why no radar warning reciever?

[GGTharos]

ED did its job by delivering content and an editor for players to alter or create new content.

 

You've already received the content you paid for.

[EvilBivol-1]

Too often, I really am amazed (frustrated) at the things I read on the various forums.

 

Is it really that hard to see? A decade of combat flight sim drought wasn't enough of a message? Now Microsoft axing ACES doesn't help to make the point, either?

 

You're unhappy and suggest ED somehow failed to deliver worth your $50 because... a large-scale conventional campaign included with the product as an addition to the lighter anti-insurgency campaign is too hard?

 

And the fact that you are essentially flying a military-spec simulator packed with additional features beyond those available to the military for your $50 isn't enough to make you happy? I mean, I know it's not perfect, but come on... this cannot be serious...

Edited February 4, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Frederf]

I'm not too impressed by the "You paid only $50 so it's OK if the largest portion of mission content is farcical" line. Maybe I should feel bad but I don't.

 

The frustrating part of the missions isn't that they are utter crap, it is that they are so close to being really good but they are let down by a small bit of imbalance, a couple missing AI wingman features, and a better planning/brief.

 

If the briefings were written better, planning pre-flight available, and the wingmen a little more usable it would be spot on.

[ARM505]

Hmmm....You're complaining that you paid too much, despite it being 'so close' (your words) to what can only be considered an enormously complex simulation? Don't get me wrong, I understand what it's like to have something so close, yet with small imperfections that irritate one -it shows you care. Do what a previous poster did, and edit the mission. I believe it should be understood by everyone that it's impossible for ED to create super-perfect missions in a single V1.0 attempt, OR to make allowances for the perceived imperfections in the simulated vehicle (No RWR in a large scale conflict, like the current production Ka-50). Don't play GOW if you feel it's not correct. I don't. :) Don't misunderstand me, I'm not making excuses for them, nor am I attacking you - but for 50 USD, this is an excellent product, despite any limitations and flaws it may have.

[connos]

I have a question. Why the ABRIS doesn't show friendly units location and only wingmen location? Even if you have to follow someone its easy to lost him. I am always getting confuse.

[WynnTTr]

where's my coffee... er vodka cup holder.

 

dammit. Didn't get my $50 worth, so close yet so far.

[Frederf]

For $50 it's not a bad product for sure. What gets me is how some parts of the sim had lavish attention to detail at the expense of some much more core aspects. Mostly I'm just tired of having to mod games to get things right in hours that paid professionals failed to do in months or years. I guess I can play the single missions since I've done Deployment, "training" (ha) and some multiplayer (not that it's possible have a good multiplayer experience outside of a organized group). When I say "so close" I mean in terms of development, not performance. An engine that is almost complete without pistons doesn't run any better than an engine that's missing half the parts.

 

I did beat Recon in Force recently well by only doing a single pass on the first artillery group (got 2 of 4 targets), got the command group and all 4 artillery of the second group.

 

I lost my wingman with most of his missiles on board at the end and which time I just said **** it and flew back. I swear I flew that mission 20 or 30 times. I know I wouldn't have had as much trouble if I was simply given a blank mission plan, objectives, and planned it myself. The default flight plan is suicidal. I also bet dollars to doughnuts that the mission brief is lying hardcore. I'm positive that despite it being a recon mission that I get no points for intelligence-gathering and reconing all of positions called for would net me a big fat 0 failure.

 

I'll stop whining now.

--------------

 

Connos, the ABRIS doesn't show friendly units simply because it can't. Normally you want to keep good situational awareness while flying with another helicopter flight or ground convoy but you cannot always say "Hey convoy I lost you, where are you?" like you could in real life. You should use the F10 map for helping yourself out whenever you get confused.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Frederf

[WynnTTr]

I would much rather the attention to the actual heli be lavish than the campaign. If there was a scale or whatever, I'd weigh in on the heli model every single time.

If that meant sacrificing other aspects, it's more than a worthy sacrifice. In that aspect, ED has delivered and more.

 

That's my opinion, and it's just as valid as yours. Cos you know the old saying - opinions are like ....holes, everyone's got one.

[connos]

Connos, the ABRIS doesn't show friendly units simply because it can't. Normally you want to keep good situational awareness while flying with another helicopter flight or ground convoy but you cannot always say "Hey convoy I lost you, where are you?" like you could in real life. You should use the F10 map for helping yourself out whenever you get confused.

 

Ok thanks for the answer a good pilot never get lost any way. I used to play Longbow a lot and i finished it couple of times, i don't know how realistic longbow was but the Radar help a lot in combination with Hell fire missiles. Black shark is a kind of a diferent Heli for diferent situations. There is a lot of human work to be done in the cockpit.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I have to admit that for a sim so excruciatingly detailed in terms of the study aircraft the missions seem to have received very little thought, which I find frustrating and annoying.

 

If you want a high-fidelity simulated Ka-50 then brilliant. If you want to fly that ka-50 into combat - not so brilliant.

 

Obviously it's not like ED need to impress any world militaries with the helicopter flight model though. Especially not at the expense of resources that could have been dedicated to making lifelike missions and briefings ;).

 

Is it really that hard to see? A decade of combat flight sim drought wasn't enough of a message? Now Microsoft axing ACES doesn't help to make the point, either?

 

Mate, that's called a monopoly.

[PoleCat]

I would much rather the attention to the actual heli be lavish than the campaign. If there was a scale or whatever, I'd weigh in on the heli model every single time.

If that meant sacrificing other aspects, it's more than a worthy sacrifice. In that aspect, ED has delivered and more.

 

That's my opinion, and it's just as valid as yours. Cos you know the old saying - opinions are like ....holes, everyone's got one.

 

I couldn't agree more with this assessment.

Personally I like the included missions and campaigns just fine. I find them atmospheric and immersive, intense and a great deal of fun. Also it is no small bonus to actually be able to create your own campaigns.

The design for the campaign editor is so cool and well thought out it even allows for building very non linear feeling campaigns that will play out differently every time you fly them.

 

This is a better and more realistic sim than anything I have ever flown in every respect. That is more then enough for me and I am extremely grateful for it.

 

Can't wait for the next module!

 

Out

Edited February 4, 2009 by PoleCat

[Groove]

I think there is a big discrepancy between what player thinks real life war missions would be and what they are in reality.

[HansRoaming]

Some valid points in this thread. I think it has to be borne in mind that DCS BS is still a 1.0 product and thus not everything will be fantastic at launch but will get better over time as new patches and products join the line.

 

The inclusion of an editor allows for crowd sourcing of missions and campaigns so I expect to see some quality content to come.

[geogob]

I think there is a big discrepancy between what player thinks real life war missions would be and what they are in reality.

 

Indeed. They would be very surprised.

[BaD CrC]

I think it has to be borne in mind that DCS BS is still a 1.0 product and thus not everything will be fantastic at launch but will get better over time as new patches and products join the line.

 

Well, I think this is the richest, most optimised and most stable 1.0 version I have ever experienced in the last 15 years in the sim world. I mean it and I don't have any stock options or incentives from ED to say that.

 

Moreover, what I love about this sim is that it deals for the first time with an aircraft which is NOT the greatest/fastest/most advanced in human history/blah blah blah... unlike 99% of the other sims dedicated to US aircraft where the manual looks more like propaganda than anything else.

Ka-50 is a weapon system with its limitations and obsolescence like any other weapon system in the world, and knowing this, you have to make the best of it on the battlefield. This is what real life combat pilots do after all (I suppose).

[Svend_Dellepude]

Well, I think this is the richest, most optimised and most stable 1.0 version I have ever experienced in the last 15 years in the sim world. I mean it and I don't have any stock options or incentives from ED to say that.

 

Moreover, what I love about this sim is that it deals for the first time with an aircraft which is NOT the greatest/fastest/most advanced in human history/blah blah blah... unlike 99% of the other sims dedicated to US aircraft where the manual looks more like propaganda than anything else.

Ka-50 is a weapon system with its limitations and obsolescence like any other weapon system in the world, and knowing this, you have to make the best of it on the battlefield. This is what real life combat pilots do after all (I suppose).

 

Hear hear! I was just thinking the same. The machine has to be manned by a pilot. If he's no good he would still be in trouble even with RWR onboard.

[HansRoaming]

Well, I think this is the richest, most optimised and most stable 1.0 version I have ever experienced in the last 15 years in the sim world. I mean it and I don't have any stock options or incentives from ED to say that.

 

Have to totally agree, I didn;t mean to imply otherwise, personally I think this is one of the best 1.0 releases of any software that I have seen. Well done ED and I look forward to buying more DCS releases.

[2win_TOWR]

I am. There is in fact narration from the F-15E attack on landed Mi-8's in destert storm; the helicopter was detected and tracked in A2A mode while landed, but its rotor was spinning ... from 50nm.

 

The targetting pod was then slaved to the A2A radar, and the actual attack was then conducted using an LGB.

 

They SPECIFICALLY mentioned the radar was never taken out of A2A mode ;)

 

 

Found something interesting about this incident.

 

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Day-29.htm

 

... 4th TFW/335th TFS/89-0487 ... Pilot: Capt Richard T. Bennett, WSO: Capt Daniel B. Bakke

... Bennett had 4 x GBU-10's (2000 lbs LGB's), 4 x AIM-9's, 2 x Tanks

... Wingman had 12 x Mk-82's and 4 x AIM-9's with 2 x Tanks

... Journal of Military Aviation, Vol 1/ No 2, Jan/Feb 92, pg 26

... Air Force Magazine, Jan 93, pg37.

... original mission SCUD CAP in Northwestern Iraq 01:00 to 03:00 am

... patrol area from Al Qaim, near the Syrian border, to halfway to Bagdad just beyond H-2 Airfield, then back to the Syrian border.

... cloud deck 4,000 to 18,000 feet, orbiting above the weather

... 10 to 15 Special Forces Teams were on the ground looking for SCUD's

... one team was in trouble, 300 miles across the border

... 5 x Iraqi Helicopters were in the area, 50 nm to the west of the F-15E's

... put formation in 4 nm trail and did a FLIR let down below the weather

... FLIR got contacts, confirmed AWACS calls (AWACS call sign "COUGAR")

... AWACS gave "Cleared-to-Fire", confirmed no friendlies

... Let down to 2500 ft, below the weather, and at 15 to 20 nm, WSO had FLIR contact with Lead chopper in a wedge or "vic" formation

... ID'ed as HIND Attack Helicopters, dropping off troops against Special Forces

... planned to hit the Lead Helicopter with GBU-10 while he was on the ground

... ran-in at 600 to 700 knots, low and started lasing the Helo at 4 nm

... at bomb release the helo lifted off and climbed, bomb killed helo

... hit in lift-off from hover at about 100 kts..... KILL

... instructed Wingman to put 3 x Mk-82's in same area to kill troops

... momentary scare that they might have hit friendly helo

... went back down to et remaining helo's but had bombs dropping around them

... Special Forces Team was extracted

... continued CAP and dropped on 1 x SCUD launchpad

 

Only FLIR, special forces on the ground and AWACS is mentioned. No APG-70 Radar. ;)

 

just wanted to throw in that.

[GGTharos]

And I have the pilot's narration, and he specifically mentioned the radar. ;)

They were attacking helos which were taking off (According to AWACS, IIRC) which is why A2A mode was used to detect them.

 

When I find the reference again I will post it.

[arneh]

And I have the pilot's narration, and he specifically mentioned the radar. ;)

They were attacking helos which were taking off (According to AWACS, IIRC) which is why A2A mode was used to detect them.

 

When I find the reference again I will post it.

 

I quoted from Strike Eagle about this incident earlier in this post.

[Betting]

Ok, i´ve just made some tests with airborne Radars, which are the most dangerous threats to helicopters (i guess).

 

Fact is, if your speed is below 27.7 km/h most fighter-radars wont detect you. Some other will only detect you, if you are going faster than 50 km/h)

 

Theres is a value to be found in the "\1C\Eagle Dynamics\Ka-50\Scripts\Database\db_sensors"

 

radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6,
relative_radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6, 

100:3.6 = 27.77777 (km/h)

 

Try it and you will see below this speed you are safe, if you run faster you´re almost dead. (tested with F-16C)

 

I don´t know how accurate this value is, compared to real life, but i think its way to slow. That would mean, even a tractor on a field could be detected by an APG-68 as a potential target.

 

Now imagine the Radar screen, when an APG-68 scans an area in lookdown, where a Highway is located.

 

I think the minimum speed for low flying targets must be higher.

I remember, with the APQ-120 (F-4F Phantom) it was around 120 km/h.

 

So entering a hostile Area in NOE-Flight with around 100 km/h would make a RWR almost redundant.

 

But like i said, i dont know, where ED´s datas come from.

 

Have you tested this against naval units as well? I set up a mission that had a naval unit placed near my base and it started launching missiles at me as soon as I lifted off (not a rolling take-off, straight up from the launch pad).

 

But as I write this, I remember the getting a voice warning saying that I was under attack from "9 o'clock low", which would mean I was getting painted by a laser, no? I thought the US naval SAMs were radar-guided, but am I wrong in that opinion?

[Martillo1]

It is curious, once when Hawks were engaging me, I received a LWS warning with every launch. Thanksfully I was flying NOE.

[leafer]

Don't worry about the RWR.. it has no FLIR targeting.. now THAT is a big item this version is missing. Hard to believe it was made with no night capability.

 

I've come to a realization that for a single seater attack helo to be effective at night, you'd need another person manning the stick and avoiding all the protruding stuff one would collide with at night.