JACN

No it´s not, trust me...;) PRO will be FAR closer to what a real life engineering simulator is. Amongst other things it will use a 100% custom Flight Dynamics Engine, different than the native MSFS one. It will be a completely new sim inside MSFS shell. Only FSX (NICE) visuals will be used... :) Álvaro

If you like it because of realism...wait until the PRO version :music_whistling: ;) Álvaro

Guys, just a clarification on the VRS Superbug FSX release date: End of March http://www.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2407&start=15 Álvaro

Yes, he was right... Álvaro

Trust in me he´s spanish, I know him very well...;) Álvaro

Formerly EADS-CASA, currently Airbus Military...and he´s spanish ;) (Sorry for the clarification :)) Álvaro

Wrong!:doh::D... X-Plane calculates aircraft elements aerodynamics based on a physics model like Vortex-Lattice, Datcom, basic CFDs algorithms and whatever. Don´t get me wrong...that´s ok and indeed it´s a quite complex and accurate way for PC based simulators. But it will never be as much accurate as a table (point to point) data based simulation. Basically because IF you do own the real (flight test obtained) stability and control derivatives for a given aircraft NO mathematical model in the world---even those run in Cray computers---will predict the real aircraft aerodynamics. A lookup table model system, on the other hand will reproduce it with as much accuracy as resolution and cross aerodynamic dependecies you can model. This is how the real life engineering simulators are built, like MSFS and not like X-Plane. Of course, MSFS data tables are (too) limited in terms of resolution and some (many) aerodynamic effects missing...BUT -I agree with you in this- with some external coding work, some developers (at least the one I know...) have managed to expand the MSFS FDE posibilities to reproduce a real aircraft aerodynamic data-set to the limits of the available data. However, I have to agree with you again, this is not and never has been the rule...but in the right hands (enough skills and knowledge) and with enough data, the simulation of the same aircraft would always be more accurate in the MSFS than in X-Plane. I will not keep discussing about which simulator is best, I think it´s stupid because "depends on" what and how you compare. I simply consider that many times a categorical statement needs enough information behind...from both sides :smilewink: Álvaro EDIT: an example of an advantage of the MSFS FDE system: given a real aircraft aerodynamics, X-Plane physics engine will never be able to reproduce "subtle" aerodynamics effects like a transonic wing-rock effect (not even noticed during the wind tunnel but in the Flight Test phase!). IF aerodata available, MSFS could reproduce that effect matching that real aircraft specific behaviour...X-Plane could not.

Excluding helicopters, that statement is not true. Indeed MSFS can be (way) more realistic in terms of simulation accuracy than X-Plane. All depends on how much info (aero-data) do you have for a given aircraft. If you have no data of an aircraft, X-Plane internal algorithms will give you a "quite" realistic behaviour (let´s say 70% accuracy at best) if compared to the "addon producer guessed aerodynamics MSFS model"...Sadly in MSFS world only perhaps a 1% of addon makers takes the effort in research for accurate data. This is the reason of the MSFS bad reputation. Some recent born companies, like Dodosim, have aditionally found the true potential of the MSFS Flight Dynamics Engine. MSFS is not more than a (beautiful) raw simulation engine, it´s up to addon maker´s ability to whether make the most of it or not. And speaking streactly about helicopters...I really doubt X-Plane allows such a richly customized helo physics as the Dodo Jet Ranger displays: loss of tail rotor efficiency, main rotor vortex interference, tail rotor vortex ring state, for not mentioning the "basic" ones: rotor droop on torque application, vortex ring state, weathervane instability, etc...or aircraft components aging!. In summary X-Plane can be considered in the 99% of the cases better than MSFS...but in that 1% MSFS can literally c-r-u-s-h X-Plane´s physics. Let´s wait a few months ;) Álvaro

That´s exactly what I meant with the rockets. The Apache can use the cannon and missiles from a perfectly estabilized hover condition...as can the Ka-50. BUT, the Apache can also use rockets in that condition...which the Ka-50 cannot. See from the point of view you want but that is a disadvantage because both aircrafts do not have (speaking strictly about rockets) the same capabilities: Apache can do the same as Ka-50 about rockets firing plus using them while hovering. The ones who don´t consider it as a useful technique....do they use cannon and ATGMs from a "moving"=not hovering condition?. Is for them easier to lock and fire ATGMs or cannon in forward (backward or lateral flight) than in hover flight?. So, if its easier (and sometimes safer) to use those weapons while hovering...WHY the rockets should not?. As I said in my first post, some wrong considerations during the design phase can be the root of it. Perhaps I´m wrong but I find too many similarities with the SU-25´s FCC rockets management...perhaps both aircrafts share the same FCC module?. It´s fast, easy and cheap to retrofit a proven technology in engineering, but many times it´s not the best solution, specially when the use enviroment has (even slightly) changed. And all of this could have to do with some comments people have made about an "unfinished" Ka-50 and old philosophy design applied at the end of an era. Or said in other words: born in the wrong moment Anyway it´s a superb machine with MANY MANY other capabilities other attack helos do not share. Of course, with the right piloting skills some of the disadvantageous points can be mitigated (though still will be there) putting it at the same level of any other helo if used in the correct scenery. This post was not a malignant criticism to the Ka-50 but an objective mention of some weak points in this aircraft that could have been avoided and perhaps someday will be fixed...maybe in the Ka-52. Álvaro

Perhaps we should ask about it to Apache pilots in Afganistan... :smilewink: Álvaro

Sorry but I have to disagree with you at this point. Always the fire solution in the Apache will come sooner since only it will need to be aligned in the horizontal axis. Indeed always if the aircraft is aligned with the target moving forward or hovering (of course, within a reasonably limits) you can fire rockets. And that is already an operational advantage. And not being able of using rockets capability while hovering is an operative disadvantage. Better sensors is another one ;) Álvaro

No I didn´t mean navigation, of course ABRIS is as complex as any other navigation system could be. I meant general (chaotic) cockpit arrangement with many many indicators, switches and systems -even at your back!-. A modern glass cockpit allows different systems indications to be integrated into only one screen avoiding the claustrophobic sensation not found for example in an Apache or Cobra. You don´t have to turn back your head to both sides and back to know -with a "quick" look- if everything is ok, just to look forward and if any press a MFD button. Yes of course, a matter of practice to get rid of those PIO´s...but still a big disadvantage if compared with an Apache in which you can fire your rockets while hovering. Aside of any skills...it´s an operational disadvantage. Said in other words, for the same piloting skills, who has more chances to survive an attack run with rockets, a hovering and hidden Apache 4 km away from the target or a Ka-50 which has to fly towards the target (flying exposed over hostile/unknown terrain) while manually flying and aiming the weapons (perhaps a 33% of pilot´s attention put on SAM)?=> high operational disadvantage. As I said its and acceptable rockets attack technique -and the only one possible- for an attack aircraft but never for a helicopter. Álvaro

Thanks, I´ll give it a try :thumbup: Álvaro

Ok, thanks for your comments. This confirms my worst guesses...it´s not (only) me, it´s the helo itself :(. It could be considered as an unfinished combat helicopter project. Regards Álvaro

Hi all First of all, please, in no way consider this topic a criticism to ED since I´m sure their work reproduces painstakingly the real thing as is. It´s just one opinion (one personal opinion) about what I previously considered as an extremelly capable combat helo. I must admit I have not yet many hours in the BlackShark but the more I fly it the more dissapointed I´m with this aircraft. I´ve found several issues that could be considered as "minor issues". Amongst them and perhaps the most important is the lack of use of MFDs and other digital displays ("glass" cockpit). Of course, this can be considered as a legacy of old russian desing philosophy applied to an old? helo. Anyway, not a big issue but somehow annoying considering this is a single-seater aircraft and the increased workload of an already overloaded pilot that this fact produces. Perhaps an avionics (expensive) upgrade would eliminate this problem. Another "CON" I´ve found related to this helo is the Flight Control System. The nature of this aircraft physics provides it with some big advantages regarding the handling and survability if compared with "classical" layouts. But this also brings new problems and limitations. Perhaps (and surely) due to my control hardware I find difficult to trim the aircraft to the desired condition, specially in transient conditions like hover to forward flight and forward flight to hover phases. It deserves too much attention and piloting skills and probably a more automatic control system would have made things (a lot) easier. Of course, always a better piloting technique could improve this feeling, I know :). Anyway, for me the big BUT is regarding the operative limitations...WHY did Kamov decided to leave ALL the weight of this critical issue on the pilot´s shoulders??!. The aircraft has literally no auto-limitation on its envelope boundaries!. If you fly forward at 265 kph and apply full left rudder you´ll be able to perform a quite agressive turn+pull in order to reverse but, if you perform the same maoeuvre to the right...simply you´re dead :( Also you don´t have any info of how close/far you´re from the rotor disks collision other than the marking in the g meter. You have a g pull limitation but not a stick+rudder combined one, so you don´t know how much rudder you can apply without die. The rudder input SHOULD have been limited by FCS as a function of dynamic pressure, loadfactor,... and any other variable involved, but NEVER EVER leave it only as a "verbal" operational limitation in a flight manual, damn...it´s critical!!!. For me a very big flaw -by omission- in the FCS design. The last one is regarding the weapon system and FCC, specifically the rockets. ATGMs and cannon is fine for me, indeed I consider Kamov´s approach as a very good solution for a single seater helo. But the rockets implementation is a big joke to me!. Why the rockets launchers are not able to tilt as the ATGMs are???. Yes, you save weight, complexity and a ton of engineering problems with it but...you make them a "dead" and useless weight, so this weight should have been completely eliminated too, shouldn´t it? :) Of course, and again, just a matter of flying skills to get both reticles aligned but it´s an extremelly poor solution if compared with Apache´s one. If you want to get a fire solution you have to either increase altitude or move forward, period (being placed at the correct range is only luck :D). Both solutions are equally unlucky in terms of survability. The first one will make you visible to any known or unknown ground menace and will force to leave any advantageous (protected) position vital for the helo survability saying "Hi guys, I´m here!!". The second one is even worse because you have to move towards the enemy forcing you to get closer to the hot zone and even fly over enemies heads, making it easy for a hidden guy with and igla/stinger to make you a toasted chicken...A similar Apache´s laid "H" system with tilting launchers would have allowed hovering shoots and to crush an enemy target from a safe and distant position, not to say avoiding also the unnecessary pitch aiming over/undershoots=missed=wasted shoots. Definitely an acceptable solution for a ground attack (fixed wings) aircraft as the Su-25 but NEVER for an attack helo. Guys, please, take all of this is only as a personal opinion or feeling about what I consider should have been or should be improved in the Ka-50 helo. I´d like you to share your own experiences/opinions about these or other issues (I have not faced yet) in order to perhaps help me to improve my flying skills or get a better perception of it if I´m missed. Thanks and best regards Álvaro

I like this question had been asked because I have exactly the same experience as Martillo1. I don´t have too much experience in the Shark but after the first few minutes flying her I noticed an incredible high sideslip!. Even keeping trimmed the helo, above 180 kias "the ball" -in my case- goes half to full right....of course feet on ground and wings level condition. I´ve tried both Flight Director ON/OFF with the same bad result. Don´t know if this is the realistic behavior for this aircraft but I find it as an extremely annoying (and dangerous) way of flying :(

Any new about the regional v1.0.1 patches? Thanks Álvaro

Thanks for the quick reply, Matt. Álvaro

Any new about the patch for other non-english Black Shark versions? Thanks in advance Álvaro

Ok, but does it mean after the patch I´ll still need to manually set affinity every time I launch BS? :( Álvaro

Manually?...using OS tasks administrator or with DCSMax? Please, tell me DCS BS multi-core support is better than M$ FSX...:doh: Álvaro

Ok, thanks guys! Álvaro

Thanks for the concise answers. :) But if 2=yes what about the "dcsmax"? (to be true I have no idea what does it do but, for what I´ve seen, it seems to be some kind of multi-core affinity tool) Álvaro

Hi all, This is the first time I face the new DCS product since the (AWESOME) LockOn & Flaming Cliffs. A few days ago I got my BS (spanish) "boxed" copy...but after seeing the patch announcement, I decided to wait just a little bit more...(:cry:)...for installing the "patched" BlackShark. For the moment, I have a couple of questions. Surely later the number will grow, but don´t worry, I´ll try the "search" button as first option ;) My questions: 1) Is the released patch (ENG) compatible with my spanish version?. I think the answer is "no"...but, sorry...I can hardly wait! 2) Is BS with the new patch multi-core compatible? Thanks in advance Álvaro