Jump to content

Ka50 fidelity?


gerd

Recommended Posts

I've never been a helio fan, but got the huey in the last sale and had so much fun with it that I am considering adding Ka50 to my stable.

 

That leads me to a question though. How plausible is the Ka50 modeling of the systems and the flight dynamics itself? I mean, it is quite new technology compared to huey, so the data might be classified, no? I do not want to fly any fan-fiction fantasy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never flown in a real Ka-50 (neither have I seen one), but the systems of the Ka-50 feel more than plausible.

It doesn't have a RWR (I think because that is classified) but I guess the rest is at least so similiar to the Ka-50 that you won't notice anything.

 

Go for it, it is a challenge!

Check out my YouTube: xxJohnxx

 

Intel i7 6800k watercooled | ASUS Rampage V Edition 10 | 32 GB RAM | Asus GTX1080 watercooled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have a RWR because the airframe that was modelled specifically was not equipped with one. I'm not sure if any of the prototypes (because that's what the Ka-50s are) was equipped with one.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a beast that needs studying and taming. It's not a question of should I shouldn't I?... It's a "Do I have what it takes to master this machine" question you need to ask yourself.

 

It's a great module ... was my first... and after a year the old girl is still trying to bite me when I don't treat her right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to fly any fan-fiction fantasy...

 

The whole point of the DCS series is that the aircraft are simulated in as much detail as is humanly possible. For what it's worth, the DCS: Ka-50 is probably my favourite simulated aircraft of all time (and I've playing flight sims right from the earliest days).

 

Give this a read if you really want to get a sense of what the Black Shark brings to the table:

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/black_shark/

i7-7700K @ 4.9Ghz | 16Gb DDR4 @ 3200Mhz | MSI Z270 Gaming M7 | MSI GeForce GTX 1080ti Gaming X | Win 10 Home | Thrustmaster Warthog | MFG Crosswind pedals | Oculus Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the encouragement, I will give it a try!

 

@xxJohnxx: According to wikipedia only 10pcs were built so I do not blame you you have not flown one - and this is my greatest concern - how can we know our BS handles like the real thing when there is not much reference.

 

@sobek: I did not say I can handle huey, I said it is fun to fly :-)

 

@Pizzicato: good read there, but no statement "this is modelled exactly as in real life" - of course you can use the best equations to simulate the environment, but without some hard data about what you are simulating... (take the F-35 example - it has not been fully introduced yet, but people are already building sims...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no performance numbers available but all the flight phenomena of co-axial choppers are modeled that can be modeled with current PC technology. We have to take ED's and Ka-50 pilots word for it flying like a Ka-50 but there's lot's of proof that it flies like a co-axial chopper. There has been lot's of questioning about some strange behaviors that people have noticed but in the end in each of those cases it has been concluded that the same thing should be happening in the real world also. The only major thing officially not modeled is compressibility when diving at high speed.

DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community

--------------------------------------------------

SF Squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-million dollar simulators don't handle exactly like real life. No matter how many equations you are using, you won't have a 100% complete physics simulation, maybe one day with quantum computings. But what you can have is a close enough aproximation that is good enough to be called realistic. And if it's close enough that it even has training value, then you know you are on to something. Real pilot input is invaluable, but only after a lot of other things have been extablished, like the physics involved, flight envelope curves from telemetry data, etc. The pilot won't be able to give you that, he can only tell you if it feels like it's handeling properly and even then there may behaviors that are quite off and he may miss it or even feel it's not important for the simulation (because he is not expecting the simulation to be 100% like the real deal).

Most people here take EDs word that it is very close to real, from the data they had access and the pilots they used in the development. You have to decide if you are going to be one of them or remain a skeptic. But if you remain a skeptic, why belive the A-10C is correctly modeled or the huey or the P-51 or any other aircraft in this simulation. Take the P-51, there's very few airworthy remaining, very few people left alive who fly them or have flown them, gatering of data back when the aircraft was first flown and tested was much less precise. I don't know if there's been new tests to the data with remaining aircraft, but assuming there weren't, what does it take to make it a realistic simulation? The fact that we know that it handles 100% like the real thing? Or maybe settle for a reasonably realistic behavior from all that is known of the aircraft, in witch realistic, flight parameters and limitations that lead to realistic tactics apply?

 

DCS level aircraft are not fan made fiction (maybe if an F-35 of F-22 comes to DCS as most data will be gess work), they are made backed by real world data even if in the end there are slight diferences that even real pilots will have a hard time telling.

 

If this level of fidelity is still not enough for you, your only alternative may be giving up flight sims entirely, or freeze yourself in cryogenic sleep and come back in a couple of hundred years to see if we are there yet! ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this level of fidelity is still not enough for you, your only alternative may be giving up flight sims entirely, or freeze yourself in cryogenic sleep and come back in a couple of hundred years to see if we are there yet! ;)

 

Or fly the real thing.

 

On the subject of the P-51, it is probably the best documented WWII era fighter ever. The documents are quite exhaustive.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have better chance to steal a real thing, than to wait for a quantic computer. ;)

 

Now do we absolutely need to have the 100% Ka-50 fidelity ?

i'm quite happy to start it under 1mn30 and have numerous "useless" switches which, IRL, could bore your to death.

 

it's pleasant to fly, but it will never be like a real one. you can't feel anything in DCS.

 

Moreover, there is about 20 Ka-50 in the world, so... we're screwed anyway. ;)

TASK / ROLES acronyms guide

Black Shark A.I. datalink guide illustrated (v1.2.4 Available on Wiki)

DCS World Codex 1.1 : full units list (Speed/Weapons/Armor thickness/Threat zone/Weapon damage...) (Oct 2013)

BlackShark 2 1.2.x Bug and glitches thread (v1.2.7)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ka-50 was E.D.'s first attempt at a high fidelity simulator, and they built it with the same attitude as they have subsequent DCS modules.

My understanding is that both experienced pilots and Kamov as a corporate entity were involved in the development.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As lxsapper put it, you'll never hit 100% accuracy in a flight sim. There are systems in the Ka-50 that aren't modeled. The same holds true for every other DCS aircraft, whether it's the ECM, IFF, dome light (I'm looking at you, Hip), maintenance bay light, or external temp gauge. We can hope that, with time, more of them will be modeled (like that beautiful external temp gauge), but even then, the game will never completely simulate actual flight.

 

That being said, the Ka-50 is completely awesome and is well worth the purchase and learning curve =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the critically low rotor RPM in autorotation? In DCS it seems the Ka-50 can accelerate the rotor even from very low RPM. Has this been verified as being correct?

 

I am assuming here, but those AoA are probably outside the LUTs of all blade sections. Depending on if there is an extrapolation method for values lying out of the LUT coverage and what exprapolation method is used, this can cause some funny things.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am assuming here, but those AoA are probably outside the LUTs of all blade sections. Depending on if there is an extrapolation method for values lying out of the LUT coverage and what exprapolation method is used, this can cause some funny things.

Staying above lower critical RPM is of crucial importance in autorotation so the model should handle it one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Staying above lower critical RPM is of crucial importance in autorotation so the model should handle it one way or another.

 

You got any high alpha LUTs lying around for the Ka-50 blade sections?

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got any high alpha LUTs lying around for the Ka-50 blade sections?

Let me rephrase - as crucial as it is, I expect any modeling discrepancies to be explained, e.g. an official statement on a phenomena being out of reach, not that important etc. I don't see a problem in such approach.

 

On the gerd's question - does anyone have a link to Yo-Yo's post explaining the changes/fixes to the rotor model? This could show gerd what a solid piece of modeling it is and that, if at all, it may be off only by small percentages.

 

On a side note, airflow differences for various airfoils greatly diminish for AoA greater than ~60 degrees.


Edited by Bucic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critical angle of attack for the vast majority of airfoils (to include helicopter rotor blades) is around 18-20 degrees. Go a degree or three beyond that, and the airfoil is stalled. You guys all know this, it's just not always as apparent in a helicopter. Most helicopters are limited to somewhere between 14 and 16 degrees of collective pitch, but depending on the direction of flight you can obviously go way beyond that. Another obvious point, but it's much easier to slow down the rotor system than it is to speed it back up, which is how this whole discussion regarding the Ka-50 rotor dynamics came up in the first place...that is, that it's too easy to regain lost rotor RPM after dropping it to a critically low speed. Of course, that is something that is exceedingly difficult to test, at least on an actual aircraft in flight, and there are many opinions about what happens if the blades slow down too much. In any case, I submitted a bug report for the Ka-50 several years ago with my findings regarding autorotations in various configurations, and it hasn't been debunked, but it also has not been verified by Yo-Yo, so there we are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...