AVSIM review of DCS

[th3flyboy]

Hey guys, here's a link to my AVSIM review of DCS Black Shark.

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0409/DCS/Blackshark.htm

 

If you guys find any inaccuracies in the information in this review, please tell me so I can fix them...

[Staybullex]

that's a fantastic and detailed review

[joey45]

the SU-25 is a not a T....

[th3flyboy]

the SU-25 is a not a T....

 

look at this picture real quick

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0409/DCS/ScreenShot_085.jpg

 

I thought that the original su-25 did NOT have a shkval on it.

[slug88]

That's not a shkval, that's a laser designator. That's definitely a Su-25A.

[Nate--IRL--]

look at this picture real quick

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0409/DCS/ScreenShot_085.jpg

 

I thought that the original su-25 did NOT have a shkval on it.

 

Very good and honest review. However thats definitely a standard Frog. The window on the nose is not a shkval (IIRC it's a laser designator.)

 

Nate

Edited April 19, 2009 by Nate--IRL--

[th3flyboy]

Very good and honest review. However thats definitely a standard Frog. The window on the nose is not a shkval (IIRC it's a laser designator.)

 

Nate

 

OK, I'll have that fixed as soon as I can, but right now I'm focused on school work.

[joey45]

Look at the pit/canopy.

 

SU25 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Su-25.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Su-25_Nose_view_-_Le_Bourget.JPEG

 

SU25 -t - http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-Su-25T/1153555/L/&tbl=&photo_nr=3&sok=&sort=&prev_id=1232407&next_id=NEXTID

[th3flyboy]

alright, I'll have it fixed ASAP

 

*edit

 

E-Mail shot off to the editor, he'll get it corrected, I don't have access to fix the actual error.

Edited April 19, 2009 by th3flyboy

[Cosmo81]

They are working on porting it over to a new engine which will be available as a free update to allow it to work with future modules of DCS

 

really ? free ?

[Yskonyn]

really ? free ?

[/size][/font]

 

AFAIK the new engine will by introduced by one of the new modules. There's been no word on wether the new engine will be installed for BS over time. The plan is to have all modules MP compatible, but that's not the same thing.

 

I would remove this bit if i were you. It causes people to have, perhaps invalid, expectations. Besides you give the impression that this is work in progress and will be released soon, which is not known yet.

Just to prevent flamewars I would edit this out. ;)

 

Also I don't think the intro is relevant to BS. Asking wether it will dethrone Falcon 4.0 is not relevant as they are different simulators. Falcon is a fixed wing combat sim and BS is a rotary wing combat sim. Future modules of DCS might be asked that question though.

If you want to make a relation in some way call it the coming back of the Jane's Longbow era or something. :)

 

Just some constructive criticism.

Otherwise a fine review!

Edited April 20, 2009 by Yskonyn

[sobek]

AFAIK the new engine will by introduced by one of the new modules. There's been no word on wether the new engine will be installed for BS over time. The plan is to have all modules MP compatible, but that's not the same thing.

 

That is not correct. As a enhancement to the engine is released, every module will be ported to the same engine. Basically the modules you have just determine which aircraft you can fly. The engine will be the same regardless of what modules you have.

[Yskonyn]

That is not correct. As a enhancement to the engine is released, every module will be ported to the same engine. Basically the modules you have just determine which aircraft you can fly. The engine will be the same regardless of what modules you have.

 

Is that confirmed or is it 'the plan'? That's the point. If you put this in reviews as a fact people will get their expectations up.

If it is already confirmed as a fact then I stand corrected. I missed that obviously. Can you link me to a statement?

[159th_Viper]

Is that confirmed or is it 'the plan'? That's the point. If you put this in reviews as a fact people will get their expectations up.

If it is already confirmed as a fact then I stand corrected. I missed that obviously. Can you link me to a statement?

 

 

See This Post

[Yskonyn]

Doesn't this qualify as 'being the plan', rather than being confirmed? As such it shouldn't be presented in a review as a fact.

I might be nitpicking here, but I also know how 'sensitive' the sim community is for getting facts vs fluke.

 

Anyway just my point of view. You can do with it as you please of course. :P

[sobek]

Doesn't this qualify as 'being the plan', rather than being confirmed? As such it shouldn't be presented in a review as a fact.

I might be nitpicking here, but I also know how 'sensitive' the sim community is for getting facts vs fluke.

 

So what? You still being alive tomorrow is also just the plan and not a fact.:D

 

So far every ED statement concerning this has hinted at one thing, that any update to the engine will be made available to every DCS user. Any fail to do so would most likely render the different modules MP-incompatible, which would be a big setback to the series and definitley not desireable for the developers under several viewpoints. Also it has been stated in the past several times that the modules are being designed with upgradeability and portability in mind.

 

Thus IMHO, what ED said implies that to the best of their ability, they will try to keep all modules up to date. What more confirmation can you actually ask for?

[Yskonyn]

So what? You still being alive tomorrow is also just the plan and not a fact.:D

 

So far every ED statement concerning this has hinted at one thing, that any update to the engine will be made available to every DCS user. Any fail to do so would most likely render the different modules MP-incompatible, which would be a big setback to the series and definitley not desireable for the developers under several viewpoints. Also it has been stated in the past several times that the modules are being designed with upgradeability and portability in mind.

 

Thus IMHO, what ED said implies that to the best of their ability, they will try to keep all modules up to date. What more confirmation can you actually ask for?

 

You seem to miss the point, sobek.

It's not about wether the statements by ED should be regarded as facts or not by the community. It's about reviews stating facts.

If something is not yet a fact, leave it out of a review. But like I said that's my POV and you can disagree. :P

[sobek]

How can anything regarding the future ever be a fact? If you take any review as fact, you are quite naive. Every review is of course biased by the opinion of the person who wrote it and is therefore not objective.

 

How i see it, what i stated is EDs current course of action and can and should be used by reviewers to inform people. You seem to have a different opinion of this, which is your good right, of course. That's all i can and will say about that.

 

cheers

[SSneg]

I disagree about the tutorials being the advantage of DCS. These tutorials are better than nothing, of course, but they are essentially non-interactive machinima movies, whereas current technology allows to create much better tutorials.

[arneh]

This statement is just wrong: "DCS models ring vortex effect, which is essentially when you fly low and slow over the ground. If you are too close to the ground your helicopter can’t gain enough lift and drops out of the sky."

 

A Vortex Ring State (which I guess is what you were trying to describe) has nothing to do with being close to the ground (in fact being close to the ground gives you more lift because of ground effect). Vortex Ring State is when you decend too fast at slow speed and the rotor gets into its own downwash.

 

And about the cockpit instruments you seem to be missing, then that's a different helicopter than the one ED has modelled (or possibly same helicopter after an upgrade). Since there are so few Ka-50s there really aren't any standard, and some have different instruments from others. The one ED modelled simply didn't have those instruments, it's not something they forgot, or left out because it was classified.

[Pilotasso]

This gets me salivating for a fast jet big time. Grrr we keep getting flying lower and slower in new SIm's. :D

[Yskonyn]

Every review is of course biased by the opinion of the person who wrote it and is therefore not objective.

 

Sadly that's the state of many reviews nowadays, but that doesn't mean reviews are supposed to be subjective.

A review should plainly give a description of facts, pro's and cons, achievements and duds, but all from a general point of view, or maybe I should say a comparing point of view. (this might get lost in translation ^^) Never from a personal perspective or a 'I wanted it to have...' point of view.

Too often products are rated by personal preference these days and if you regard that as the standard for reviews, sobek, then you're the victim of 'herding effect'.

 

For the record, I am not saying the review in this topic is only based on personal taste, that would rip my comments massively out of context.

I merely think a review should focus on fact and that's that.

 

To prevent hi-jacking I suggest you PM me if you want to have a further discussion with me about the issue.

[GGTharos]

Anything that has not been announced as 'being worked on right now' is pie-in-the-sky.

[EvilBivol-1]

th3flyboy,

 

I see that your overall opinion of Black Shark is overwhelmingly positive and I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I do have some criticism of your review, because a number of times it struck me as poorly informed and misleading.

 

Most importantly, you twice question ED's cooperation with Kamov and Subject Matter Experts (pilots and others). You indicate you have done some kind of research into this matter, but you provide no further details. You are effectively accusing ED of either lying or misleading the public regarding its own product research, but you provide no evidence for your claims. I found these comments unnecessary and unprofessional.

 

You also question that the "flight model has changed at least once in beta." Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean. Because of the nature of the project and the internal factors in the company, Black Shark was in "beta" for over 2 years. Not only the FM, but the entire helicopter model was in continuous development in that time.

 

It appears that some of your product information is sourced to various forum postings and it's not clear that they came from ED. For example, unless I missed something, ED has never confirmed that future engine upgrades will be free. That's a possibility, but it's not yet determined.

 

When did ED promise a multiplayer campaign system in Black Shark?

 

You also mention that ED did not model some "classified systems." About the only classified system ED did not model is the IFF system, but you did not mention that. Instead, you focused on the "black areas" seen on a single airframe as part of experimental systems testing. The overhead panel you describe was simply a VCR remote bolted on that particular airframe to record cockpit footage during the test trials.

 

There are also a number of technical errors. I will list some in the order I found them:

 

The Ka-50 did enter serial production in 1994. In fact, the last serially produced airframes were rolled off the production line in 2008. The production run was very limited by any standard, but nevertheless it was in production.

 

As mentioned by Arneh, your understanding and description of VRS is wrong.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the Ka-50 being designed to take out targets from "up high." Like most other helicopters, the Ka-50 is designed for low-altitude operations, with a "running pop up" maneuver used for target search and engagement.

 

The Ka-50 was designed to defeat the M-60 tank? Is there a source for that?

 

In multiplayer, the sever only dictates graphical settings if they are "forced on" in the mission. It's up to the server whether to do this or not.

 

In general, I think it would have been best to simply review the facts and impressions of gameplay, without moving into unnecessary information about the "why's and when's" of product development. If you did want to include some of that in-depth information, it would have been best to send some questions to ED for official answers. Otherwise, you ended up posting what amounts to guesswork in an official review by a major flight sim website. IMHO, this is a good example where less could be more. More information of gameplay, less opinion on everything else.

 

Nevertheless, I thank you for taking the time to examine the product and definitely for recommending it to others!

Edited April 20, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[EvilBivol-1]

I will quote ED's lead FM developer commenting on the review:

...во время разработки она действительно НЕ МОГЛА не изменяться, развиваясь, начиная с той, что впоследствии перешла вертоботам и кончая финальной. Были изменения по мере уточнения и усложнения модели, были изменения по мере появления новых данных.

"During development, the FM really COULD NOT have not changed as it evolved, starting with the one that would be later used on AI helicopters and ending with the final one. Changes were made as the model became more accurate and complex, also changes based on new data."
Edited April 20, 2009 by EvilBivol-1