

 

Do you mean that not only will you do sims of aircraft that you have near complete data on ( which is totally understandable and commendable ) but you will also only do sims of aircraft that are currently being modeled for your military sim products?

[EtherealN]

It's funny how people say 'just' ... the clickable cockpit takes a very long time to develop, as does the underlying instrumentation model.

 

The DCS A-10 AFM is new. There was no AFM for the A-10 before this.

Similarly, the Su-25T has only the AFM, and none of the other things present in the DCS simulation. I also don't expect there will ever, ever be a military contract asking for a Su-25T simulation since no one in the world is using them AFAIK.

 

While that is slightly disheartening (I cannot adequately express my love for the Su-25T) I would be perfectly satisfied with a regular Su25. (That's something to pray to the gods for. :D ) There is something magically lovely with such a basic aircraft that still packs such a punch when handled right (and given adequate air cover :P ).

 

Another note though on the "just" thing. It's not only the clickable pit that is a bigger job than people seem to think. The underlying simulations of the various systems, hydraulics, avionics and so on would also have to be created, and verified to ensure that they are operating true to their real counterparts - preferably including failure scenarios and their effects.

 

I would expect this to slowly become easier with time, since some of the code would probably transfer quite nicely between jets like the A10 and the Su25. However, the validation does not, and no matter how good the simulation code may be the old adage will still hold: garbage in equals garbage out.

 

Some people seem to be under the impression that making a high-fidelity simulator is just a case of hacking out a bit of code to simulate the things we as users see directly on the screen, with no thought to the massive job of ensuring that the "output" of the simulation for all those behind-the-scenes things matches the real thing well enough. An area where access to real pilots, real mechanics and real developers of the real thing is almost entirely necessary, which is made a lot easier to get if there is a military contract in the background.

 

Now someone lobby Sukhoi into contracting ED for a Su25 simulator. I'll marry you! :D

[GGTharos]

Not 'mine'. But think about it. If ED can't get a military/manufacturer contract for an aircraft, they can't get the best data available for it in a lot of cases. besides, would you not prefer that they tried to model something that is actually used by air forces, like Su-25A/K/SM? :)

 

 

 

Do you mean that not only will you do sims of aircraft that you have near complete data on ( which is totally understandable and commendable ) but you will also only do sims of aircraft that are currently being modeled for your military sim products?

[LupinYonder]

I would always prefer they model something as accurately as they are able, and if that means only modelling craft that are requested for their military sims then so be it. Of course that does raise the question = Was the KA-50 requested by a military to be modelled and if so, why ? :-)

[EvilBivol-1]

Modeling accuracy is one of the factors, but it's also about efficient use of company resources. If ED is already developing something for the military, it only makes sense to "modify" that simulation for the public, instead of splitting for comany workforce between completely separate simulations. Of course, "modify" is quite an understatement. Even when developing off of an already existing military simulation, the amount of work required to make a public version can be extensive. This is true for the A-10C, by the way.

 

As for a Ka-50 military sim:

http://www.1tv.ru/owa/win/ort6_videopage.main?sender=news&p_topic_id=123638&p_video_num=1&counter1_href=287212&counter2_href=id=268366;t=56

Edited May 10, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[LupinYonder]

I'm afraid I don't speak Russian, perhaps you could summarise?

[joey45]

use google translate.

 

you not missing much.

[EtherealN]

Well Joey, it's a video. :P

[Dudikoff]

The KA52 and Havoc in EECH1 are still great fun to fly when modded to the latest build. I would suggest that those that want to fly the 52 should generate some cash and hire Damir Dokic to capture ARNEH and put him to work in an Austrian basment until he has a completed 52 pit ;)

 

Damir Dokic? LOL

 

Back on topic, I wonder what kind of weapons and FCS will the final Ka-52 have?

 

I don't recall seeing any new guided missile systems mentioned during the development of the Ka-52 or Mi-28N. For instance, the Mi-28N is said to be equipped with the Arbalet MW radars, but there are no missiles which could use them for guidance (like the Longbow Hellfire). I presume there should be some in development.

 

Also, the Ka-52 prototypes had different configurations of sensors and equipment (mast-mounted MW radar, sensors mounted above the cockpit, sensors mounted in the nose of the helicopter..). Any news on which configuration is selected for the would-be production version?

 

Oh, BTW, Mi-28N would be great, too :)

[arneh]

I would suggest that those that want to fly the 52 should generate some cash and hire Damir Dokic to capture ARNEH and put him to work in an Austrian basment until he has a completed 52 pit ;)

 

Then you'll only get a 3D model of an Austrian basement. Do you really want that? :p

[Kurtz]

Then you'll only get a 3D model of an Austrian basement. Do you really want that? :p

 

Nah, I want to fly like a bird.

 

ps- Love your work ARNEH :)

[element1108]

I can just see the military making all the intricate details of their current combat helicopters and most modern fighters (especially the F22) available to sim developers for the commercial sim market.

 

Millions of dollars in research etc all to be handed over to the civilian community...that sounds reasonable ;)

 

jk

Edited May 11, 2009 by element1108