Why didn't ED do the Apache?

I find this statement to be both parts truth and comically false given recent history. Sure they have said an A variant of the Apache is what is most likely for them to do, but I think they would want to bring the most realistic features and capabilities to the module. I don't see how you can honestly say it would've been more loved then the KA-50. There is simply no way to prove that statement. Given recent modules being removed from EA, added to EA and planned modules from ED and other 3rd party devs, our lovely little community would rip them apart for it not being accurate. We have done it before. To me it makes more sense for ED to back away from the Apache back in the day, as this allows them now to bring us a more in depth, feature complete Apache today/in the future.

 

I also can't buy into ED "abandoning" the Mi-24 just because they figured out how to make the Apache better midway through Hind modeling. Sure, those of us from Western countries would want more NATO, but we aren't the only customers ED has. It just doesn't really fit with everything ED has done up to this point.

Firstly, I'd like to remind you that the community has been continuously asking for things that shouldn't be possible in the planes. This is a big issue. The Viper, according to people who actually worked on the wiring of its pylons, can't use HARMs on the inboard stations. Yet we're getting them. The F-16CM Block 50 in ANG service in 2007 also can't carry the triple mavs launcher if I understand correctly, as the software support isn't there and there's a chance it'll bug out. The damage inflicted to the plane by the Mavericks' launch also isn't modelled. The Hornet uses the Litening TGP, an Spanish variant moreover, while the USN/USMC has always used the ATFLIR TGP.

The community is very happy with having inaccuracies on the modules as long as that means more capabilities. If you gave them the option to have a possibly inaccurate Apache, and a fully realized Ka-50, you'd be surprised of how much people actually goes to the Apache even if it wouldn't be fully accurate.

Now, one could argue the jets are frankenjets, thus these should be allowed. In that case just say you're making an F-16C Block 50 and an F/A-18C and be done with it. Ignore the particularities so that you can make the module you want to make and add stuff as you see fit. Example: Razbam's F-15E.

Secondly, while ED's playerbase is definitely not 100% western, it seems to me that the biggest chunk of the playerbase is, which would push ED towards a more western-focused lineup and business model as that would allow ED to maximize profit (which according to Chizh is their top priority when choosing modules). And let me explain a bit that "Abandoned" thing. I don't think they'll deliver us an F-16 (I really, really hope they don't), do Multicrew/AI Gunner, and call it a day. They've told us the progress on the Mi-24 and it seems to be almost done, I believe we will have a nice module when it releases. The problem is that things always break, and there are always things to add, finish, polish, etc. Once they've Multicrew/AI Gunner figured out, they'll move the helicopter team to the Apache, and any kind of support for the Mi-24 will end. The Apache simply will attract more, much more sales, thus it'll have much more attention from ED. Logically.

Kinda like with the Supercarrier and the Kuznetsov. The Kuznetsov still doesn't have deck lights. But ED won't spend time adding them because it's not what brings them money

Firstly, I'd like to remind you that the community has been continuously asking for things that shouldn't be possible in the planes. This is a big issue. The Viper, according to people who actually worked on the wiring of its pylons, can't use HARMs on the inboard stations. Yet we're getting them. The F-16CM Block 50 in ANG service in 2007 also can't carry the triple mavs launcher if I understand correctly, as the software support isn't there and there's a chance it'll bug out. The damage inflicted to the plane by the Mavericks' launch also isn't modelled. The Hornet uses the Litening TGP, an Spanish variant moreover, while the USN/USMC has always used the ATFLIR TGP.

 

The community is very happy with having inaccuracies on the modules as long as that means more capabilities. If you gave them the option to have a possibly inaccurate Apache, and a fully realized Ka-50, you'd be surprised of how much people actually goes to the Apache even if it wouldn't be fully accurate.

 

Now, one could argue the jets are frankenjets, thus these should be allowed. In that case just say you're making an F-16C Block 50 and an F/A-18C and be done with it. Ignore the particularities so that you can make the module you want to make and add stuff as you see fit. Example: Razbam's F-15E.

 

Secondly, while ED's playerbase is definitely not 100% western, it seems to me that the biggest chunk of the playerbase is, which would push ED towards a more western-focused lineup and business model as that would allow ED to maximize profit (which according to Chizh is their top priority when choosing modules). And let me explain a bit that "Abandoned" thing. I don't think they'll deliver us an F-16 (I really, really hope they don't), do Multicrew/AI Gunner, and call it a day. They've told us the progress on the Mi-24 and it seems to be almost done, I believe we will have a nice module when it releases. The problem is that things always break, and there are always things to add, finish, polish, etc. Once they've Multicrew/AI Gunner figured out, they'll move the helicopter team to the Apache, and any kind of support for the Mi-24 will end. The Apache simply will attract more, much more sales, thus it'll have much more attention from ED. Logically.

 

Kinda like with the Supercarrier and the Kuznetsov. The Kuznetsov still doesn't have deck lights. But ED won't spend time adding them because it's not what brings them money

As far as the F-16 goes my understanding is it can carry/fire six if it had to do so. It doesn't carry 6 six because the most inboard mav on each side could damage the flaps/stabilizers if fired. As far as AGM-88s, it was flight tested to be able to carry them. You don't flight test if you can never fire one. Plus, I have only ever seen F-16s carry tanks on the inboard stations, so it is what it is. Also the USMC could and did use the Litening pod. That being said, I agree with you that we ask for things that aren't realistic all the time.

I would still be hard pressed to believe they would finish the 16,Mi-24 and never support them again. They haven't done that with any other module that I have seen anyway, but at some point they have to move onto the next module. Money is always the driving factor, but I think ED also "tries" to bring balance, within limits.

This whole topic is centered on why ED didn't do the Apache though, and as I have said, I would think they didn't feel they could do it to their standard back then, hoping to be better able to do so now or in the near future.

I'm inclined to believe that the Apache, being American, was a bit more off-limits to them. But they did the A-10C, so I'm completely puzzled. It's really one of the most iconic helicopters ever, it'd grab the attention of even the most stubborn fixed wing players, and even bring new people to the sim as the Apache is just that iconic. The Ka-50 being the only attack helicopter is hurting the sim, its systems are old and outdated, the helicopter itself is obscure and unknown to 99% of the aviation community, the weapons are okay-ish at best, the ergonomics are questionable...

ED should really consider releasing the Apache ASAP, as it's the main thing that it's missing from the sim. The Apache and the F-15, really. And we have an F-15C, and will have an F-15E. So it's just the Apache. It's weird they chose to make the Mi-24 before the Apache, it's not a module that's gonna finance anything.

ED should really consider releasing the Apache ASAP, as it's the main thing that it's missing from the sim. The Apache and the F-15, really. And we have an F-15C, and will have an F-15E. So it's just the Apache. It's weird they chose to make the Mi-24 before the Apache, it's not a module that's gonna finance anything.

Personally I disagree with your reasoning there. I'm from the States, hell I'm not far from Ft. Rucker, where they used to train in the Apache. I remember seeing them flying overhead as a kid and I think the Mi-24 is more interesting. Now that's just me. If they dropped both right now, I would buy both of them. We are hopefully getting the Kiowa within the next year and I hope that it fills some of the voids we have in the attack helicopter arena. At best you looking 2022-2024 for the Apache, depending on what they have done behind closed doors (more then they let on I believe :music_whistling:)

I don't think ED would have chosen the Mi-24 if they didn't feel they could make money off it. I think a lot of us are happy to have the Mi-24 in the arsenal and we will be just as happy when they officially announce the AH-64. Don't get me wrong man, I love the Apache and you're right on about how iconic it is, I just don't think that is their sole motivating factor. I would rather they snatch some low hanging fruit and then blast one out of the park later.

I'm inclined to believe that the Apache, being American, was a bit more off-limits to them. But they did the A-10C, so I'm completely puzzled. It's really one of the most iconic helicopters ever, it'd grab the attention of even the most stubborn fixed wing players, and even bring new people to the sim as the Apache is just that iconic. The Ka-50 being the only attack helicopter is hurting the sim, its systems are old and outdated, the helicopter itself is obscure and unknown to 99% of the aviation community, the weapons are okay-ish at best, the ergonomics are questionable...

 

ED should really consider releasing the Apache ASAP, as it's the main thing that it's missing from the sim. The Apache and the F-15, really. And we have an F-15C, and will have an F-15E. So it's just the Apache. It's weird they chose to make the Mi-24 before the Apache, it's not a module that's gonna finance anything.

You're speculating and make assumptions on a lot of stuff that you have absolutly no insight into...

You're speculating and make assumptions on a lot of stuff that you have absolutly no insight into...

I'm sorry for looking at the current state of the game and its community and drawing assumptions according to those.

Because they have side by side seating, which introduces additional challenges for making them multicrew. Neither the Cobra nor the Hind have this problem, with their crewmembers in separate compartments and with entirely separate controls. From what I've gathered, having a switch which can be flipped by either player is actually a serious challenge.

Flipping a switch is not a problem.

Player A flips a switch -> Input or Switch Status is transmitted over Player B > Player B sees switch to be be flipped on new position.

Player A and Player B can both be flipping back and worth the exact same switches (like Master Arm) or press the same button (like flare release) and it is not at all a problem.

Where is the problem? It comes in a CONSTANT input transmission. And that is Axis.

Player A push throttle forward from 42% to 56%, Player B throttle is not moved. What should happen?

In a good case scenario, the Player A throttle movement is the used input for the output, but if either player B or A axis has any jitter, ghosting or anything that gets transmitted constantly, it will be overriding the other player input. So if player A has a throttle at minimum value, and B moves throttle to fly, and throttle from A is constantly sending input, it will reset the throttle back to minimum on the moment B's throttle input is ended.

All buttons, switches and dials are not a problem as you have only individual ones in the aircraft. You have one aircraft, one switch and button and so on that are used.

This is why example L-39 cockpit system works because the aircraft in reality does have a automatic override for controls from the rear seat (instructor) that front seat (trainee) can not overcome.

So the rear seat can simply take the controls at any given time and lock front seat out, and the rear seat needs to give the controls to front seat, or simply avoid touching the controls at all.

This is the same thing in the helicopters, no matter are you front and rear, or sideways. Other should just avoid touching the controls at all. The challenge is that if both are given the realistic shared controls input without commanding which one is the one flying. And it would be done like in real helicopters that you say something like "I have control" -> "You have control". And that is the transmission of the controls. Making such a system as flexible that at any given time either player can request the controls and other needs to release it willingly, there is only single input device over network that is going to be used.

As it doesn't matter example in helicopters like Mi-24 where in tandem both has the controls, because the same problem exist that even rear seat has the basic cyclic and throttle in case of emergency that if something happens to the pilot at rear, the gunner can land the helicopter or fly to nearest safe place.

The same problem exist with every other switch and button in the tandem cockpits as with the sideseated. As if the pilot at rear flips switch that sets formation lights On, then they need to be set On for front seater as well.

If the front seat player press Flare Dispencer button, the Flares needs to fly as well from the rear seater point of view.

The real major problem is that ED needs to make two groups for the controls. One for Single Player, and another for Multiplayer.

The front/rear seat system is easy, but you anyways in SP come to question that should the player be able bind the other pilot functions as well to the same seat that is occupied?

And if you need to have example F-14 pilot and RIO with single same device handling, it becomes very complex binding structure that would require automatically player to invent clever way to use multipliers.

There just is no way to fix the problem when two players try to use same axis inputs, than simply disable the other player controls until controls are transferred.

And even then comes the common current problem that exist with a AI pilot in SP, the AI controls are not in sync with the player own controls when the player jumps back to seat to fly. If AI had joystick set as 75/23 in X/Y range and player jumps where it is 50/50 as joystick is centered, the moment player applies input (or controls are transferred) the input becomes 50/50 and aircraft flips.

The Apache actually has a way more advanced HMCS than the Kamov. The Kamov's only allows for Shkval steering, while the Apache's is, just like the SCORPION, a mini HUD mounted on the helmet. It can also project FLIR images I think. So the Kamov, at the end of the day, is way more blind than the Apache.

You are missing the point. I am not arguing that KA-50 HMS is as advanced or better at all than the many much newer (and more complex) systems. But how the AI-Player cooperation should go by helping player to guide AI to look specific direction and distance, just like you would do with a human as well.

You don't need datalinks or such to inform when you spot something. The IHADS has a nice small indicator at the bottom that where each of the pilots is looking, like if gunner use IHADS to fire cannon at 45 degree left and 30 degree down, the pilot sees that relative direction as well, and this speeds up the communications.

In a MBT the commander is responsible for searching targets for the gunner. And they need to communicate that where targets are and the status to the commander. So the Hunter-Killer feature is that commander has a capability to override the gunner controls and even fire the cannon by himself (Commander is Hunter, Gunner is Killer). So if commander spots an priority target, there is no requirement to explain where to look and what to look when commander already has the target acquired. Commander simply press button and cannon is automatically pointed at the commander heading. This one was one of the major features in the tank warfare when various IFV's and MBT's got it.

Now in even more basic vehicles or almost anything, communication is very critical to lay down fire to correct place. This is in the defensive positions that squad leader defines the defensive parameters and all rules for engagements and the orders, so everyone knows what is meant when "Barn, 300" is called as direction, as you can not use "3'clock" because your team can be scattered to 50-100 meter wide area.

Now do that same in a moving vehicle, You need to have means to communicate and there is easy to say "Armor, 1'clock 500 meters, orange tree right side". For a human spotting something can be very small thing, for AI it can be just impossible.

So means to assist AI to "Search target near that orange tree" is required. As if you call for a human something like that, they very well know what to look for.

Seeing how they've handled the Kuznetsov, and how sweet of a deal the A-10C 2 upgrade is, it is my opinion that they're in fact promoting more the NATO side than the red side. But we can't blame them, that's what sells

The KA-50 is going to have similar "sweet deal". So very likely as well 9.99 on first month, 19.99 from that etc.

And they are promoting the west side because they have said that it is what sells. It is officially known statement from their marketing department. Why ED made even claim that Su-27 or Mi-29 wouldn't sell because "there is no demand" for them.

And many were very astounded about that idea that there wouldn't be enough people interested about those to make reason have effort to get them modeled.

But one thing is that even today there is a "information iron curtain" between East and the West. West doesn't want their citizens to know about East countries, their cultures, and they don't even want to accept them. They want to stay ignorant about what is happening in the East. Like it can come as such a unbelievable idea that after like 100 different countries, the most friendliest and trustworthy people in the are mostly in East Russia.

And if you are international company, you will get very heavy influence from the west to promote the west ideas and status. It is huge marketing difference between west and east and how to do business and all.

It is no wonder that world largest companies easily fails in the east, because they do not understand the target audience.

And to sell the western people something form the east, that they have learn through their lives as "their enemy", it is just dislike everywhere. It is like trying to sell a opposite ice hockey branded stuff to other team fans... It just is extremely challenging by their opposing mindset.

Why does this topic keep coming up?

ED, and Wags specifically, have said the Apache is a matter of when, not if.

That's really easily findable via a search too.

I'm suspicious that one of the reasons why the Apache hasn't been done yet is simply a matter of finance.

Design the Apache earlier, and would they get the same amount of sales for all the other helicopters that are available?

Smarter choice is to "leave the best til last". Not saying that the Apache is the best in all situations, but if they want to milk as much funds as they can - it makes sense to gradually 'build up' than to go to the top from the beginning and I suspect that if the Apache was sold at the beginning their may have been fewer sales on others. How much fewer could only be speculated.

Or I could be completely wrong. Just a guess.

I also can't buy into ED "abandoning" the Mi-24 just because they figured out how to make the Apache better midway through Hind modeling. Sure, those of us from Western countries would want more NATO, but we aren't the only customers ED has. It just doesn't really fit with everything ED has done up to this point.

Eventually ED comes to position that it must start including more units in the DCS World. IMHO it doesn't eventually matter are they flyable, but as long they get in the AI form. And before that they need to get the AI problems solved. As it is very annoying to try to study and enjoy from one side when it becomes like beating a child...

And that is what I personally wish more than RED units, that ED would make all ground units far more realistic and develop Combined Arms to high end RTS game itself with all proper fog of war simulation and communication challenges etc what commanding troops can have.

As that would eventually balance the whole game across the board. And one flyable helicopter or fighter is not going to do the same effect that Combined Arms would do.

Why does this topic keep coming up?

 

 

ED, and Wags specifically, have said the Apache is a matter of when, not if.

 

That's really easily findable via a search too.

This is not about "Do we see Apache!?" as you think.

This thread is about "Why didn't ED make Apache earlier?".

It is totally irrelevant information that Apache IS COMING, because question is not about does it come or not, but about time in the past that why not done it already.

I'm suspicious that one of the reasons why the Apache hasn't been done yet is simply a matter of finance.

Many things likely sums all up.

Like first ED would need a nice track history to show for any funding party that they can do it.

Show that they can do it for any licensing party.

And then have enough experience and access to really do it (should already be in the military side use, we are discussing about the commercial version).

And of course that they would have WHERE to include that Apache?

ED needs to plan their future 10-15 years forward, have a plan how and what develop in order to get the big puzzle completed.

Like jump back in time to 1997 and you just can't make Jane's Longbow as advanced as wanted or so, but really be hold back by the hardware and software capabilities.

Over 23 years later, ED is hold back by the old code base in DCS World for many things. And so are every studio that is tied to the code base that ED offers them.

Till they actually figure out a decent multicrew and decent AI helos are mostly pointless.

Helos are pointless? Damn, I’ve been wasting all my time playing Huey as my primary module. Thanks for letting me know. Lol

His point was that having an AI gunner may be pointless. Or AI pilot if you want to be the gunner.

They were actually working on an Apache (AH-64A) at that time. We can only specualte why this didn't work out back then.

 

 

2008

 

 

2007

Your post literally has the highly probable answer in it. Multi Crew. Just see how far ED is with that today and it's easy to pin it down to that.

Also 2007: http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_037e.html

That is likely the most challenging piece of avionics that ED is up to... Not to simulate it, but how to get it working with all the plyers and their controls!

Easy. They implement all the switches, hats, rockers etc funtions as usual and it's the player's problem to get all that mapped. They just might want to have a default mapping for that, but that's certainly not the reason for a delay of the module at all. As as happened with the Tomcat, I'm 120% certain that someone will come up with a 3D printed selfmade unit shortly after an announcement, followed by either VKB or Virpil. Absolutely the least thing to worry about, really.

I'm sorry for looking at the current state of the game and its community and drawing assumptions according to those.

Then why have you not considered the following:

1. The consumer base for this sim is quite small, meaning word travels fast inside these circles. Interest can be generated where there wasn't any to start. While certainly Western airframes seem to enjoy quite a bit of popularity, it doesn't mean Eastern Bloc aircraft won't. This also makes the assumption that players will only be interested in aircraft they're familiar within their own air force inventory.

That is demonstrably false.

The MiG-21 did pretty damn well. Sure, a lot of that was due to the DCS landscape being sparse by comparison to today, but at the same time it still proved popular. Until DCS, the MiG-21 was basically a balalaika-shaped digital clay for skeet shooting in Jane's or Falcon 4.0. If the assertion that people only buy their local flavors were true, it'd still mean something like the Mi-24 would be a safe bet as many of the air arms and inventories that include the MiG-21 also have the Mi-24.

There's clearly a Western interest in the MiG-21 due to its status as a legendary and influential aircraft. The Mi-24 fits well within that description. There's very much a Western interest in the Mi-24. These were both iconic aircraft of the 20th century's latter half, they're going to do pretty well.

Then, there's also the 'Rule of Cool' to consider with the Ka-50. The Ka-50 is an unusual looking helicopter and has a lot of interesting things it can perform. In fact, it behaves somewhat like a VTOL A-10 in a lot of respects. It's easy to get interested in the Ka-50 because it's so different.

2. Customer apathy. Eventually, the honeymoon comes to an end. Once you've flown enough hours in a certain aircraft, you do tend to look for trying out others. I've done with either a number of airframes and I doubt I'm alone. Just because it isn't purchased at launch doesn't mean it won't get purchased, period. Tastes evolve over time and that could mean certain modules will sell at different opportunities.

3. Helo-nerds are a starved bunch. Have you counted the available rotary winged aircraft vs. fixed wing?

There are 30 full fidelity aircraft for DCS and 4 of them are helicopters. What are the odds that people who come to DCS for rotary-winged combat simming own all 4? A lot more likely than us fixed wing nerds owning all of the fixed wing.

4. The community input is a lot more limited here than it is with other games and software. This one is really hard to get across, but it's one that DCS players need to come to grips with: Developers are very much at the mercy of defense organizations and multi-billion dollar defense contractors. If something is a "no" then it's a no, no matter what. The fidelity and detail demanded by DCS developers and its consumer base requires a lot of access to official documentation and figures.

So, when a both a manufacturer AND a defense organizing body are cooperative? You embrace whatever airframe and variant you feel is most marketable and most within your capabilities as a developer. At the time, Kamov was quite loquacious about its Ka-50. That stands in stark comparison to the current RuMoD. At the end of the day, RuMoD, USDoD, or whatever defensive organization it may be couldn't give a rodent posterior about whether or not a bunch of nerds can play with accurate depictions of its hardware. It answers to its respective government and taxpayers first and only.

It's an attack helicopter that is operated by a single pilot. It's perfect for a computer game, in that regard. So, the question shouldn't be "Why'd they make a Ka-50?" it should be "Why wouldn't you make a Ka-50?"

The KA-50 is going to have similar "sweet deal". So very likely as well 9.99 on first month, 19.99 from that etc.

 

[...] Why ED made even claim that Su-27 or Mi-29 wouldn't sell because "there is no demand" for them.

I'd like to see the source for these 2, if you have it.

And to sell the western people something form the east, that they have learn through their lives as "their enemy", it is just dislike everywhere. It is like trying to sell a opposite ice hockey branded stuff to other team fans... It just is extremely challenging by their opposing mindset.

I fully agree with this

 

As that would eventually balance the whole game across the board. And one flyable helicopter or fighter is not going to do the same effect that Combined Arms would do.

DCS is a "simulator", it should strive to represent real world scenarios as well as possible. Balance is not up to the devs. I'd argue in fact that DCS needs no more Red jets than it needs blue jets. The MiG-23 is coming and that's the last plane we need to represent modern US Vs. Someone conflicts, where the MiG-21 and the MiG-23 were the backbone of the enemy's air force. We've most of the American planes already, we're missing the MiG-23.

Then why have you not considered the following:

 

1. The consumer base for this sim is quite small, meaning word travels fast inside these circles. Interest can be generated where there wasn't any to start. While certainly Western airframes seem to enjoy quite a bit of popularity, it doesn't mean Eastern Bloc aircraft won't. This also makes the assumption that players will only be interested in aircraft they're familiar within their own air force inventory.

 

That is demonstrably false.

 

The MiG-21 did pretty damn well. Sure, a lot of that was due to the DCS landscape being sparse by comparison to today, but at the same time it still proved popular. Until DCS, the MiG-21 was basically a balalaika-shaped digital clay for skeet shooting in Jane's or Falcon 4.0. If the assertion that people only buy their local flavors were true, it'd still mean something like the Mi-24 would be a safe bet as many of the air arms and inventories that include the MiG-21 also have the Mi-24.

 

There's clearly a Western interest in the MiG-21 due to its status as a legendary and influential aircraft. The Mi-24 fits well within that description. There's very much a Western interest in the Mi-24. These were both iconic aircraft of the 20th century's latter half, they're going to do pretty well.

 

Then, there's also the 'Rule of Cool' to consider with the Ka-50. The Ka-50 is an unusual looking helicopter and has a lot of interesting things it can perform. In fact, it behaves somewhat like a VTOL A-10 in a lot of respects. It's easy to get interested in the Ka-50 because it's so different.

 

2. Customer apathy. Eventually, the honeymoon comes to an end. Once you've flown enough hours in a certain aircraft, you do tend to look for trying out others. I've done with either a number of airframes and I doubt I'm alone. Just because it isn't purchased at launch doesn't mean it won't get purchased, period. Tastes evolve over time and that could mean certain modules will sell at different opportunities.

 

3. Helo-nerds are a starved bunch. Have you counted the available rotary winged aircraft vs. fixed wing?

 

There are 30 full fidelity aircraft for DCS and 4 of them are helicopters. What are the odds that people who come to DCS for rotary-winged combat simming own all 4? A lot more likely than us fixed wing nerds owning all of the fixed wing.

 

4. The community input is a lot more limited here than it is with other games and software. This one is really hard to get across, but it's one that DCS players need to come to grips with: Developers are very much at the mercy of defense organizations and multi-billion dollar defense contractors. If something is a "no" then it's a no, no matter what. The fidelity and detail demanded by DCS developers and its consumer base requires a lot of access to official documentation and figures.

 

So, when a both a manufacturer AND a defense organizing body are cooperative? You embrace whatever airframe and variant you feel is most marketable and most within your capabilities as a developer. At the time, Kamov was quite loquacious about its Ka-50. That stands in stark comparison to the current RuMoD. At the end of the day, RuMoD, USDoD, or whatever defensive organization it may be couldn't give a rodent posterior about whether or not a bunch of nerds can play with accurate depictions of its hardware. It answers to its respective government and taxpayers first and only.

 

It's an attack helicopter that is operated by a single pilot. It's perfect for a computer game, in that regard. So, the question shouldn't be "Why'd they make a Ka-50?" it should be "Why wouldn't you make a Ka-50?"

Fair points

I'm inclined to believe that the Apache, being American, was a bit more off-limits to them. But they did the A-10C, so I'm completely puzzled. It's really one of the most iconic helicopters ever, it'd grab the attention of even the most stubborn fixed wing players, and even bring new people to the sim as the Apache is just that iconic. The Ka-50 being the only attack helicopter is hurting the sim, its systems are old and outdated, the helicopter itself is obscure and unknown to 99% of the aviation community, the weapons are okay-ish at best, the ergonomics are questionable...

 

ED should really consider releasing the Apache ASAP, as it's the main thing that it's missing from the sim. The Apache and the F-15, really. And we have an F-15C, and will have an F-15E. So it's just the Apache. It's weird they chose to make the Mi-24 before the Apache, it's not a module that's gonna finance anything.

From what I remember reading is that the A-10C was done early on because the Air National guard contracted ED to make them a simulator. And as part of the deal the National guard granted ED all the necessary data and a license to sell a civilian version with some classified features omitted.

The Yak-52 also came about because of a similar contract deal. So incase you haven't caught on yet for a particular aircraft to get done it all has to due with two very important things, the data and a license. When ED or any 3rd party is granted a licenses that includes access to all the necessary data.

I think the much more interesting point is that why the 'introduction' chapter of the Black Shark 2 manual keeps insisting that the Ka-50 is the superior Russian combat helicopter of the 1990s, literally going on for pages on how it is much superior in every aspect to the Mi-28, when you can't help but notice that in real life the Mi-28 happens to be a thing.

I think the much more interesting point is that why the 'introduction' chapter of the Black Shark 2 manual keeps insisting that the Ka-50 is the superior Russian combat helicopter of the 1990s, literally going on for pages on how it is much superior in every aspect to the Mi-28, when you can't help but notice that in real life the Mi-28 happens to be a thing.

The Ka-50 was too expensive iirc. The single-seat nature of the thing also meant the role of scout helicopter was more difficult on it than on a 2-seater. I'm not an expert on the Mi-28 but I can see why the Ka-50 is said to be superior, honestly

I'd like to see the source for these 2, if you have it.

You can find the text in that, and should be able find the OP using it.

That same was said for A-10C II back then.

For the second about no demand for the RedAir units was in the interview, don't remember was it with the Wags or Nick Grey, but it was information that made more than a radar blib.

I think the much more interesting point is that why the 'introduction' chapter of the Black Shark 2 manual keeps insisting that the Ka-50 is the superior Russian combat helicopter of the 1990s, literally going on for pages on how it is much superior in every aspect to the Mi-28, when you can't help but notice that in real life the Mi-28 happens to be a thing.

The KA-50 was better many ways compared to Mi-28, and some things the Mi-28 did better.

The KA-50 was the choice for the Mi-24 fleet replacement, but there came one bad accident that killed one General (AFAIK) who was most influential promoter. The KA-50 was in tests found to be less demanding to operate than a single piloted multi-role fighters and its capabilities were better than required. But then again the main reason why Mi-28 won was that when there came the full combat trials between Mi-28 and KA-50, the Mi-28 completed all the flights, all the combat tests and so on, but KA-50 couldn't perform all as they didn't get missiles in time from manufacturer, there was some problem with the engine that forced to skip half of the official test flights.

I don't now recall the number but if it was like 46 tests to complete, the Mi-28 did all while KA-50 managed to do only 20 or so officially. In the unofficial trials and so the KA-50 was later on much better than Mi-28 but as the official trials ere done, it was not anymore possible to challenge the decision. But because 15 KA-50's were produced and upgraded for the standard that was set at the 90's (before KABRIS) the KA-50 project was not scrapped but decided to move it for special forces use and continue its development. Simultaneously there was a need to make a two-seater variant from KA-50 for flight leader as well for foreign sales as different countries didn't even accept a combat helicopter for tests if it didn't have a two pilots, so KA-52 got later more focus when KA-50 wasn't going anywhere in sales, hoping that from there could come income to continue it.

Many ways the KA-50 became better than traditional attack helicopters because its flight performances, cannon accuracy and systems management. It just never really got the real change because sensors didn't get installed in time.

It is interesting how a different flight capabilities change the ways what weapons to take. Like KA-50 limited traversin cannon is not a major limitation compared (IMHO) to Mi-24P fixed 30 mm cannon and I would prefer Mi-24V for that. But then again AH-64 with high angle degree turning 30 mm cannon in other hands doesn't really "tick" the boxes, while AH-1 with a 20 mm rotary gun does.

The AH-64 is my favorite attack helicopter of all time, but I am more happy that ED made KA-50 as it made something unique to fly.

But when we do receive the AH-64 finally, I probably prefer it over anything else, unless AH-1 gets out before it.

We are getting to very nice situation where we are saturating the helicopter side in DCS better status than the fixed wing side.

• KA-50
  
• AH-64
  
• AH-1
  
• Mi-24
  
• Mi-8
  
• UH-1
  
• Bo-105
  

For the list I would like to see couple additional ones.

• MH-60
  
• KA-27/29
  

So while the AH-64 has been waiting its entrance, it will likely bring a lot of people to rotary wing side with the AH-1.

How would the DCS World look if the AH-64 would have come as first module? As AH-64A variant? Likely we would have far more rotary wing players, and really set a good standard for flight simulation that 10 years ago comparing how well the KA-50 came out, considering the closest competitor would have been X-plane 9 and X-plane 10. And it truly would have been better.

It is same kind question, that what if ED would have released F/A-18C as their second module, before A-10C? Likely we would had something like F/A-18A back then.

From what I remember reading is that the A-10C was done early on because the Air National guard contracted ED to make them a simulator. And as part of the deal the National guard granted ED all the necessary data and a license to sell a civilian version with some classified features omitted.

Yes, it was the military contract that was possible be offered for commercial use with changed performance capabilities and some systems omitted.

The Yak-52 also came about because of a similar contract deal.

Similar for the L-39 as well, there is major business to provide a "real simulator" for various militaries and flight schools etc, as well that it is basically only jet aircraft that one can afford to buy.

Would be interesting to know what kind modules ED really has to offer on the military side.