DCS: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Trailer Teaser 💪

[YoYo]

Two weeks? 

Edited May 22, 2024 by YoYo

[Silver_Dragon]

7 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Two weeks? 

 

Best video ever (TM), and no "Drama"...

[Moxica]

This is the one. Nevermind the phantom!
..Well maybe not entirely.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Moxica

[Hog_driver]

Preorder, anybody?

[sirrah]

Not sure yet what I'm going to do with it*, but as I'm a sucker for helo modules, I will purchase this one! 

*please don't shoot me for asking, but does the Kiowa have any unique selling points when it comes to its capabilities?

I mean I'm guessing it won't be as nimble as the Gazelle, won't have as much firepower as the Apache or Hind, and won't have the Hip's lifting abilities. So, will it be a bit of a combination of the aforementioned, or does the Kiowa excel on a certain front?

 

Anyways, it looks awesome (that alone is reason enough for a purchase ) and only two weeks(tm) away!

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

They do not do pre-order, it has been explained. You must pay when the module is available. 

[zerO_crash]

Interesting, that "Bell" logo would indicate to me that Bell test-flew it and approved the authenticity of the module.

 

@Polychop Simulations Am I right in my assumption?

[Qiou87]

1 hour ago, sirrah said:

Not sure yet what I'm going to do with it*, but as I'm a sucker for helo modules, I will purchase this one! 

*please don't shoot me for asking, but does the Kiowa have any unique selling points when it comes to its capabilities?

I mean I'm guessing it won't be as nimble as the Gazelle, won't have as much firepower as the Apache or Hind, and won't have the Hip's lifting abilities. So, will it be a bit of a combination of the aforementioned, or does the Kiowa excel on a certain front?

 

Anyways, it looks awesome (that alone is reason enough for a purchase ) and only two weeks(tm) away!

It's a recon helo with some light attack capabilities ; in that sense it is most similar to the Gazelle, and has nothing to do with attack helos like Hind or Apache, or indeed a heavy transport helo like the Hip. Although it does have some external weapons, it won't carry as many missiles or rockets compared to a true attack helicopter. However it should be much more nimble, allowing you to sneak behind buildings or trees and make use of the optics on top of the mast to spot targets.

It is more modern than the Gazelle, including optics and sensors as well as a digital cockpit, so that might be of interest to you. It was also built as a complement to the Apache, in a kind of hunter-killer kind of way, and I am looking forward to seeing how this can be reflected in DCS gameplay with the light, nimble Kiowa finding the targets for the big Apache and it's standoff missiles.

In my eyes it provides some new and interesting features we don't have in game at the moment, and should certainly offer a lot of fun to those who buy it. I'm very happy to hear that it's out in "Two weeks" 

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, Hog_driver said:

Preorder, anybody?

The Kiowa will be released as a finished product. No Pre-Order, no Early Access. Polychop has a different approach on that.

That doesn't mean, that there won't be any updates/additions down the road. But for now, you get what ypu pay for when it gets released.

[LorenLuke]

1 hour ago, sirrah said:

Not sure yet what I'm going to do with it*, but as I'm a sucker for helo modules, I will purchase this one! 

*please don't shoot me for asking, but does the Kiowa have any unique selling points when it comes to its capabilities?

I mean I'm guessing it won't be as nimble as the Gazelle, won't have as much firepower as the Apache or Hind, and won't have the Hip's lifting abilities. So, will it be a bit of a combination of the aforementioned, or does the Kiowa excel on a certain front?

 

Anyways, it looks awesome (that alone is reason enough for a purchase ) and only two weeks(tm) away!

 

[Cyborg71]

I'm very happy that we are (allegedly) approaching the final "weeks TM" before the release of the KW.

It looks really sweet in the teaser trailer, trailer teaser thing. 

More importantly than just looking the part, former Kiowa & Apache pilot 'Casmo' has described the flight model as solid if not the best. 

Good work Polychop. Looking forward to this.

 

[pii]

8 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Interesting, that "Bell" logo would indicate to me that Bell test-flew it and approved the authenticity of the module.

 

@Polychop Simulations Am I right in my assumption?

No 

[Jonay]

8 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Interesting, that "Bell" logo would indicate to me that Bell test-flew it and approved the authenticity of the module.

 

@Polychop Simulations Am I right in my assumption?

Not sure if anyone from Bell has specifically flown it, but they do have the official licensing rights to it.  As they also have for the Gazelle with Airbus.  Not many other modules have official sanction from the manufacturers.

 

9 hours ago, sirrah said:

Not sure yet what I'm going to do with it*, but as I'm a sucker for helo modules, I will purchase this one! 

*please don't shoot me for asking, but does the Kiowa have any unique selling points when it comes to its capabilities?

I mean I'm guessing it won't be as nimble as the Gazelle, won't have as much firepower as the Apache or Hind, and won't have the Hip's lifting abilities. So, will it be a bit of a combination of the aforementioned, or does the Kiowa excel on a certain front?

 

Anyways, it looks awesome (that alone is reason enough for a purchase ) and only two weeks(tm) away!

it has the L2MUM data link ability to tap into a video feed from overhead drones, it's been featured in a teaser/short recently.  Will not have ability to share/receive from any other player module though (e.g. Apache)

 

null

Edited May 22, 2024 by Jonay

[zerO_crash]

52 minutes ago, Jonay said:

Not sure if anyone from Bell has specifically flown it, but they do have the official licensing rights to it.  As they also have for the Gazelle with Airbus.  Not many other modules have official sanction from the manufacturers

I infer that from the Bell trademark. As serious company as they are, it would be surprising if they allowed to make PR and money off their image, without having checked what they vouch for to begin with. That, even while getting commission from underlying sales. It is essentially what Bell did with the UH-1H in DCS.

 

It'd be interesting to have that confirmed.

 

58 minutes ago, pii said:

No 

The question was obviously directed at devs.

Since you chose to answer, you might as well produce a source.

Edited May 22, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Jonay]

24 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

I infer that from the Bell trademark. As serious company as they are, it would be surprising if they allowed to make PR and money off their image, without having checked what they vouch for to begin with. That, even while getting commission from underlying sales. It is essentially what Bell did with the UH-1H in DCS.

 

It'd be interesting to have that confirmed.

 

The question was obviously directed at devs.

Since you chose to answer, you might as well produce a source.

 

null

[zerO_crash]

1 minute ago, Jonay said:

null

 

I see!

[karasinicoff]

I wont buy this one as Gazelle gun sounds horrible, surely the same.

Also still Gazelle IR senser keep beeping forever, many bugs since new updates last year.

I have reported issues already but simply ignored.

Good luck!

 

Edited May 23, 2024 by karasinicoff

[pii]

13 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Since you chose to answer, you might as well produce a source.

You seem mad bro, why?

I base it on the first Bell Helo we had in DCS and the TRADEMARK issues and the discussions we had here, and since they had those issues, and had them resolved BEFORE the module was finished I doubt anyone from Bell flew it around at most they might have looked at the helo model.

Now that was some time ago and I'm getting old so take it or leave it I don't care either way...

Because...

I'm off to pretend I'm flying f-4e now, later.

[Hiob]

Companies give away their trademarks for much less sophisticated games all the time. I don't think they are necessarily concerned with "realism". More with PR and representation. I would assume "Looks" are more important to them than "feels"; unless they expect to use the "simulation" part for themselves, e.g. as trainer or demonstrator for possible customers.

[zerO_crash]

11 hours ago, pii said:

You seem mad bro, why?

I base it on the first Bell Helo we had in DCS and the TRADEMARK issues and the discussions we had here, and since they had those issues, and had them resolved BEFORE the module was finished I doubt anyone from Bell flew it around at most they might have looked at the helo model.

Now that was some time ago and I'm getting old so take it or leave it I don't care either way...

Because...

I'm off to pretend I'm flying f-4e now, later.

No, not mad. Rather, with regards to the comment, expcting some background. Don't take this personally, it's called source verification. Not everything needs it, but this topic certainly did. It is a poor form of communication to distribute different information on different channels. Polychop (not only) has certainly potential for improvement in this department (not everyone participates on Discord, or in dev. channels).

 

How through the "inspection" of UH-1H was as a product, we don't know, other than Bell associates actually having tried it. Kamov JSC also performed tests (to some degree) on the Ka-50, before BS1 got approved. It seems to be the norm that a 3rd party can easily establish confidence in their product based on a more thorough and objective process. Why, according to the linked Discord comment, that is a "private" matter, is suprising from the perspective of PR. Still, it's their choice to make.

 

Enjoy that F-4E, looks pretty neat!

 

10 hours ago, Hiob said:

Companies give away their trademarks for much less sophisticated games all the time. I don't think they are necessarily concerned with "realism". More with PR and representation. I would assume "Looks" are more important to them than "feels"; unless they expect to use the "simulation" part for themselves, e.g. as trainer or demonstrator for possible customers.

 

It very much depends on the company and what standards they hold themselves up to. I imagine, that within a simulated environment, a company that gives their approval and marketing permission, the quality of the product as a whole, matters more. No one would hold Bell responsible for a "gamey"-product like Ace Combat. In a simulated (i.e. more serious) environment, however, if things are off, one does tend to ask questions. Liability at its lowest form (customer). Another thing is, as you point out, that the companies themselves are often interested in using/adjusting the product to their own needs. In that capacity, I doubt we'll ever get Dolce Gabbana stamp their watermark, guaranteeing for the smell of the exhaust fumes of F-35. The companies who are interested in DCS/simulated environment, are often the ones who benefit from the product itself.

 

At least now, we know, that we won't know about Bell and KW. Should there be inaccuracy, Bell won't risk having determined sim-pilots knock on their door, demanding explanation.

Edited May 23, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Hiob]

I'm pretty sure, in the eyes of the typical Bell manager there is no difference between Ace Combat and DCS. If they even know either of them. I assume 99% of people that are concerned with the semantic difference between "game" and "simulator" are right here in such forums. 

[zerO_crash]

I'd have to disagree here. Simulators nowadays, are not what they used to be. They keep getting more and more relevant, as budgets get revised, even for militaries around the world. Have a look at the pilot curriculum in the air force F-35 program - major reliance on simulators. That is, beyond fresh pilot training. Lockheed Martin pride themselves on the similarity between their simulator and the real aircraft, which is why a two-seater F-35 is not needed.

 

The Ka-50/Mi-24, etc... are used in the Russian Air Force, Frontal Aviation and Regional Defense Force. US is the same. Whereas before, it was startup with the A-10C, now, pilots are building muscle memory (tedious practice) and training different scenarios. One could question what is more practical in terms of training; flipping the training-switch in the real airframe and make "buzzing"-sound for non-deployable ordnance in order to immerse oneself, or actually jump into a simulator where a Maverick or JDAM cost equally much. Point being, Ukrianian pilots are training in DCS for F-16/A-10C/Su-27/MiG-29/+. Not only procedures, but even tactics and employment. USAF is likely the biggest user of simulators for their pilots.

 

Ever noticed how, when new airframes are built, they are being put through their paces in a simulator-environment before actually being built and flown? While you cannot simulate G-forces properly in such an environment, you are still replicating a solid portion of the what it is all about. Flight systems, AP, etc... If you'd look at building of missiles/rockets/hypersonics/aircraft/etc.., it's all CFD simulations, with a, comparatively, small amount of IRL testing. Without CFD, F-117 would never fly, yet has had a fairly successful career. What was once thought of as impossible, simulations allow to test, and prove the exact opposite.

 

What you use a simulator for, is of lesser importance. The question that matters, is whether it does the job that it was design for, and whether well enough.

Edited May 23, 2024 by zerO_crash

[cfrag]

3 hours ago, Hiob said:

I'm pretty sure, in the eyes of the typical Bell manager there is no difference between Ace Combat and DCS.

That would rather depend on the kind of manager we talk about. If it's a PR/IP/TM manager who sells the Bell Brand/Trade Mark to the entertainment industry, they definitely see a difference: AC has a much larger audience, and is therefore of much bigger interest to these managers. And those IP people couldn't care less about what kind of simulation or game their IP is used in. They care about eyeballs, and potentially (a teeny tiny bit) reputation. But eyeballs rule, like clicks and views at YT. Do they care about realism? Not the the licensing types. They own the Bell brand, and they make sure that everyone adheres to proper brand licensing regulation as set forth in the licensing contract. TBH, they have to, else they lose or dilute their Mark. 

There may be some other deals wrt realism of the product (game), but usually that's incidental, and they are often tied to other contracts (if, for example, you produce for a common client)

Since we don't know the details of PC's deal with Bell, I guess (no info whatsoever) that they are primarily focused on being allowed to use the Bell Mark, and the likeness of the Kiowa (shape, colors, aural signature), and probably an agreement that the product may not show Bell in a bad light/context (this can be a headache, especially for mil games). So 'certification' of a license usually amounts to representatives making sure that the Mark is displayed correctly, the shapes, colors and aural signature are correct, and their brand is presented as positively as possible. And the certification will be more stringent the more eyeballs are expected to see the licensed product. Realism? A far, far distant concern after the Mark is protected.

Edited May 23, 2024 by cfrag

[Trettifire]

Well well well... 

[Yurgon]

On 5/22/2024 at 1:45 PM, sirrah said:

*please don't shoot me for asking, but does the Kiowa have any unique selling points when it comes to its capabilities?

Maybe not unique, but to my understanding, the KW will work extremely well with a bunch of other DCS modules and, given proper mission preparation, pilots have amazing tools to enhance their situational awareness.

More than anything, in Multiplayer the KW will be awesome (as showcased by Casmo today). The MMS should have good optics and has a laser that is compatible with designating for Apaches and basically any US aircraft that can employ LGBs (to include F-5E and F-4E, as long as someone puts a GBU-12 on a pylon and the pilots have a rough idea of where to drop the bomb), it uses MGRS (but can do Lat/Long as well), and it has as least some capacity to bring its own weapons.

It's certainly not the killer that the Apache is, but as a hunter and most of all as part of a larger force, I think it's going to be the perfect addition to DCS.

I hope mission designers will find great ways to build missions that mimic all these cool cooperative capabilities in SP, and make them shine in MP.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Yurgon