Ka-50 Black Shark vs real world

[Owl]

Then I fly the Black Shark missions, I'm thinking about how real world pilots find their enemies on ground. To be honest, in Black Shark it is possible to see the enemies from a long distance, because there are small black pixels on the fields. Off course you can´t see manpads and vechieles behind trees and buildings, but then they are placed on a field, you can see them far away, and long enough away, so they don´t shoot at you.

 

In the real world, I would think the vechieles are camouflaged, and not placed in the middle of a open field....? How do a real pilot navigate and find this kind of enemies, before they are so close at them, that they got shot down?

[EtherealN]

One method is to scan the terrain with the Skhval, and you'll also have more recon and datalink activity going on IRL.

[159th_Viper]

Eyes in the Sky and on the Ground vectoring you to the Target.

[Feuerfalke]

In RL you are not on your own attacking dummies.

 

You have a network of recon to get exact target information from, before you take-off. Satellite navigation, recon units, A2G-Radar, reports from other units or previous flights, etc.

 

Once airborne you are in contact with other units, airborne and on the ground, calling you in for CAS, assistance, recon, etc. beyond your predefined targets. They also update you on target-positions, AAA&SAMs, assign new waypoints and routes etc. You know, all the stuff you can do with the ABRIS and PVI-800, but you rarely use unless you accidently flew over a trigger that asks you to perform these updates.

 

And then, of course, units in RL don't just pop-up when you are in a given range. They also usually don't operate in single units, but in groups, squadrons and platoons, have supportive units nearby and they are probably attacked by other units from your side.

 

So, as posted before: DCS:BS is a most perfect high-fidelity simulation of the Ka-50, but not of the battlefield environment *YET* (keeps praying for further modules)

[EtherealN]

Aye, and to be honest, I am not sure that I (with todays PC capabilities) would want them to go all out on simulating that environment dynamically. I could see it chew up a rediculous amount of processing power that I personally would much rather spend on simulating the aircraft I'm flying - or give the cycles to air unit and wingman AI.

 

Better use of resources would be to expand the capabilities of the mission editor - perhaps even allow the introduction of scripted logic beyond the trigger system (such as allowed by Operation Flashpoint etcetera). This could let skilled mission designers use a good Smoke and Mirrors approach (to paraphrace Longbow 2 mission design :P ) to give their missions a feel that is analogous to a really living environment. (And I have to say I'm in awe of some of the missions out there and what they've made with the current system - give those guys more scripting capabilities and awesome things will happen, I'm sure.)

 

Another thing I would kill for would be an expanded campaign system where you can carry over variables from one mission to the next, as well as branch the campaign more so that you not only advance to a stage and get a mission based on score, but rather that you can also branch to whole different selection groups depending on variables within the mission.

 

But I'm sure these things are all stuff that ED has looked at, and I remain confident that even if their priorities wouldn't end up being exactly in tune with my own, they'll do a good job.