Videos of Ka-50

[Hobel]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb zerO_crash:

The PVI-800 does not operate with altitude as a input/output metric. Any point you enter, will get placed on the ground-level. The former implementation was, in fact, wrong.

How do you know that so precisely?

and the other point is, how do KA-50 pilots use the target points if the helicopter has no way to enter the altitude?

Target points become useless.

[zerO_crash]

15 minutes ago, Hobel said:

How do you know that so precisely?

and the other point is, how do KA-50 pilots use the target points if the helicopter has no way to enter the altitude?

Target points become useless.

Far off useless, but there is some imprecision built into the system. Remember, that's back in the times when AH-64D didn't exist yet, AH-64A flew with a INS, and that was all the navigation they had. While Ka-50 had GPS, it was idologically, a addition to the otherwise common INS (PVI-800). Back then, it wasn't planned to have the ABRIS and PVI-800 interconnect with each other. Two separate sources, guaranteed redundancy.

 

If you perform precision-alignment of INU properly (no vibration from APU/Engines), plus avoid flying too long in "memory"-mode (eventually correct navigation position before spending time at AO), you will have incredibly good accuracy. Typically, no more than 20-30m off target, for as much as an hour after performing nav. fix.

 

I know because I simply do. You might be able to translate this for yourself: 

 

Eventually, have a look at the thread below - nevermind "Pack Rat", he is simply talking about what ifs (we were discussing the trigonometric method used by Ka-50 to obtain ranging without laser rangefinder being used, as well as its efficiency), not the actual system (I have 't had time to correct his last post yet):

 

 

Edited May 26, 2024 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

I will add, that many of these topics have been raised over rhe years, however with renewed implementations of systems, assurances have to be made with regards to old/new workings.

[Hobel]

vor 58 Minuten schrieb zerO_crash:

Far off useless, but there is some imprecision built into the system. Remember, that's back in the times when AH-64D didn't exist yet, AH-64A flew with a INS, and that was all the navigation they had. While Ka-50 had GPS, it was idologically, a addition to the otherwise common INS (PVI-800). Back then, it wasn't planned to have the ABRIS and PVI-800 interconnect with each other. Two separate sources, guaranteed redundancy.

a connection between the two systems would not eliminate the redundancy, it was even initially planned that the GPS would update the INS of the KA-50 every 300 seconds, but this was then rejected, there would be no disadvantage with the connection.

If the GPS were to fail, you could simply fall back on the INS, so it would make no difference whether it was connected or not

Please let's not deviate from the point, it's not about the INS here.

 

It's about whether it was possible to enter the altitude in the real KA-50 or not.

if the Ka-50 is used at high altitudes and a target point is at an altitude of say 1200m, the KA-50 has difficulties because the Shkval only slew to 0m and you have big problems finding the target.

and currently, if you like, Alt can be saved and retrieved through an "exploit" and that is called "ME" the targets inserted there are saved in the KA50 with a height,
i am also pretty sure that there must have been a possibility in the real Ka-50 to enter the height for the targed points, as i said without this option targed points become almost pointless

 

There are also instruments in the Ka50 that indicate a vertical deviation that make no sense in the current state of the Ka-50.

>>>

 

Edited May 26, 2024 by Hobel

[zerO_crash]

52 minutes ago, Hobel said:

a connection between the two systems would not eliminate the redundancy, it was even initially planned that the GPS would update the INS of the KA-50 every 300 seconds, but this was then rejected, there would be no disadvantage with the connection.

If the GPS were to fail, you could simply fall back on the INS, so it would make no difference whether it was connected or not

Today, this is how it works, but back then (beginnings of GPS), the thinking was different. What I'm stating, is that the solutions that exist today, were not neccessarily discovered back then. That's why, it was never planned, at any stage, to connect the two (you are absolutely wrong in your statement). There is no documentation or source which will confirm that. The later stipulations, came from equipment tests for Ka-52. 
 

52 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Please let's not deviate from the point, it's not about the INS here.

If you mentioned PVI-800, then it is all about INS.

 

52 minutes ago, Hobel said:

It's about whether it was possible to enter the altitude in the real KA-50 or not.

if the Ka-50 is used at high altitudes and a target point is at an altitude of say 1200m, the KA-50 has difficulties because the Shkval only slew to 0m and you have big problems finding the target.

and currently, if you like, Alt can be saved and retrieved through an "exploit" and that is called "ME" the targets inserted there are saved in the KA50 with a height,
i am also pretty sure that there must have been a possibility in the real Ka-50 to enter the height for the targed points, as i said without this option targed points become almost pointless

Both real Ka-50 and DCS Ka-50 are the same, as confirmed by ED (access to real Ka-50 manual and other documents). I suggest you re-read what I wrote above - the system is good, but not perfect. For 80s, this was THE thing! Don't bother with the ME setting, as for PVI-800, that is not realistic. That's to say, and I repeat, the PVI-800 is 2D only. How does this matter? Because datalink operates off data from PVI-800. More specifically, PVI-800 creates the basis for the navigational part of PrPNK. When you use Shkval to obtain a target, the coordinates are pulled from your current position (PVI-800), plus IT-23 direction, range (laser) and angles. That data, is then able to be either saved, or sent, and it will show up on the ABRIS. Make no mistake, ABRIS shows the data, but the coordinates are taken from PrPNK (PVI-800) and overlaid on the ABRIS. As such, INS is everything you should worry about here!

 

As to your assumptions, no, they are baseless and false (demagoguery at best). There are no what's and if's. PVI-800 has never had any interface for adding height, because it never accepted more than a 2D input/output (lat/long). The ME is purely a leftover. On RU-side, we are working with settling bugs and false workings. 

 

52 minutes ago, Hobel said:

There are also instruments in the Ka50 that indicate a vertical deviation that make no sense in the current state of the Ka-50.

I suggest that you get better acquainted with the manual:

 

Edited May 27, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Hobel]

Your other points are valid and I cannot refute them due to lack of evidence.

 

vor 7 Stunden schrieb zerO_crash:

I suggest that you get better acquainted with the manual:

But what do you mean by that? I have also marked point 10, but as I said, it doesn't seem to be implemented ingame.

 

Otherwise, explain how point 10 works or how the red flag( point2) goes away.  

Edited May 27, 2024 by Hobel

[zerO_crash]

On 5/27/2024 at 7:30 AM, Hobel said:

Your other points are valid and I cannot refute them due to lack of evidence.

 

All of them are, and most are confirmed by ED themselves. Again, they sit on the documents, but are not allowed to share. I see no reason to not take them at face value. Afterall, the information exhanged between the devs/community here, is typically on a much higher level than what you'd find, even in univerisities (to mention one). The resr is confirmed in history books concerning the Kamov JSC, and their history.

 

On 5/27/2024 at 7:30 AM, Hobel said:

But what do you mean by that? I have also marked point 10, but as I said, it doesn't seem to be implemented ingame.

 

Otherwise, explain how point 10 works or how the red flag( point2) goes away.  

 

I won't be too harsh with you, as I've always claimed that the manuals are too simplified and lacking in information. With that said, I see why they do it - people barely bother to skim through ED manuals as is. Far fewer would even consider modules based on IRL manuals (complexity, amount of information, +++). Quite frankly, much of the critical information, is often found here in posts going all the way back to 2003. That's why, you'll have to take my word for it.
 

You edited your post, after I replied to you. The point being, the manual explains the different functions of the ADI. I don't see how that was relevant to your initial question. Regardless, to answer you on that; no, the altitude and pitch/bank indicators have never been implemented (since BS1). While the manual explains how they should work (what they indicate), they aren't usable in DCS.

 

I'll also add, that as I looked at the ME, the height setting for waypoints is correct to be displayed. That's to say, the altitude will be neglected in its pre-flight input into PVI-800. However, ABRIS, does have altitude associated with waypoints. If you don't enter it specifically (ME or in mission), then it places them on the ground. Check the "VNAV" section. For all intents and purposes, you can think of ABRIS like a separate  GPS in a car. It will show indications and information, but it is completely detached from the functionality of the vehicle. In Ka-50, that is almost true. ABRIS does have a couple connections (datalink, PrPNK (target waypoints), IT-23 (creating target waypoint based on Shkval input), etc..).

 

You also didn't understand the situation with datalink. Let me explain:

 

The PVI-800 is 2D, meaning no information on altitude is conceived. That does not mean that the reference altitude is SL. Quite the contrary. On low altitude (x =< 500m), the radar altitude is used nominal altitude. If you are above that, it's a mix relying in part on air data sensors. In other words, if you are at a 1000m tall mountain with flat top, then regardless of how high you hover, the markpoint you make with datalink, will be at 1000m. That is, because the PrPNK understands that Ka-50 is hovering 100m above the ground, but it doesn't know whether that ground is at SL or 1000m altitude. That's the basic working of the system. It is overall a bit more complicated, as with the use of laser designator and Shkval orientation, it will be able to place markpoints "lower" than the ground the helicopter hovers above.

 

To further support the above, as per Chizh and ED confirmation; the system is meant for flatter terrain. As soon as you move into a terrain with severe altitude variations, the accuracy will suffer accordingly.
 

With that said, you don't need altitude per se. Instead of using the datalink to locate your markpoints, you can just as easily uncage Shkval, and by the use of laser ranging and ABRIS, locate the contacts. Depending on the zoom level of ABRIS, the dead-zone will be bigger/smaller. In this instance, you are getting relatively close to the target, so much so that you will find and identify it. This method can be used in all kinds of terrain.

 

Finally, while there are things lacking with the BS3, some of us keep pushing ED to implement everything. Right now, I've been pushing for having the hydraulics simulated with independent damage models (they are simulated properly in workings, but share the same damage model - either both get damaged or none. There are other requests ongoing.). I consider that a higher priority than the ADI-functionality. In due time, I will press on for the ADI to have all its functionality implemented.

 

People being poor, doesn't help with getting modules with everything simulated. I, for one, would gladly pay $1000++++, if it only had everything included, no shortcuts taken. The average consumer, however, complains about the the amount of liveries modules ship with, because it might cause them a $100 expenditure (SSD) down the line. It's simply ridiculous. With BS3, we got many improvements, yet the average comment was - "So, how many times do I have to buy the shark again?". Stupidity has no borders, even here, where one would assume a higher average intellect.

Edited May 28, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb zerO_crash:

All of them are, and most are confirmed by ED themselves. Again, they sit on the documents, but are not allowed to share. I see no reason to not take them at face value. Afterall, the information exhanged between the devs/community here, is typically on a much higher level than what you'd find, even in univerisities (to mention one). The resr is confirmed in history books concerning the Kamov JSC, and their history.

 

 

I won't be too harsh with you, as I've always claimed that the manuals are too simplified and lacking in information. With that said, I see why they do it - people barely bother to skim through ED manuals as is. Far fewer would even consider modules based on IRL manuals (complexity, amount of information, +++). Quite frankly, much of the critical information, is often found here in posts going all the way back to 2003. That's why, you'll have to take my word for it.
 

You edited your post, after I replied to you. The point being, the manual explains the different functions of the ADI. I don't see how that was relevant to your initial question. Regardless, to answer you on that; no, the altitude and pitch/bank indicators have never been implemented (since BS1). While the manual explains how they should work (what they indicate), they aren't usable in DCS.

 

I'll also add, that as I looked at the ME, the height setting for waypoints is correct to be displayed. That's to say, the altitude will be neglected in its pre-flight input into PVI-800. However, ABRIS, does have altitude associated with waypoints. If you don't enter it specifically (ME or in mission), then it places them on the ground. Check the "VNAV" section. For all intents and purposes, you can think of ABRIS like a separate  GPS in a car. It will show indications and information, but it is completely detached from the functionality of the vehicle. In Ka-50, that is almost true. ABRIS does have a couple connections (datalink, PrPNK (target waypoints), IT-23 (creating target waypoint based on Shkval input), etc..).

 

You also didn't understand the situation with datalink. Let me explain:

 

The PVI-800 is 2D, meaning no information on altitude is conceived. That does not mean that the reference altitude is SL. Quite the contrary. On low altitude (x =< 300m), the radar altitude is used nominal altitude. If you are above that, it's a mix relying on air data sensors (barometric). In other words, if you are at a 1000m tall mountain with flat top, then regardless of how high you hover, the markpoint you make with datalink, will be at 1000m. That is, because the PrPNK understands that Ka-50 is hovering 100m above the ground, but it doesn't know whether that ground is af SL or 1000m altitude. That's the basic working of the system. It is overall a bit more complicated, as with the use of laser designator and Shkval orientation, it will be able to place markpoints "lower" than the ground the helicopter hovers above.

 

To further support the above, as per Chizh and ED confirmation; the system is meant for flatter terrain. As soon as you move into a terrain with severe altitude variations, the accuracy will suffer accordingly.
 

With that said, you don't need altitude per se. Instead of using the datalink to locate your markpoints, you can just as easily uncage Shkval, and by the use of laser ranging and ABRIS, locate the contacts. Depending on the zoom level of ABRIS, the dead-zone will be bigger/smaller. In this instance, you are getting relatively close to the target, so much so that you will find and identify it. This method can be used in all kinds of terrain.

 

Finally, while there are things lacking with the BS3, some of us keep pushing ED to implement everything. Right now, I've been pushing for having the hydraulics simulated with independent damage models (they are simulated properly in workings, but share the same damage model - either both get damaged or none. There are other requests ongoing.). I consider that a higher priority than the ADI-functionality. In due time, I will press on for the ADI to have all its functionality implemented.

 

People being poor, doesn't help with getting modules with everything simulated. I, for one, would gladly pay $1000++++, if it only had everything included, no shortcuts taken. The average consumer, however, complains about the the amount of liveries modules ship with, because it might cause them a $100 expenditure (SSD) down the line. It's simply ridiculous. With BS3, we got many improvements, yet the average comment was - "So, how many times do I have to buy the shark again?". Stupidity has no borders, even here, where one would assume a higher average intellect.

 

I am more than aware of all the points you list.

 

So I come back to the point, what logic should the ADI altitude direction interact with if the system it is connected to only works in 2D?

 

 the indicator as described should show the vertical direction to the waypoints/mark point, but since our ka50 only has 2D what should be fixed here?  Either it was a superfluous display or there was an option to enter the alt in a certain way.  In real KA-50 images/videos, for example, the flag is not visible.

[zerO_crash]

1 minute ago, Hobel said:

I am more than aware of all the points you list.

 

So I come back to the point, what logic should the ADI altitude direction interact with if the system it is connected to only works in 2D?

 

 the indicator as described should show the vertical direction to the waypoints/mark point, but since our ka50 only has 2D what should be fixed here?  Either it was a superfluous display or there was an option to enter the alt in a certain way.  In real KA-50 images/videos, for example, the flag is not visible.

Well, for one, videos of Ka-50s are not to be compared. There were differences between the airframes, even with the most basic configurations and instruments. Such details can therefore be overlookeded, as there is no certainty in their representation of our bort. The most famous videos, that you likely refer to, have changes even in the HUD and basic AP autonomy.

 

About ADI, there are two cases where the "DIR" would work as desired (flag off, pitch/roll/bank indicators working):

 

- In Route Mode and standard AP configuration (Pitch/Roll/Heading), any deviation from the flight plan (when "Route Mode" got engaged), would be indicated. This goes for PVI-800 either used or not. Speed deviation would be shown (from entering Route Mode or using trimmer). Altitude deviation would only show if Altitude AP (Alt. Hold) would be engaged, with that as reference height (use collective brake to set new reference).

 

- In Route Mode with standard AP configuration (Pitch/Roll/Heading) plus Flight Director. In this case, whenever you would trim the aircraft, just as our HUD shows today, a deviation for pitch/roll/bank would be shown. This goes for PVI-800 either used or not. Speed deviation would be shown (from entering Route Mode or using trimmer). Altitude deviation would only show if Altitude AP (Alt. Hold) would be engaged, with that as reference height (use collective brake to set new reference).

 

Otherwise, the altitude and speed deviation indications would work outside of Route Mode. Trimming would set new desired speed, whereas collective brake would set a desired altitude. (! For altitude deviation to work, Altitude AP (Alt. hold) would have to be engaged.).

 

That's that.