So why does DCS:BS...

[Ebodee]

with system modeling complexity feel more like the helo you fly and nav with (think Flight Simulator) than the weapon system it also is? Almost like I would rather aviate and navigate and use the weapon system a toy like hydraulic actuation on suspension is to tricked-out autos.

 

Just a thought pondered too loud that made its' way to the forums. :joystick:

[Feuerfalke]

Can you be a bit more specific, what aspect of weapons deployment is not realistic to you?

[Shaman]

I completely do not understand what you just said Ebodee. Totally lost text in on-line translation engine I guess.

[JozMk.II]

It appears to me that he's saying that he feels more effort was placed on development of the Shark's flight model and avionics(particularly the navigation avionics) than its weapon systems; that the weapon systems seem tacked on like hydraulics on a tricked-out car. He wonders why this is.

 

Perhaps you, Ebodee, aren't familiar with such a complex combat-based sim? Keep in mind that navigation is an important part of flying, military or civilian, real life or sim. Also, the Shark isn't exactly state-of-the-art by today's standards; it was designed over two decades ago and as far as I know hasn't been upgraded much, if at all since then.

Edited August 11, 2009 by JozMk.II

[sinelnic]

Well if I understood you correctly, I think I felt the same for a while, just enjoying the helo by itself, turning it on and off, flying, navigating and such.

 

But having tried the Deployment campaign, with its very nice introductory flights, easy "conflict escalation" curve and simple but effective "storytelling" that sets the mood in, I became more involved in the actual usage of the Shark as a war machine, developed a sense of purpose, and became a better human being.

 

Guess everyone enjoys this differently...

[Zembla]

It's true the helicopter has been modelled with such fidelity you would almost feel combat can only come as an afterthought... however, that's merely a phese in the evolution you go through when learning to fly the thing :)

 

Or at least, that's how it was for me. Initially I was very content with flying the aircraft from A to B, and coming to grips with how it turns/lands, basically does things. With the ABRIS and all the other systems on the helicopter there's plenty of stuff to find out before you go into combat. But once I did [go into combat], I found all of the systems suddenly made sense. All the stuff in the cockpit is there for a purpose, this purpose is combat. Sure, you can also just navigate the terrain with it, but in the end, the automation and all the systems are there to deploy the helicopter to the battlefield.

 

A lot of the stuff in the cockpit suddenly made more sense to me once I started flying the campaigns.

 

Then again, DCS is a switchologists' wet dream also :p

 

-Z

[Ebodee]

Forget it guys, it was a thought lost in translation. What I intended the reader to ascertain was how I felt the modeling of aerodynamics and systems make DCS:BS feel more like Flight Simulator and the weapon system is more like a toy to play with.

 

ED did a very good job on this sim is probably the end result of this rambling if you can wrap your brain around this concept!

[159th_Viper]

Forget it guys, it was a thought lost in translation. What I intended the reader to ascertain was how I felt the modeling of aerodynamics and systems make DCS:BS feel more like Flight Simulator and the weapon system is more like a toy to play with.

 

ED did a very good job on this sim is probably the end result of this rambling if you can wrap your brain around this concept!

 

That would be precisely the point that the designers of the Kamov had invisioned in the first instance.......It is a Single-Seat Attack Helo. One can just imagine if the Weapons Deployment was as difficult to Master and implement as the Flight and attendant systems.

 

I would hesitate to add that the workload would have been just too taxing on the Pilot had it been otherwise.

[GGTharos]

The workload is considered too taxing as is. Note they are transitioning back to two-seat attack helis at Kamov.

 

Ebodee, I think you had an interesting thought there; I'll ask you then to consider that your ability to guide weapons is intertwined with the nav system quite thoroughly.

 

Consider that you can actually slave the shkval to the helmet sight and 'turn to target' to a target beyond the camera's FoV, and the camera will be looking to it once it comes within the FoV. You can do the same with datalink.

 

You have automatic turn to target.

 

I understand your comment, and I think in turn, I will suggest that weapon employment is a far less complex operation than navigation and flight.

 

For this, I will refer you to owning a pistol. You use a map, or at the very least landmarks to get to a place (potentially complex and difficult) and once there, you pull out the pistol and shoot - just like a toy.

 

You must use the correct technique, but there's nothing particularely complex about it.

[Panzertard]

So the question is rather "is the combat system modelled as good as the flight modelling" and "does it really feel like this in the real Ka-50?".

I wish I knew :)

[sinelnic]

Well every weapons system that I know consists of a sight and a trigger from the user´s point of view... some sights are more complicated to operate (radars and such) but in the end, you get a firing solution and hit the trigger. The Shark´s systems are quite simple in fact, and perhaps, what makes the Shkval seem so easy (once you learn it) is that it being an optical system, the game is limited in its simulation by the richness of the visual simulation, that is, you don´t get targets partially covered by grass or bushes, nor you get difficult lighting conditions from shadowing or similar. But once we take that as it is, the operation IMO is as real as it gets. The trick lies, however, as GGTharos mentions, in employing the full system in an effective, efficient and consistent way, which is truly incredibly complicated. My 2 cents.

[Ebodee]

The workload is considered too taxing as is. Note they are transitioning back to two-seat attack helis at Kamov.

 

Ebodee, I think you had an interesting thought there; I'll ask you then to consider that your ability to guide weapons is intertwined with the nav system quite thoroughly.

 

Consider that you can actually slave the shkval to the helmet sight and 'turn to target' to a target beyond the camera's FoV, and the camera will be looking to it once it comes within the FoV. You can do the same with datalink.

 

You have automatic turn to target.

 

I understand your comment, and I think in turn, I will suggest that weapon employment is a far less complex operation than navigation and flight.

 

For this, I will refer you to owning a pistol. You use a map, or at the very least landmarks to get to a place (potentially complex and difficult) and once there, you pull out the pistol and shoot - just like a toy.

 

You must use the correct technique, but there's nothing particularely complex about it.

 

You captured the moment Tharos! :beer: I do feel overloaded and although I bought the game like 2-3 weeks ago, I am still working on cleaning up my start-up procedure. I got the full system checks from cold to ready to taxi in under 15 mins now.

 

Just so much to do with just wrestling this beast into a hover and managing to fly with the main rotors still attached who has time to ruin the scenery with weapon pock marks? I DO when that time comes .. like a few weeks from now when I learned how to navigate with ABRIS and PVI-800 although I can enter a flightplan now and navigate around ABRIS systems better... oh well back to work. :book: