Question about AV8B and other planes, realism vs realistic

What it really boils down to, is people need to stop counting rivets and just play the damn game.

What game? DCS World is about highly detailed and well simulated aircraft. It is a sandbox with cool toys. A game to you perhaps, a hobby for others.

I do understand that they can't simulate every system in minute detail for XYZ reason, but I would not spend 79.99$ on anything less than stellar in terms of fidelity. As close as it can get. If some system has to be "dumbed down" thats ok too, but should be upfront on storepage or in manual so those who wants rivets to count can do that :)

If you don't want users to go to the source documents to clarify whether something is accurate or not and complain when it isn't, stop making the source documents their primary source of information for how to play the game; construct your module, manual, and tutorials based on your design document (if one exists in the first place) rather than those source materials; and stop dishonestly claiming vague levels of fidelity that don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

I have little difficulties to comprehend that with my lack of English skills, but I think I get what you are getting at.

One of my problems in DCS World development is that many things suddenly gets flagged with "It is a secret" and it means "Do not ask, go away, you just need to trust us". Yet on the same time it is said that all should be based to officially declassified information that can be used (hence as well why forum rule denies repeating information of....).

But to have access to that information that is suppose to be used to build DCS WOrld, is just suddenly denied. It is like "ED has the ex-personnel in their table" kind answers that can't confirm anything about the quality of the information when source can't be published.

So in many cases, lot of things could really be clarified simply stating on the manual "This is not modeled, it is a military secret under the manufacturer country law of XXYZ-D-S" and not add it. It would as well help then if it is a secret and ED/Studio can't disclose the source or the information, to mention that why it is not to be discussed.

What game? DCS World is about highly detailed and well simulated aircraft. It is a sandbox with cool toys. A game to you perhaps, a hobby for others.

Relaxing little the definition of the "game" doesn't mean that it is not serious business.

Football is just a game, yet it is VERY serious business.

Basketball is just a game....

Streaming a specific PC game "is just a game" regardless the streamer gets 30 million from doing so. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21298963/ninja-shroud-mixer-facebook-gaming-twitch

I do understand that they can't simulate every system in minute detail for XYZ reason, but I would not spend 79.99$ on anything less than stellar in terms of fidelity. As close as it can get. If some system has to be "dumbed down" thats ok too, but should be upfront on storepage or in manual so those who wants rivets to count can do that :)

I like to use the IFF system analogy, as it states very well what is possible and what is not. A IFF system is top military secret, as breaking the encryption and codes would allow to fly in airspace and report to be a friend instead unknown.

Yet, none of that is required to implement a IFF system in this game (yes, DCS World is a game, it doesn't mean that it is not very high quality simulator), as the whole principle and purpose of the IFF system is very well known.

Eagle Dynamics could very well take the principle of the IFF system, and create a own system that provides the expected results. There is no need for encryptions, no requirement to simulate a pulse repetition timings or so on. It could even be a slot machine with a four slots with eight different fruits in it to be set in proper order to be identified as a friend....

If someone wants to make it a more complex than that, take almost any challenge-response algorithm from the computer science side and implement that. Even a simple CAPTCHA is such a system.

Would a incorrectly emulated IFF system be better in DCS World that will give the expected functionality, instead the current non-implemented system because "it is a secret!"?

One doesn't need to know what really happens in the blackbox, when only thing required to know is that if one inputs ABC, then reply is CBA. One inputs 4497 and 1201, then it is expected that specific order is received. ED can invent completely own logic for the combinations for the purpose.

Does such a function fill the "rivet counters" acceptance for "realism" when they get to use the actual panel in the cockpit, input the codes as briefed and play with the few switches here and there for the modes and then they get to challenge and reply in combat? Or would they go crazy that there is no some military secrets used and the "blackbox" is not really emulated?

After all it is nothing more than little more complex countersign between two parties to confirm that other is a friend.

Yup stuff like IFF or "encrypted" radios are a great example, because you don't have to model the guts at all. "Crypto" just means the other player doesn't hear it in an intelligible form. Same thing for stuff like frequency hopping. The details there are aboslutely secret, but the results are totally not from a gameplay prespective.

On the other hand when you have stuff like the ARBS/various bombing modes, that don't get modeled. Even though its entire principle of operation is pretty well documented, down to being able to download the bloody 50 year old patent. Along with the chapter long tac man description of its use. "Sekrit" certainly doesn't hold up. And given its a pretty core functionality of the plane from day 1 I'd say that sort of thing should be in the game, or at least the results or consequences from using it "right" vs using it "wrong".

And I'll throw this out there. Angle rate techniques might be a decent API for ED to just make, since systems like the ARBS are used pretty universally from the 70's onwards, not just in 1-2 wester A/C, lots of east bloc and west bloc planes used em for visual bombing/TGP bombing, and even in EW/RWR techniques to estimate ranges and so forth.

Some of you do not factor in that sometimes our military partners may not want us to model a system a particular way. Being on google does not always mean a developer can use it.

 

thanks

How about systems that you can get 50 year old patents on? Ironically enough from google patents.

I mean really do you want us to believe that someone at Hughes aerospace is telling you guys you can't do this 50 year old tech that literally everyone has and is used in various civil applications as well? I mean the "tech" used in the ARBS is closer to the norden bombsight than "today" in terms of age.

This is rapidly becoming a credibility problem IMO, and really has been for a while. Like anyone who knows some high school physics can comprehend the issue. And anyone with some background in science and engineering sees it as a glaring issue. So if you want to claim something is "realistic" or "DCS is the most realistic thing" then when some glaringly obvious contradiction that comes along like this should get rectified ASAP.

One of my problems in DCS World development is that many things suddenly gets flagged with "It is a secret" and it means "Do not ask, go away, you just need to trust us". Yet on the same time it is said that all should be based to officially declassified information that can be used (hence as well why forum rule denies repeating information of....).

 

But to have access to that information that is suppose to be used to build DCS WOrld, is just suddenly denied. It is like "ED has the ex-personnel in their table" kind answers that can't confirm anything about the quality of the information when source can't be published.

I don't think there is officially any stance that information needs to be specifically declassified in order to incorporate it. Plenty of SME input based on experience doesn't neatly fall into a level of classification, including "unclassified" (which is still a classification, and is not the same as not having a classification at all).

In other cases, it is de facto acceptable that a Developer can make up stuff that doesn't exist in reality for gameplay purposes. We wouldn't have an ATFLIR or A-10C II or any of these modules at all if they didn't often make stuff up or approximate it heavily for the purposes of presenting it to a player in the first place.

In Razbam's case, however, "it's classified" is absolutely an excuse not to include something, and a bad excuse. Remember, "it's classified" is not the same thing as "we've been asked by [licensor] not to include [feature/system]."

First off, I'm pretty confident they don't have access to information that would fall into a level of classification above unclassified (colloquially "classified" information).

Second, neither of these are valid answers for the systems people would like to see reliably functioning at a basic level (ARBS, CCIP/AUTO, Grid entry, HPI, or even things that have nothing to do with the aircraft such as complete keybinds and a HUD that shows up at all graphics settings).

These were the issues a lot of the subsequent outrage spawned from, not whatever Prowler made up about non-existent concerns that they wouldn't continue to fix bugs after release.

It's being spun by Razbam as if asking for a reliably functional module, and for the developer to honestly explain in clear terms 1) how far they intend to model systems that we presume don't work reliably because they are placeholders, and 2) how they intend those systems to work without needing to reference the real-world manuals, is not only asking too much but is an offense worth trying to erase from the discussion.

Yeah no:doh:. If you want to go play F19 flight sim, or whatever there is war thunder, ace combat and probably many other "games" you can go play. That's not why I play DCS, nor I imagine many other people.

 

Lol. The point trying to be made was not some users love of 'game' orientated flight sims, it was that some of us come to forums to find information about the modules only to find the same few people constantly at odds with the developers citing 'google' documents and 'handbook such and such says this'. I think some of the limitations of the DCS software are being found with each and every different module that comes out and it would be cool if a few of the regulars here could wrap their heads around that.

Lol. The point trying to be made was not some users love of 'game' orientated flight sims, it was that some of us come to forums to find information about the modules only to find the same few people constantly at odds with the developers citing 'google' documents and 'handbook such and such says this'. I think some of the limitations of the DCS software are being found with each and every different module that comes out and it would be cool if a few of the regulars here could wrap their heads around that.

Thats the point. I have the feeling there are people putting more energy in finding bugs or false simulated or missing systems than in enjoying the game. And that's what DCS is - a game. Not more.

 

Lol. The point trying to be made was not some users love of 'game' orientated flight sims, it was that some of us come to forums to find information about the modules only to find the same few people constantly at odds with the developers citing 'google' documents and 'handbook such and such says this'. I think some of the limitations of the DCS software are being found with each and every different module that comes out and it would be cool if a few of the regulars here could wrap their heads around that.

But thats the point, the nerds and gearheads on here are making it better game for everyone else. Do you want to read the docs and figure out the nuts and bolts? No. You want to put the thing on the thing and pretend you are a fighter bro. What the nerds are helping you do is actually do in a vaguely realistic manner. Otherwise go play ace combat or some other "game", for your standpoint they are the same right? I push the button and the thing dies and I feelz good.

So much for having a differing opinion on this thread, let me alt tab back into my ace combat, which like you say, I view as the same as DCS. After all I push the button, thing dies and I feelz good baby!!

I think there is a place for planes in between FC3 and full fidelity F-18 standard. The Ka-50 is a good example, a lot of non functional switches, and most of them are left out for reasonable reasons. But what’s there is done fully modeled within DCS limitations, and not so many “Magic” solutions, it’s a lower level of fidelity while still performing within the physics and realism we expect in DCS.

Thats the point. I have the feeling there are people putting more energy in finding bugs or false simulated or missing systems than in enjoying the game. And that's what DCS is - a game. Not more.

I can't enjoy the software if it has falsely modelled systems. And why should my enjoyment be worth less than yours, who may be satisified with some half-baked stuff we have in the Harrier as is?

Yeah no:doh:. If you want to go play F19 flight sim, or whatever there is war thunder, ace combat and probably many other "games" you can go play. That's not why I play DCS, nor I imagine many other people.

 

Lol. The point trying to be made was not some users love of 'game' orientated flight sims, it was that some of us come to forums to find information about the modules only to find the same few people constantly at odds with the developers citing 'google' documents and 'handbook such and such says this'. I think some of the limitations of the DCS software are being found with each and every different module that comes out and it would be cool if a few of the regulars here could wrap their heads around that.

DCS is marketed to gearheads and nerds in a very gearhead-ish and nerdy way. Gearheads and nerds at ED made DCS out of the same passion for 'getting it right' that this community by and large has. That you don't require them to meet this standard to enjoy it, or that the same people find themselves having to repeat themselves, does not mean we are wrong for holding up this standard.

Much of the information you are here looking for is there because the very people you criticize care about this product enough to be nerdy about it. They're the same people I see in thread after thread answering questions for people new to the community and making campaigns and liveries and the like.

It's cool you have a different standard and I mean that. But that means it's cool if we have a different standard, too. More than that, our standard is the one to which DCS's mission statement aspires. We just want to see it get there just like all of the devs do.

I can't enjoy the software if it has falsely modelled systems. And why should my enjoyment be worth less than yours, who may be satisified with some half-baked stuff we have in the Harrier as is?

Of course it shouldn't be less worth than mine but i neither said that nor did i say that i'm satisfied with the current sate of the Harrier. Please don't twist my words.

I'm just tired of reading all the walls of complaints in every single thread - especially because it's always the same discussion. And i think what Gunnar81 wanted to say - and that's also my opinion is that this gives some people a bad feeling about the Harrier - much more than the current sate - as buggy as it is.

At the end of the day we are all playing a game and btw in my opinon there's no reason to put the word game always in quotation marks because it is one otherwise you wouldn't get it at your local gameshop for 80 USD.

And it's only my opinion. I'm wondering why so many people here are reacting to a different opinion like they got hit at a sensitive spot.

I think there is a place for planes in between FC3 and full fidelity F-18 standard. The Ka-50 is a good example, a lot of non functional switches, and most of them are left out for reasonable reasons. But what’s there is done fully modeled within DCS limitations, and not so many “Magic” solutions, it’s a lower level of fidelity while still performing within the physics and realism we expect in DCS.

Those are being added to KA-50 while we speak....

DCS is all times evolving. It is getting new features and new functions periodically, small and big ones.

When you don't have something, you can't add something that relays on that.

KA-50 is the first DCS module and it is based to lot of technologies that are from FC3 era and so on not modeled. It just received its second major update, cockpit texturing and 3D modeling redone. Previous one was Black Shark 2 upgrade that added DCS compatibility for multiplayer with A-10C and changed some flight modeling features and accuracies. That was a long time ago.

And now KA-50 is getting same treatment as A-10C with A-10C II, what will be "Black Shark 3" that adds missing systems and functions, adds new weapons, new sensors, new many many things.

Hopefully we would as well get a proper contrast based tracking system in Shkval as it would be required for many modules that has any optical targeting system (LITENING, Harrier DMT, TV/IR Mavericks etc etc)as we are getting new FLIR system as well.

ED is doing huge changes in the DCS as there are coming new weather engine (AFAIK completed already, waiting just new clouds) and many other major features that needs to be done first. And Hornet has been one of those spearheads for ED to do it all as they have got funding with it's sales and reasons to do it all in good order and then update other modules to new features.

This has to be as well reason why Harrier has not received yet some features (contrast lock based DMT... AV-8B+ with ED A-G radar from Hornet etc) or so hoped to be as valid reason. As why would all studios expected to do all by themselves if ED adds it to DCS later? Heatblur did go to make own A-G radar and didn't wait ED... Good for them. But sometimes someone decides to go other route. (This is not defense for Razbam behavior).

Once ED gets Hornet and Falcon out of their EA process and are feature completed (again, major trust question that what EA really is) then ED should have plenty of time to allocate people for other projects too, from dynamic campaign, RTS game elements, IADS systems and to all other kinds. They are having Mi-24P for sometime in EA and new map coming out with likely new terrain engine and eventually again go apply these new functions to older maps, like Caucasus to receive something new (again) or NTTR refreshed etc.

ED has gotten now to position that it has 3rd party studios producing sellable modules for DCS world to generate income and ED can focus more to create the platform where those will be used.

As in the last interview with the Kate, AFAIK it was stated that one major challenges for ED is now the legacy code. And anyone who has at all worked in software industry knows that when legacy code that all are using needs to be worked on, it is nightmare very easily. You change one thing and all gets broken. You fix them and then you need to fix your new change and all are broken again. So to avoid circling around fixing and fixing, you need to have a proper plan what you will brake and how, so you do it once and as smart way you can so you don't need to do it again.

And Vulcan is one of those things where ED needs to go in the DCS guts and play around there and hope that they don't do more harm than good.

So want more realism? Want more fun? Want to go play instead be in this forum? They are choices everyone can do and stop updating their DCS installation etc. Meanwhile some of us can actually write these things with their phones while being somewhere else than where the DCS installation is... As some of us might not be at that location for weeks as they are on the road or they are simply away or too tired after days, but still have passion and interest to check out what is happening in DCS world.

As for many it is like a Christmas when a phone receives a notification that starts as "Hi everyone, Wags here from Eagle Dynamics...." as it is a sign that something nice is coming and to be waited for when one gets change to sit in front of computer....

As well people here love to help others for making game (sorry, a simulator) better. There are those who as well just like to argue about reality or so, but it doesn't really matter as long everyone are nice to each others without personal insults etc.

And i think what Gunnar81 wanted to say - and that's also my opinion is that this gives some people a bad feeling about the Harrier - much more than the current sate - as buggy as it is.[/Quote]

 

Some people do love to drop by and say "Yours ain't as big as mine" just to get good feeling that they got to store up someone's happiness.

I have seen those things. But if one wants to have accuracy and pretend to be doing things properly as "Study sim" is expected to be used, it requires as well that everyone accepts that truth can hurt if expecting something is right and then it is not.

It can be an experience that you think you are happily in relationship and other side my drops a bomb that shatters your world by stating that it ain't so.

 

How many is ready to handle a such scenarios where they didn't or did not want to see the signs and the problems and all?

 

It is like the KA-50 Shkval targeting system. It is great, amazing and all in first weeks or months, until you notice the signs of problems, that gets revealed as ugly fake of functions.

 

Let me tell you that personally the first long time flying KA-50 in DCS 1 series when Black Shark 2 was released I fly it avoiding all trees and such. Then one time a friend asked after long time flying together that "Didn't you know that you can fly through trees?" as I was puzzled how a SAM or a MBT saw me and blow me from behind trees flying and all...

 

How did that truth feel? BAD. I felt cheated as I had expectations that of course a FLAT MAP that has just trees and buildings as cover, would actually COVER ME and offer concealments when approaching a target....

 

I felt like an idiot, as all that time I was avoiding all the trees just as if they would kill you if you touch you. All that time dying sometimes suddenly odd situation when a MBT fired a ATGM at me or MANPADS or SAM killed me...

 

Truth hurts.... I know that... Because when you have higher expectations and it ain't so, it hurts.

 

After that situation I didn't want to fly for a while... I felt that DCS can't be any simulator when you can fly and shoot through trees and all.

 

What was a really waking news? NTTR map, The new EDGE. That would add a capability to have a indestructible trees and trees with hit boxes.

Hype was high, hype was real.

 

When 2.0 Alpha came out, it was not yet so interesting in NTTR but Caucasus in later 1.5 Beta was amazing experience. You got to sneak around, you got to gun range to kill targets. You could take cover and conceal yourself!

 

Just a amazing thing.

 

And all the previous times,any other player just said "Fly higher", as they were fighter pilots and not interested about helicopters. They didn't comprehend the mentality and doctrine how a helicopters work and operate.

So their advice was "ignore the flaws, be happy" and if that mentality would be the rule, we would still be in that same situation!

 

We need people to have wishes, to point out errors and lacking features and functions. We need to have people that raise their hands and say "This is not good enough, this needs to be properly done".

 

And you can take many elements in DCS and raise the question "Is this properly done?".

 

And answer for anything "It is fine, just pretend it is correct" is not an right one.

 

"knowledge hurts... "

 

And that is one of the reasons for "Study Sim" quality that when you gain knowledge, you can get hurt....

When you learn that you purchased something and you didn't get what was told, it hurts. You feel cheated.

Those are being added to KA-50 while we speak....

 

DCS is all times evolving. It is getting new features and new functions periodically, small and big ones.

 

When you don't have something, you can't add something that relays on that.

 

KA-50 is the first DCS module and it is based to lot of technologies that are from FC3 era and so on not modeled. It just received its second major update, cockpit texturing and 3D modeling redone. Previous one was Black Shark 2 upgrade that added DCS compatibility for multiplayer with A-10C and changed some flight modeling features and accuracies. That was a long time ago.

 

And now KA-50 is getting same treatment as A-10C with A-10C II, what will be "Black Shark 3" that adds missing systems and functions, adds new weapons, new sensors, new many many things.

Hopefully we would as well get a proper contrast based tracking system in Shkval as it would be required for many modules that has any optical targeting system (LITENING, Harrier DMT, TV/IR Mavericks etc etc)as we are getting new FLIR system as well.

 

ED is doing huge changes in the DCS as there are coming new weather engine (AFAIK completed already, waiting just new clouds) and many other major features that needs to be done first. And Hornet has been one of those spearheads for ED to do it all as they have got funding with it's sales and reasons to do it all in good order and then update other modules to new features.

 

This has to be as well reason why Harrier has not received yet some features (contrast lock based DMT... AV-8B+ with ED A-G radar from Hornet etc) or so hoped to be as valid reason. As why would all studios expected to do all by themselves if ED adds it to DCS later? Heatblur did go to make own A-G radar and didn't wait ED... Good for them. But sometimes someone decides to go other route. (This is not defense for Razbam behavior).

 

Once ED gets Hornet and Falcon out of their EA process and are feature completed (again, major trust question that what EA really is) then ED should have plenty of time to allocate people for other projects too, from dynamic campaign, RTS game elements, IADS systems and to all other kinds. They are having Mi-24P for sometime in EA and new map coming out with likely new terrain engine and eventually again go apply these new functions to older maps, like Caucasus to receive something new (again) or NTTR refreshed etc.

 

ED has gotten now to position that it has 3rd party studios producing sellable modules for DCS world to generate income and ED can focus more to create the platform where those will be used.

 

As in the last interview with the Kate, AFAIK it was stated that one major challenges for ED is now the legacy code. And anyone who has at all worked in software industry knows that when legacy code that all are using needs to be worked on, it is nightmare very easily. You change one thing and all gets broken. You fix them and then you need to fix your new change and all are broken again. So to avoid circling around fixing and fixing, you need to have a proper plan what you will brake and how, so you do it once and as smart way you can so you don't need to do it again.

 

And Vulcan is one of those things where ED needs to go in the DCS guts and play around there and hope that they don't do more harm than good.

 

So want more realism? Want more fun? Want to go play instead be in this forum? They are choices everyone can do and stop updating their DCS installation etc. Meanwhile some of us can actually write these things with their phones while being somewhere else than where the DCS installation is... As some of us might not be at that location for weeks as they are on the road or they are simply away or too tired after days, but still have passion and interest to check out what is happening in DCS world.

 

As for many it is like a Christmas when a phone receives a notification that starts as "Hi everyone, Wags here from Eagle Dynamics...." as it is a sign that something nice is coming and to be waited for when one gets change to sit in front of computer....

As well people here love to help others for making game (sorry, a simulator) better. There are those who as well just like to argue about reality or so, but it doesn't really matter as long everyone are nice to each others without personal insults etc.

Of course Ka-50 is being upgraded, but why don’t you write me another wall of text when they announce they’re adding back a simulated electrical system, or making shkval filters functional. Unless you read a totally different announcement to mine, they are adding some systems, but will not make the non functional electrical systems work or have there be a system with limited battery with electric buses voltage and amperage simulated, with functional shkval filters.

If they announce that, then I will concede my point, but I never heard a single thing about them adding the electrical system or re enabling the constellation LUA so the constellation ABRIS data is more then a pretty page, with GPS actually varying based on reception and not working magically with always the same accuracy. So sorry, as far as I can tell it will stay that way with added president S Igla V and new exterior model and cockpit, but never one thing about these FC3-isms, that’s fine with me, I’m just saying what it is, not the same level of fidelity you see in F-18 or other modern modules that fully simulate electrical systems. I think even A-10 actually has simulated finite battery

I don’t even know what every paragraph except the first is trying to convince me of, but we can wait until BS3 is out and see who is right about the electrical system that has had an infinite impenetrable battery and Magic GPS for the past nearly ten years. Hell I don’t know if the hydraulic system has magic reservoirs, but I wouldn’t be surprised, nor would I be hurt. That’s fine to me and doesn’t hurt my enjoyment so much, but I notice it, I’m not the only one, and I’m just saying it like it is, in between FC3 and modern DCS standard. I don’t see what’s wrong with that?

If it changes with BS3 without being specifically announced that’s fantastic, I just don’t understand your reaction for me saying the current state of the black shark the way it’s been since BS2 days and barring an announcement will likely stay that way. I’m just providing it as an example of an in between fidelity we have right now, one that works because it’s hard to notice at first the battery that has no bottom, or the GPS that hovers you with no accuracy loss at the bottom of Dori gorge, that these are concessions that almost everyone is fine with.

If you have such a high opinion of its fidelity that’s okay too, but electrical systems are part of the new DCS standard, and that’s one way that Ka-50 doesn’t live up to it, and makes it a good example of in between fidelity that people accept in this game, rivet counters or not

The point trying to be made was not some users love of 'game' orientated flight sims, it was that some of us come to forums to find information about the modules only to find the same few people constantly at odds with the developers citing 'google' documents and 'handbook such and such says this'. I think some of the limitations of the DCS software are being found with each and every different module that comes out and it would be cool if a few of the regulars here could wrap their heads around that.

Thats the point. I have the feeling there are people putting more energy in finding bugs or false simulated or missing systems than in enjoying the game. And that's what DCS is - a game. Not more.

For some of us, finding bugs or false simulated or missing systems was part and parcel to helping create a better finished product that other people can enjoy however they want.

The training missions wouldn't be in a working state today if they weren't accompanied by hours of verification and validation that the systems we described were actually working as "intended." They wouldn't be released if they didn't get developed alongside an exhaustive list of functions that, based on the source materials, weren't working properly.

Some of these outstanding submissions and requests date back to 2017. Remember, back then, their target for full release was Summer 2018. Razbam's quality target back then was not the same as it is today. It wasn't until Razbam saw and were impressed by the

I don't say this to be overly critical about not having BITs (I wouldn't say BITs are ever a necessary feature, they're just a pretty bow on a well-simulated system), I say this to be clear that the number of times I've encountered Razbam having no plan at all or flat-out misunderstanding the source material far outnumbers the times I've encountered Razbam understanding a system well enough to have a long-term plan in the first place.

I'm not going to argue that this isn't a game, but you expect a certain level of competence and program management skills even from game developers. I certainly expected a level of professionalism where constructive feedback coming from a place of a shared desire to see a better finished product wasn't met with hostility, but that's what happened.

I think there is a place for planes in between FC3 and full fidelity F-18 standard. The Ka-50 is a good example, a lot of non functional switches, and most of them are left out for reasonable reasons. But what’s there is done fully modeled within DCS limitations, and not so many “Magic” solutions, it’s a lower level of fidelity while still performing within the physics and realism we expect in DCS.

I agree that planes between FC3 and full fidelity have a place in the DCS ecosystem. I just wish people didn't have to find out after they purchased a full fidelity plane for a full fidelity price tag that what they actually got was one of these middle fidelity products. They should be advertised and priced as such.

Of course Ka-50 is being upgraded, but why don’t you write me another wall of text

Stop being rude.... If you can't write without personal insults, you can stop visiting all forums that do not tolerate rude behavior...

when they announce they’re adding back a simulated electrical system, or making shkval filters functional. Unless you read a totally different announcement to mine, they are adding some systems, but will not make the non functional electrical systems work or have there be a system with limited battery with electric buses voltage and amperage simulated, with functional shkval filters.

They specifically said that they will implement _all_ features that are "Not Implemented" in the current version. You can go searching that post if you want.

"Since the release of the DCS: Black Shark 2 upgrade many years ago, our technology has improved greatly to allow us to create an even better Ka-50 Black Shark! As with the A-10C Warthog 2, this includes both graphical and system upgrades."

If they announce that, then I will concede my point, but I never heard a single thing about them adding the electrical system or re enabling the constellation LUA so the constellation ABRIS data is more then a pretty page, with GPS actually varying based on reception and not working magically with always the same accuracy.

Have you thought about adding that to their wishlist to be same as with other modules where INS drifts etc?

So sorry, as far as I can tell it will stay that way with added president S Igla V and new exterior model and cockpit, but never one thing about these FC3-isms, that’s fine with me, I’m just saying what it is, not the same level of fidelity you see in F-18 or other modern modules that fully simulate electrical systems. I think even A-10 actually has simulated finite battery

So you are swinging before even considering that ED would be upgrading the KA-50 systems as they say the are going to do....

I don’t even know what every paragraph except the first is trying to convince me of, but we can wait until BS3 is out and see who is right about the electrical system that has had an infinite impenetrable battery and Magic GPS for the past nearly ten years.

So your argument is that because ED has not already added and fixed the missing systems and features in the last 10 years, they are not going to do it now at all. You just want to be there to be able say "I told you so"....

Hell I don’t know if the hydraulic system has magic reservoirs, but I wouldn’t be surprised, nor would I be hurt. That’s fine to me and doesn’t hurt my enjoyment so much, but I notice it, I’m not the only one, and I’m just saying it like it is, in between FC3 and modern DCS standard. I don’t see what’s wrong with that?

Yes, you are seeing it that ED is not going to do anything to improve, fix or add systems.... And then you claim that you don't have any problems with it. So why are you then whining about the oldest DCS module not using latest functions in DCS since its development, while it is being updated and released in the future?

If it changes with BS3 without being specifically announced that’s fantastic, I just don’t understand your reaction for me saying the current state of the black shark the way it’s been since BS2 days and barring an announcement will likely stay that way.

You said it, You do not understand it, and you likely don't. So why should anyone even spend anymore time to try to explain it for you?

I’m just providing it as an example of an in between fidelity we have right now, one that works because it’s hard to notice at first the battery that has no bottom, or the GPS that hovers you with no accuracy loss at the bottom of Dori gorge, that these are concessions that almost everyone is fine with.

Again you are using a over 11 year old (or 9 years from BS2) product as your argument that nothing can't change as it has not already done so. Reminder, back in the day there was no such modeling possibilities that has been added since then. Do not use F/A-18C against the older modules realistic systems modeling when it is the one that is used to develop them to DCS world and its modules in the future.... It is always in the end question about the developers will to implement systems for a level, some do (like ED and Heatblur) and some don't (like Razbam). And whos product KA-50 was?

If you have such a high opinion of its fidelity that’s okay too

Stop insulting...

but electrical systems are part of the new DCS standard, and that’s one way that Ka-50 doesn’t live up to it, and makes it a good example of in between fidelity that people accept in this game, rivet counters or not

Again, you are arguing with over 11-9 years old product that has not received upgrades since then to latest module that is used to develop these new systems, and making claims that future KA-50 paid upgrade doesn't change any of those details you say.

Have you brought those questions to the ED to ask about it? Like "Hey, you are doing this KA-50 upgrade that will cost money for current owners, are you going to leave this and this and this features unfixed/non-changed?"

Go ahead, ask them that are they going to leave systems intact....

For some of us, finding bugs or false simulated or missing systems was part and parcel to helping create a better finished product that other people can enjoy however they want.

And we all should be thankful for such group of people, that you as well belong.

The time that is invested for searching and to find, eventually to do the bug reports and explain them is very valuable for everyone who is using the product.

That is why it is not so honorable to just dismiss such reports by "Correct as is" without explanation for the source that says so.

The training missions wouldn't be in a working state today if they weren't accompanied by hours of verification and validation that the systems we described were actually working as "intended." They wouldn't be released if they didn't get developed alongside an exhaustive list of functions that, based on the source materials, weren't working properly.

The training missions are interesting things, as I have a feeling that eventually surprising many doesn't even use them. Instead many buy module, hops in, check a some youtube video or chucks guide and go to fly. Never really going deeper to the functionality and then just work through the problems when they appear etc.

Like example I have high respect to the C-101 developers that how much effort they have put on the systems, and especially even more for those people in their forums that has gone through all kind emergency procedures etc that majority of people would never even consider to do as to them it is just "Eject" or "crash" and respawn.

This is one of those major features I am waiting a lot, when it comes to damage modeling improvements. That we would start to see more different levels of damages and their effects, than just major ones like "Wing is off" and "Engine 1 is on fire".

As one of the most annoying experiences I get with A-10C is that almost any hit that aircraft gets, ends to major damage that basically shuts off almost all the electronic instruments. So the changes between "All functioning perfectly" and "completely destroyed" is in very few.

Some of these outstanding submissions and requests date back to 2017. Remember, back then, their target for full release was Summer 2018. Razbam's quality target back then was not the same as it is today. It wasn't until Razbam saw and were impressed by the

that they even decided that they would want to include BITs at all.

Wow.... Just... wow...

I just while back started to go through the BIT functionality more thoughtfully and found that the TGP is emulating a AGM-65 seeker video, why you can't have a Maverick video and TGP video both activated as only one video link is possible be activated via BIT page.

I don't say this to be overly critical about not having BITs (I wouldn't say BITs are ever a necessary feature, they're just a pretty bow on a well-simulated system), I say this to be clear that the number of times I've encountered Razbam having no plan at all or flat-out misunderstanding the source material far outnumbers the times I've encountered Razbam understanding a system well enough to have a long-term plan in the first place.

That is still little disturbing me, regardless how much in past weeks I have read about these things. But it doesn't really make so much shock anymore that they just went with eyes shut and hands extended and trying to find what was front of them...

In such a situation one would think that they would be welcoming ALL THE HELP they can get.... Happily...

I'm not going to argue that this isn't a game, but you expect a certain level of competence and program management skills even from game developers. I certainly expected a level of professionalism where constructive feedback coming from a place of a shared desire to see a better finished product wasn't met with hostility, but that's what happened.

I always remember when the report for CCRP designation when in AUTO mode was brought up, and how the CCIP crosshair/pipper was modeled as "accurately calculated" and "inaccurately calculated" instead the proper style (that we got after all). It was such a hand wrestling to get the feedback in.

I agree that planes between FC3 and full fidelity have a place in the DCS ecosystem. I just wish people didn't have to find out after they purchased a full fidelity plane for a full fidelity price tag that what they actually got was one of these middle fidelity products. They should be advertised and priced as such.

Exactly. I would gladly welcome A LOT of FC3 kind aircrafts in DCS. Like if we could get a more modern REDAIR aircrafts in DCS in a FC3 level, totally fine. More from Cold War era? Again, great... I even more welcome that we would get more these as start, that then get later developed to more deeper simulated aircrafts one by one.

At some point there is just requirement to see more to fly at lower price. That was as well why I was happy at first for the Modern Air Combat to be coming, as it would have given change to buy it for a friends and get them more easily fly various aircrafts. And it was really a let down when it was told that it is going to be separate product, not available for DCS World, so no co-op flying with example DCS: MiG-21Bis and MAC: Mig-21Bis.

The training missions are interesting things' date=' as I have a feeling that eventually surprising many doesn't even use them. Instead many buy module, hops in, check a some youtube video or chucks guide and go to fly. Never really going deeper to the functionality and then just work through the problems when they appear etc.[/quote']

 

That factored into the thought process behind their complexity.

 

Knowing that there would eventually be a Chuck's Guide, a manual, and plenty of YouTube tutorials that synthesized those documents with trial and error, we figured a comprehensive approach was a gap that warranted filling. Teaching someone who may have never purchased a module before how to fly an aircraft as complex and unforgiving as the Harrier needed a thorough offering and plenty of time in the sandbox trying things out under different conditions.

 

It didn't become apparent until after a lot of them were written (written, I remind you, based on source documents because Razbam had none of their own guidance to offer up front) that they were not only thorough: they were inadvertently increasing the scope of features that Razbam originally intended to model.

 

You can still see fingerprints of this with the absence of a Case III capability or training mission (on a night attack aircraft). That required research and forethought about what procedures and systems the Harrier used for Case III operations, and subsequently what the Tarawa 3D model needed to have on it to make those possible, that Razbam didn't put in ahead of time.

Stop being rude.... If you can't write without personal insults, you can stop visiting all forums that do not tolerate rude behavior...

 

 

 

They specifically said that they will implement _all_ features that are "Not Implemented" in the current version. You can go searching that post if you want.

 

"Since the release of the DCS: Black Shark 2 upgrade many years ago, our technology has improved greatly to allow us to create an even better Ka-50 Black Shark! As with the A-10C Warthog 2, this includes both graphical and system upgrades."

 

 

 

Have you thought about adding that to their wishlist to be same as with other modules where INS drifts etc?

 

 

 

So you are swinging before even considering that ED would be upgrading the KA-50 systems as they say the are going to do....

 

 

 

So your argument is that because ED has not already added and fixed the missing systems and features in the last 10 years, they are not going to do it now at all. You just want to be there to be able say "I told you so"....

 

 

 

Yes, you are seeing it that ED is not going to do anything to improve, fix or add systems.... And then you claim that you don't have any problems with it. So why are you then whining about the oldest DCS module not using latest functions in DCS since its development, while it is being updated and released in the future?

 

 

 

You said it, You do not understand it, and you likely don't. So why should anyone even spend anymore time to try to explain it for you?

 

 

 

Again you are using a over 11 year old (or 9 years from BS2) product as your argument that nothing can't change as it has not already done so. Reminder, back in the day there was no such modeling possibilities that has been added since then. Do not use F/A-18C against the older modules realistic systems modeling when it is the one that is used to develop them to DCS world and its modules in the future.... It is always in the end question about the developers will to implement systems for a level, some do (like ED and Heatblur) and some don't (like Razbam). And whos product KA-50 was?

 

 

 

Stop insulting...

 

 

 

Again, you are arguing with over 11-9 years old product that has not received upgrades since then to latest module that is used to develop these new systems, and making claims that future KA-50 paid upgrade doesn't change any of those details you say.

 

Have you brought those questions to the ED to ask about it? Like "Hey, you are doing this KA-50 upgrade that will cost money for current owners, are you going to leave this and this and this features unfixed/non-changed?"

 

Go ahead, ask them that are they going to leave systems intact....

Sorry for getting heated, but I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying I don’t want Ka-50 to change, and I am not saying ED will never change things like this. I am only saying that it’s current state, minus the cockpit upgrade the state it has been in since BS2, that particular state for the Ka-50 module is a good example of what this thread in particular is about, if there is a place for medium fidelity airplanes in between FC3 and full fidelity.

I am not arguing for it to stay the same, or that ED should not touch it, just saying in the context of the thread, it’s a good example of medium fidelity, judging it from the state it’s been in since BS2 and not whatever future states it’s in after BS3. I am only judging it off it’s present state, that it’s “medium” fidelity is well received, becuase I haven’t seen many posts complaining about it, and that that is evidence that a similar standard is not out of place in DCS. I am also not saying or never meant to say that ED should make it to the same level of fidelity as F-18, I’m only saying the current Blackshark we’ve had for years is a good example for this particular thread subject, a well received medium fidelity that people love

If they are added eventually that’s great, if not that’s fine. I just thought it was relevant to this thread to mention Blackshark, and deserved being mentioned that the Ka-50 is exemplary of what OP is asking

Sorry for getting heated, but I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying I don’t want Ka-50 to change, and I am not saying ED will never change things like this. I am only saying that it’s current state, minus the cockpit upgrade the state it has been in since BS2, that particular state for the Ka-50 module is a good example of what this thread in particular is about, if there is a place for medium fidelity airplanes in between FC3 and full fidelity.

Problem is that even the F/A-18C that is so much used for the "golden example" has the same problems.

Example your argument about the KA-50 have perfect GPS. Well, so does the F/A-18C as well, including LITENING targeting pod. You can park Hornet on a ramp or so, and it will show perfect GPS coordinates all the time without any jittery, it can be kept there and nothing drifts there.

Targeting pods does not shake, they do not slip around but all have perfect ground stabilization and perfect lock on targets. The targeting pods gives coordinates that are perfect, no recalculations or anything.

These are common problems on all modules. A well done simulation will include errors, mistakes, inaccuracies etc. It has been huge hand crawling with developers to include a INS drifting in some modules, with some modules developers were first to take these steps. Like one might hold a Heatblur as golden examplery how to do these things like they did with the Viggen, or what they are doing with Tomcat.

ED is still more for the "Make it perfect" with the Hornet, with some odd "Correct as is" tags when even the real manuals states otherwise. But how far or long does the community (or individuals making reports) dare to take the case to get it more realistic, correct, proper, expected etc, when developer is always giving the final word as they are the ones that has the code and can put foot down and say "Correct as is"?

KA-50 is oldest module there is. For a long time it was the golden standard, before the F/A-18C came out. It was even better than A-10C. The A-10C is more complex and has all kind fancy systems in it, why people get easily mistaken that "KA-50 is worse".

There is this wisdom that you do not put a real pilot on simulator, because they do things they are not suppose to do. Like in real world a no helicopter pilot would never try to fly their helicopter upside down unless it is specifically designed for that or approved. Example AH-64 Apache is only helicopter in US inventory that is approved to fly inverted. Meaning that they can technically fly full loop. That is as well why you see them performing that in the airshows because the engine is designed to withstand such a performance.

But we see these things being done in the simulator all the time, and all are capable for that regardless most would likely not but cause severe instant malfunction in engine or gear boxes.

Problem is that as in reality no one is going to do that, it can't be really simulated properly as it all goes to "educated guess" level and estimations.

A simple systems like your mentioned battery can be fairly easily made properly that you have the specific power draw from it by systems, but at some point as well players get frustrated if they would really require to do all the proper checking and procedures to get systems running right.

And if you have real pilots or players who follow the handbook, it doesn't really matter to them as they are not going to "fly inverted" as they are not suppose to do so. So when they follow the book by the letter, they shouldn't get any problems. So developer can simply skip the realistic behavior that battery gets empty, because no one is suppose to draw the power out of it to get it empty in first place...

Like a KA-50 targeting system. We do not have a contrast detection system at all in the DCS. Yet all the optical targeting systems from Shkval to LITENING to VIVIANE and Mavericks etc are using contrast detection system to achieve a lock and maintaining the lock.

The ED is currently developing a new FLIR system, and I can think that its main challenges are two kinds.

1) proper thermal mapping for terrain, buildings, vehicles and all. So you will get a warm spots in vehicles and cold spots. You will have warm spots on ground and hot spots on ground. A vehicle that is engine out is not hot but blends with the terrain. A sun that heats up vehicle will show up it better when it enters to shadows, and vehicle that is in shadows moves to sun areas becomes cold for a while before heating again up.

2) Sensors itself. A specific and narrow infrared range that is filtered out in first place, and then the sensor own resolution to be able see in that range and show the proper range of variations. This as well means that sensors has limited range for FLIR detection. It is not so that you can point a LITENING at 20 nmi and see all the vehicles popping out as white/black dots against clear background. It means that you need to get at about 3-5 nmi to get a such resolution to start detecting the variations. All the air that the radiation needs to go through, it filters it out. This is very challenging even on ground war where ground vehicles FLIR systems need to look through the thickest heat layer there is as they look it straight. It is like trying to find something on a desert when heat waves distorts everything, but at night you can see all far better as there is no heat waves after some periods of sunset when the sand cools down.

The Laser mavericks are used primarily because they are far more accurate and reliable as you don't need to play with these high probabilities that middle of the flight the seeker locks on something else, or you can't get a lock at all until you get to hundreds of meters from the object.

What comes to contrast detection system, it is always two edged sword. If you have a vehicle under a tree so it blends with the tree, the system might not detect the contrast to lock on that. So you need to choose the larger area to track on. Why you would set in Shkval the targeting lock gate larger so you will get the tree and the vehicle inside the whole gate, you would move the gate around so that the center of it would be where vehicle is, and try to lock on.

Now comes the question that how is the contrast detection system done by the manufacturer.

In DCS it is just using a ID number of the 3D model in the world. If you have that ID object inside the targeting gate then it is a lock. Few parameters to it is included that is like a sun position so middle of day you have longest lock range and at sunset you have -40% lock range and at night it can be -90% of lock range. Even if you would see the target perfectly on the screen, it would be very strong contrast for you. But if parameters of the day time and target range doesn't match, you do not get a lock.

The real contrast detection system doesn't care about ranges, it only cares that can it find enough contrast to generate a pattern it can mathematically then track.

Like take the above example. The easiest is the top one, a vehicle on flat terrain and just next to a tree. For a real contrast detection system it is still challenging, it is required to detect the shape of the tree and the vehicle and build a pattern out of it and track both. But Unit ID based method just accept that you put the gate around vehicle and lock to it.

The middle one is what can happen in the game. You now have a vehicle edge of the forest and you see it easily. For a real contrast system that is very challenging. So challenging that you likely would not get a lock at all. Why FLIR system can be nice as it might generate stronger contrast where you can lock on as vehicle can be hotter than the trees. So the FLIR system "eliminates trees". But in game it doesn't matter as it is again just a unit ID that is inside lock gate.

The bottom one is the most challenging of all. In reality the vehicles would be camouflaged. You wouldn't spot them visually and you might even walk at them before you spot them, if the vehicle crew has done their camouflaging properly (literally you would even hit your head at the vehicle at lower lighting conditions). The vehicle would blend in the forest like nothing. And as long it doesn't move, have lights, generate sound or even keeps their engine compartment hidden, you do not spot it with FLIR and you don't see it in radar, and you do not see it.

But in DCS it is again just a Unit ID and you get perfect lock on to it.

Now, ED could add new modifier to this, a new 3D models for each map so that vehicles crews apply camouflage and try to hide to terrain. It would render A-G radars incapable to detect them. It would make in most maps the FLIR system incapable to see them. And players wouldn't see them as they would be rendered partially transparent when they are not moving by game engine, so visually you would have very challenge to see them.

And then add a modifier for a such vehicle that locking ranges are lowered for various systems.

But, the problem is that IF you would spot them visually, the Shkval system doesn't. All it cares is that there is a contrast if you want a contrast lock. But you can always just keep the system stabilized for the range value and guide missile without a lock.

And suddenly you have a new problems to solve, how to simulate a proper drifting, shaking, unintentional movement etc.

And this is a reason why you can not send just air force to fight the war, because they can't see anything. They can't spot anything. They can't do anything.

Want realism? Want authenticate combat?

It is all done by the troops on the ground. They are the ones that moves, detect, spot and find the enemy. They are the ones that likely take the fight by being ambushed. And air force is nothing more than a force multiplier where ground forces needs to point at them where and how to engage.

In a good day you can send a aircraft to fly a killbox on area that is known to be free from friendlies and known to have some enemies and tell them "Kill everything you find". And if enemy is stupid, they will park their dark green vehicles on the flat bright yellow desert (like in a DCS) and they are easily spotted and destroyed.

On a bad day.... You don't really know where is what. And it is not up to your sensors but about enemy, their tactics and strategies, their doctrine, weather and terrain and all.

To create an ambush, you don't need more than a couple guys with RPG and maybe LMG to engage the column for a 30 seconds and then disengage and disappear.

Then the next team does the same thing at some other position. You will super easily wear out the column will to continue, you will likely kill and destroy them all.

And there is nothing really stopping them when it is done properly.

A real modern war is something that is very complex to simulate or model.

And DCS is currently in the phase that where combat is like a 17th century open field engagements between one army group and another...