Compatibility Patch & Missing features of the Ka-50

[STP Dragon]

Hi ED Team,

 

I'm looking forward to the compatibility patch. It will bring a lot of new features to our lovely eggbeater.

- New sound engine

- New terrain textures

- Grass

- New wather

- New A.I. behaviour

- New editor features

- Dynamic Cockpit shaddows (???)

 

In my point of view this will be a complete new game I want to thank ED for.

 

And I have some questions / suggestions.

 

 

Launch-Warning-System:

In the A-10c you have a working missile-launch-warning-system.

The Ka-50 also have this system but till now it was "out of function".

You can find this switch on the left-top side of the front cockpit. (see picture)

Isn't it possible to add this function to the Ka-50 if it is already working for the A-10c?

 

Even for experts it is still very dangerous in the battlefield because you are not able to notice a missile launch of a non-laser-guided SAM.

 

This feature would help to stay alive.

 

 

Friend-Enemy-Identifier:

Also this is a switch without function in the Ka-50 cockpit.

You can find it in the middle of the right side panel.

I'm no expert and I don't know how it works exactly but wouldn't be awesome to see the friendly Ka-50's in the TAD of the A-10c?

Or maybe the green X in the HUD like the friendly ground vehicles.

 

 

Buddy lasing:

The compatibility patch is a patch to bring the multiplayers together and establish a coop feature between the Ka-50 and the A-10c.

In my point of view the buddy lasing is the most important feature of the multiplayer coop between Ka-50 and A-10c.

Yes I know it would not be realistic because that's different systems.

But is it realistic that Ka-50 fly together with A-10c? Is it realistic that A-10c's are flying in Georgia?

No! So why loseing this feature?

 

How to change the laser code of the Ka-50?

Hm... do we have to? Why can't have the Ka-50 a fix laser code?

 

 

JTAC for Ka-50:

This will get tricky...

It is not possible to adjust the Shkval to a L-L or UTM coordinate.

But maybe the JTAC can send a datalink into the ABRIS.

I know that this is not possible in reallity but... who cares?

It would be a awesome feature!

 

 

 

 

 

I want to know what ED is thinking about this features.

Maybe a developer can say what is possible to do and what not? :helpsmilie:

Edited July 6, 2011 by =STP= Dragon

[Cali]

Hate to be the bearing of bad news...........I don't see this happening. But, we'll see what the patch brings. At this point I bet they are just working on getting the patch done and not adding new things.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cali

[MTFDarkEagle]

I agree with Cali that I don't see most of this happening. However: if there would be any feature I would love the most: buddylasing between the two aircraft. A single, reserved, dedicated code for the Ka-50 for the A-10C to pick up would be the best feature ever. Simple reason for me: with my squad we fly the Ka-50 mostly (appart from 1 member, who flies the A-10A), and with the upgrade patch the A-10C could join in combat. So if the Ka-50's can't reach a far away priority target, they could call in an A-10C.

 

That is my dream, and I sincerly hope ED would implement it. If not, the world is not lost off course, but given the fact we can have Kh-25 missiles on the Ka-50, and fly in Dutch (!?) liveries, they are willing to deviate from reality ever so slightly.

 

I never beg for features, but for once I have to step out of my league:

 

I BEG for this feature! :D

(disclaimer: but off course I would respect ED as much if they would not implement it.)

[winz]

It is not possible to adjust the Shkval to a L-L or UTM coordinate.

Isn't it?

I haven't flown the BS in a while but isn't it possible to enter a target point into the rubicon nav system (in L-L format) and then slave the skhval to the location?

 

Anyway...I would love to see buddy lasing even if it's not realistic.

Edited July 6, 2011 by winz

[STP Dragon]

@ Cali & DarkEagle:

The hope dies last and I like to know what ED thinks about this features.

If the features was/will be discussed/planed or even work on it.

 

I think this are important features for a compatibility. In my point of view a compatibility is not only a "fly together in the same online-world" but a full coop and teamplay capable feature.

 

 

Isn't it?

I haven't flown the BS in a while but isn't it possible to enter a target point into the rubicon nav system (in L-L format) and then slave the skhval to the location?

 

You can aligne the Shkval to a Datalink but not to a waypoint.

You can add coordinates to create waypoints but you can't aligne the Shkval to it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by =STP= Dragon

[winz]

I'm pretty sure, you can allign shkval to a tgt point. I'm almost certain I used that functionality quite alot.

Cannot test it atm, but I think all it takes is to select a target point on the nav panel and uncage shkval.

[213]

add ka-50sh

 

that is all.

 

:)

[Cali]

@ Cali & DarkEagle:

The hope dies last and I like to know what ED thinks about this features.

If the features was/will be discussed/planed or even work on it.

 

I think this are important features for a compatibility. In my point of view a compatibility is not only a "fly together in the same online-world" but a full coop and teamplay capable feature.

 

 

 

 

You can aligne the Shkval to a Datalink but not to a waypoint.

You can add coordinates to create waypoints but you can't aligne the Shkval to it.

 

Most likely we'll have to wait til it's released or very close to being released, before we know what features it's going to have. Nothing wrong with wanting something, I hope they do a compatibility patch for FC2/FC3 :).

[STP Dragon]

@ winz:

You can lock a target by shkval and do a laser range measuring. Then you can save the target position into your ABRIS and send this position to your wingmans (Datalink).

Once you received this Datalink you can aligne your Shkval to this position automatically.

BUT you can not enter coordinates and aligne the Shkval to them.

You only can enter coordinates to create waypoints but you can not aligne the Shkval to a waypoint (only to a Datalink).

 

Edit:

 

... and my idea was that a JTAC is sending a Datalink into your ABRIS of the Ka-50 like the JTAC is sending the "red-triangle" into the TAD of the A-10c.

Edited July 6, 2011 by =STP= Dragon

[winz]

AFAIK you can also allign shkval to target points (not waypoints) stored in the PVI. Will try it when I get out of work.

[Grimes]

They have the JTAC sound files for a bunch of weapons the A-10C can't even use, including everything available on the shark. So I think it is only a matter of how they get the targeting info the Ka-50.

 

I kinda like the idea of buddy lasing. Even if the Ka-50 gets a locked laser code it would give a reason for players to interact a little more with each other.

[STP Dragon]

@ winz:

Never heard about that but I'm not omniscient.

Please report how it works if it's working.

[chromium]

Isn't it?

I haven't flown the BS in a while but isn't it possible to enter a target point into the rubicon nav system (in L-L format) and then slave the skhval to the location?

 

Anyway...I would love to see buddy lasing even if it's not realistic.

 

It's possible: mem a Target Point via L/L coordinates, than use the DL to Ingress function of the datalink whitout choose any Datalink simbol and uncage the skhval: if you have a Targ.point selected in PVI800, the skhval will point at the Tar.Point coordinates.

 

Very useful when AFAC want to assign an ingress or observation point to a CAS flight without mem it as ABRIS symbol (maybe it's too far or too risky to be exposed more than few seconds): he can use ERBL function, choose the point, read the coordinates and tell'em to the assigned flight.

[STP Dragon]

@chromium:

Thank you for the clarification. Very interesting.

Please can you tell me the page in the manual so I can try to reproduce? :smartass:

[sobek]

I think you all underestimate the importance of smoke markers when systems are used that are not datalink/laser compatible. :)

[STP Dragon]

@ sobek: I'm sure you know the behaviour - every time you need a smoke mark you got not any in your payload.

[GGTharos]

Launch-Warning-System:

In the A-10c you have a working missile-launch-warning-system.

The Ka-50 also have this system but till now it was "out of function".

You can find this switch on the left-top side of the front cockpit. (see picture)

Isn't it possible to add this function to the Ka-50 if it is already working for the A-10c?

 

Even for experts it is still very dangerous in the battlefield because you are not able to notice a missile launch of a non-laser-guided SAM.

 

This feature would help to stay alive.

 

The real Ka-50 doesn't have it, and neither should the DCS one.

 

Friend-Enemy-Identifier:

Also this is a switch without function in the Ka-50 cockpit.

You can find it in the middle of the right side panel.

I'm no expert and I don't know how it works exactly but wouldn't be awesome to see the friendly Ka-50's in the TAD of the A-10c?

Or maybe the green X in the HUD like the friendly ground vehicles.

 

The real Ka-50 doesn't have the necessary datalink system. Isn't going to happen.

 

Buddy lasing:

The compatibility patch is a patch to bring the multiplayers together and establish a coop feature between the Ka-50 and the A-10c.

In my point of view the buddy lasing is the most important feature of the multiplayer coop between Ka-50 and A-10c.

Yes I know it would not be realistic because that's different systems.

But is it realistic that Ka-50 fly together with A-10c? Is it realistic that A-10c's are flying in Georgia?

No! So why loseing this feature?

 

How to change the laser code of the Ka-50?

Hm... do we have to? Why can't have the Ka-50 a fix laser code?

 

The laser systems aren't compatible. No reason for this to happen.

 

JTAC for Ka-50:

This will get tricky...

It is not possible to adjust the Shkval to a L-L or UTM coordinate.

But maybe the JTAC can send a datalink into the ABRIS.

I know that this is not possible in reallity but... who cares?

It would be a awesome feature!

 

Probably not going to happen. JTAC is a western thing, and the datalinks are not compatible. Maybe at some point ED will implement Russian JTAC.

 

Finally, this is a compatibility patch ... not a heli upgrade patch.

[GGTharos]

That's because you want to blow stuff up instead of flying as AFAC. Whose fault is that? ;)

 

@ sobek: I'm sure you know the behaviour - every time you need a smoke mark you got not any in your payload.

[STP Dragon]

@ GGTharos:

Of course the Ka-50 have a missile-warning-system.

Please see manual page 6-12 and 6-13 point Nr.17

 

"Missile warning system with laser jammer, self protection system mode of operation select, No function "

 

 

Yes I know that buddy lasing and JTAC are not realistic for the Ka-50.... but what else is "compatible" in this compatibility patch if the two (Ka-50 and A-10) can't work together?

 

Without the possibility to work together it is not a compatibility patch, it IS a "heli upgrade patch" if you (only) get the latest engines and textures. ;)

Edited July 6, 2011 by =STP= Dragon

[sobek]

"Missile warning system with laser jammer, self protection system mode of operation select, No function "

 

Remember the A-A switch on the weapon control panel, it is there but it serves no function either.

 

Edit: Now that i think about it, mentioning that may have opened pandoras box.:doh::D

[SmokeyTheLung]

You see the compatibilty patch and think: A10s and KA-50s working together in peace...

 

I see it and think: 2x A10s in support of a friendly assault, with the Ruskies defending with 4x sharks...

 

Funny how that works!

Just kidding, kinda :D

[159th_Viper]

with the Ruskies defending with 4x sharks.....

 

....With two Russian A-10C's in support :D

 

Head to head A-10C against Kamov: Helo's are going to get slaughtered.

[GGTharos]

@ GGTharos:

Of course the Ka-50 have a missile-warning-system.

Please see manual page 6-12 and 6-13 point Nr.17

 

"Missile warning system with laser jammer, self protection system mode of operation select, No function "

 

It has neither. There are no sensors and no emitter.

 

Yes I know that buddy lasing and JTAC are not realistic for the Ka-50.... but what else is "compatible" in this compatibility patch if the two (Ka-50 and A-10) can't work together?

It isn't a 'Ka-50 and A-10' compatibility patch, it's a software compatibility patch. Twisting words to your meaning won't get you anywhere.

 

Without the possibility to work together it is not a compatibility patch, it IS a "heli upgrade patch" if you (only) get the latest engines and textures. ;)

No, it isn't a heli upgrade patch. The heli isn't getting any unrealistic upgrades. Get it? ;)

[STP Dragon]

It has neither. There are no sensors and no emitter.

OK, I never saw a Ka-50 in real life, so I didn't know this. I thought it was a missing feature.

 

The heli isn't getting any unrealistic upgrades. Get it? ;)

 

Why that harshly? I just want to know what ED planed to do and if they discussed this points.

[GGTharos]

OK, I never saw a Ka-50 in real life, so I didn't know this. I thought it was a missing feature.

 

It was intended but it never got them ... this is why you see a bunch of switches in the 'pit that are not functional. Some experimental Ka-50 versions have it, but those are Kamov Ka-50's, not army Ka-50's ... they are not in service.

 

Why that harshly? I just want to know what ED planed to do and if they discussed this points.

A lot has been discussed. Exactly what will happen isn't clear, but I doubt they will add a lot of things to the Ka-50. Interoperability with A-10C in a working environment isn't very realistic, and given that they've gone as far as to remove JTAC from red side, I don't think you'll see interoperability in terms of systems.

 

You have to do things the 'long' way, ie. coordinate input by listening to radio etc. If the two ever worked on the same side RL, this would be a realistic problem. I don't see why you wouldn't want to simulate a realistic problem in DCS ... and I don't see why the choice should be given to avoid it, either.