KA50 MWS

[msalama]

Combat planes have MWS systems, and at least one Ka-50 specimen did as well. But ours didn't, and there's no way to model a system conformant to RL specs here anyway, because said specs have never been published (AFAIK). And you just DON'T pull specifications and functionality out of yer whatsit and cook up make-believe systems in a serious sim, full stop.

 

So how about it if you just fuggedaboutit?

Edited October 26, 2016 by msalama

[Amarok_73]

serious sim

 

:lol: Ok, I give up.

When eventually it _will_ become as serious as some of You want to see it, please call me from Elite Dangerous servers, or other BMS, where in meanwhile other not so "serious" players migrate.

 

Cheers.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Pipok

[msalama]

So you wouldn't consider it a serious sim then? OK, 'bout time you gave up, true that ;)

[GGTharos]

Your uh, other serious sim provide you with an MLWS just because you want it?

 

:lol: Ok, I give up.

When eventually it _will_ become as serious as some of You want to see it, please call me from Elite Dangerous servers, or other BMS, where in meanwhile other not so "serious" players migrate.

 

Cheers.

[Isegrim]

"IF" we would have a MWS in the KA-50 and youre going to search for Targets the KA-50 is build for >"Tanks"

The discussions would be about the missing LWS thats for sure.

[BodyOrgan]

This sim is full of approximations, educated guesses, dare I say it ...... Make Believe!

 

... but watch out! MWS is known to cause severe diaper rash in some people. Please! If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.

[Isegrim]

This sim is full of approximations, educated guesses, dare I say it ...... Make Believe!

 

... but watch out! MWS is known to cause severe diaper rash in some people. Please! If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.

 

What are you trying to say here? :huh:

 

Its already established by ED that there will be no further updates to the KA-50 Module and thats all what people like me GG Flagrum Devrim or other ones try to say.

 

But it simply seems like People like you fri and some more are raging against the FACT that there will never be an MWS RWR or R-73 update to the KA-50 made by ED.

 

So you guys are doing nothing more than talking this Module into a innacurate shape in which it does not belong to.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Isegrim

[BodyOrgan]

Raging

 

[msalama]

Raging? Don't. It's unhealthy and useless.

[Weta43]

...there will be no further updates to the KA-50 Module and thats all what people like me ... try to say.

 

No it's not. If that's what you were arguing, there wouldn't be an argument.

 

What you're actually arguing is:

So you guys are doing nothing more than talking this Module into a innacurate shape in which it does not belong to.

 

Which is a false stament based on assumptions that are demonstrably not true, like the false dichotomy presented here:

"IF" we would have a MWS in the KA-50 and youre going to search for Targets the KA-50 is build for >"Tanks"

The discussions would be about the missing LWS thats for sure.

There's no reason to believe that the choice would be an 'either / or' , it just suits your argument to try to make it sound unappealing.

 

But I've had enough of arguing. There are none so blind as those that will not see, and I believe you don't want to see the obvious.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Weta43

[Schmidtfire]

I might be wrong here, but didn't Chizh post something about the possibility of an "update" to Ka-50 not so long ago? With focus on better self-protection systems...

[Isegrim]

No it's not. If that's what you were arguing, there wouldn't be an argument.

 

What you're actually arguing is:

 

 

Which is a false stament based on assumptions that are demonstrably not true, like the false dichotomy presented here:

 

There's no reason to believe that the choice would be an 'either / or' , it just suits your argument to try to make it sound unappealing.

 

But I've had enough of arguing. There are none so blind as those that will not see, and I believe you don't want to see the obvious.

 

I might be wrong here, but didn't Chizh post something about the possibility of an "update" to Ka-50 not so long ago? With focus on better self-protection systems...

 

 

Oh thats good news so there will be a MWS system in the Future of the module.

 

I did send Chizh an PM. Maybe he will answer so we know.

 

Something to read from last year.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151436

Edited October 29, 2016 by Isegrim

[msalama]

didn't Chizh post something

 

I think he asked whether people would accept a paid upgrade to the Shark or something. Was on the Russian forums IIRC.

[Schmidtfire]

Found it on the russian forums, thank you.

Translation reads as follow:

"We are considering the possibility of issuing an updated module Ka-50. Then there will be new chips (electronics?), such as the defense system. If a decision is made." While it's not a promise of an MWS or even an updated Ka-50, they are at least looking into the possibility.

[Amarok_73]

But how can it be??? Such change "will be so inaccurate and will destroy whole realism of this simulator!"

:megalol:

 

Well, did I said something about "product" and "money"?

THIS is realism, and accuracy in regards to real world.

 

Schmidtfire, thank You for this finding, for me it offers some hope both - about increase of KA-50 community, as well as pointless, and full of empty argumentations discussions. :-)

Edited October 29, 2016 by Pipok

[Isegrim]

Chizh message to me reads.

 

"Hello Ise

We do not have plan to add MWS to Ka-50 yet."

 

So maybe in the Future.

[msalama]

But how can it be??? Such change "will be so inaccurate and will destroy whole realism of this simulator!"

 

Stop spouting crap. If they want to model it, they must get enough tangible info about its inner workings - or they won't model it. Very simple and straightforward, no?

[zerO_crash]

I wonder what "approximations" someone is talking about here? What is approximated in DCS? Everything is based on hard evidence found. If DCS was about approximations, we would have most modern jets... Someone who hasn`t thought through their false argument?

 

@Isegrim, A updated Ka50 will possibly be a candidate for future, but just as you, I got it that MWS is not going to be there. So it would seem to be correct, so far at least.

Edited October 29, 2016 by zerO_crash

[Amarok_73]

Stop spouting crap. If they want to model it, they must get enough tangible info about its inner workings - or they won't model it. Very simple and straightforward, no?

 

In very general - sure, but knowing from the other side how it works (I have few friends from old times working on Military University of Technology in Warsaw) I can assure You, that any solution You can imagine, that will increase survaviblity of unit on battle field has been already invented and - depending of cost/profit calculation - somewhere implemented. For instance, I can easily imagine that RWR can not only show that markings on dedicated small, green screen, but also by triangulation and signal measurement it's position and range can be pretty precisely approximated, then - as it is for instance in some real airplanes - put to TAD where You can decide by filtering if You want or not see this information, as it can cause cluttering the screen in some dense situations.

And if I'm not wrong it was recently said by some real A-10 pilot, that indeed such solution is implemented.

So turning back to our beloved Ka-50, basicaly what we're about is the question IF such thing as MWS is reasonable for helicopter from that era, and - again, talking about reality - I can't imagine, that someone decisive would waste money by sending "blind" helicopter worth plenty of money on battlefield. And the best confirmation of my guesses is that there are indeed models 25+ then KA-52, where such advanced solutions are applied.

So, returning to our good known "realism", current Ka-50 is good as training platform just for flying and basic weapon training, but with lack of MWS it can be at most sent to supermarket for rolls and bananas, because involvment in battlefield almost for sure mens just waste of a significant money.

 

Anyway, I am really glad, that developers are considering upgrade for Ka-50, and since I love this heli - as declared in previous post - I'll gladly spend my money for revised model.

And still it makes me sad, that contrary to what I declared in my primary post where I dug out this thread, I failed to avoid same pointless arguments as in other discussions I've read before decided to refresh it here.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Pipok

[JG14_Smil]

In this argument, everyone is correct.

 

Pipok, your last post was worded perfectly. I agree 100%. I also agree that ED can use realistic data and nothing else when making the sim, just as a matter of principle.

 

The Ka-50 deserves an upgrade (again).

 

best wishes to all,

[Nerd1000]

Stop spouting crap. If they want to model it, they must get enough tangible info about its inner workings - or they won't model it. Very simple and straightforward, no?

The method of operation of a MAWS is quite simple really- you have a number of sensors not unlike IR homing missile seekers (but with a much wider FoV) arranged around the aircraft. These sensors look for an IR signature matching that of a solid rocket motor- there are certain wavelengths where the exhaust products have strong IR emissions, and the sensors are tuned to detect only these wavelengths. If a signature matching that of a missile is detected the MAWS activates an alarm in the cockpit and possibly also alerts the pilot as to which sensor detected the launch so he/she has some idea where the missile is coming from.

 

The real difficult part is obtaining info on the operation of the software and computers that distinguish real missiles from spurious signals. A guy who works on software for the RAAF told me that even they don't know what's inside the control boxes for their MAWS- if something stops working they send it to the US and a little while later it comes back fixed. I gather he knew a bit more about some aspects of it, but naturally it's all super classified and not for the ears of nosy civilians. ED could probably 'fake' that side of the system with a simple probability based model: a certain % chance of correctly detecting a real launch, combined with a chance of giving a false alarm every now and then. This would still be more detailed than the in-game A-10C's MAWS, which never gives false alarms and seems to correctly detect any launch it can see.

[msalama]

If DCS was about approximations, we would have most modern jets...

 

Thank you. My point concisely and well worded :thumbup:

[msalama]

But if ED is given access to another Ka-50 with an MWS and receives sufficient data in order to model it accurately, then why not combine the two and make a Shark v3.0? Such a hybrid doesn't exist IRL, true, but said bird could well have existed regardless - and thus, introducing it here _wouldn't_ be unrealistic in the sense of making something up based on guesses and assumptions. So I've nothing against that per se, mind you.

[zerO_crash]

But if ED is given access to another Ka-50 with an MWS and receives sufficient data in order to model it accurately, then why not combine the two and make a Shark v3.0? Such a hybrid doesn't exist IRL, true, but said bird could well have existed regardless - and thus, introducing it here _wouldn't_ be unrealistic in the sense of making something up based on guesses and assumptions. So I've nothing against that per se, mind you.

 

Question is, would you really like to fly an aircraft that doesn`t exist? We could pull this argument to the max saying that: "Said fighter X could have the same capability as another fighter X just because the technology is there"... "Why not have the Exocet on M2000C?" (and M2000C was even shown with the Exocet on it!!).

 

I mostly agree with you msalama, but in this matter I am happy that ED and 3rd parties have a good understanding (better than us all) of what a simulator`s purpose is. I wouldn`t want to fly an aircraft that`s a transformer. Luckily, there are games that appeal to people with that kind of interest :music_whistling:

 

I`m just surprised overall that people claim Ka50 being easy to shoot down because it doesn`t have an MWS...:huh: Simple solution, fly more, practice more, and develop/read about strategy. In the end, even with an MWS you wouldn`t be 100% invulnerable. Remember that F117 that was shot down over Yugoslavia (point in case). A10C still go down even though they have MWS/RWR and uncle sam watching from upper atmosphere. (GPS for those who didn`t get it -> datalink/ info exchange)

 

Rest assured, if ED get`s info and finds it suitable enough, I`m sure they will deliver. ;)

[msalama]

Question is, would you really like to fly an aircraft that doesn`t exist?

 

All Ka-50s to my knowledge were testbeds up to a point. So no, I'm not miffed if the MWS pack and sensors are moved from chopper #1 to chopper #2, because installing and/or rewiring the data and power buses for the thingamajig must be straightforward anyway. But this only if said MWS system is known to ED and modelling it involves no guesswork.