Black Shark 3?

So what is the logic that the pilot would use a pylon selector for special A-A mode, instead already existing outer/inner selector

Perhaps it just enables some other systems - like perhaps it turns on a lock tone from the Igla seeker that you wouldn't want whining away every time something hot crossed your path, or maybe it starts the cooling of the seeker head (if it has that). Maybe it marks a boresight on the HUD or schval screen that you wouldn't get from the ballistics computer.

Any number of things that have nothing to do with a third set of pylons...

Your 'No one has ever seen a Ka-50 with a third set of pylons, but I personally can't think of a better reason for a third switch position than another pylon, so it must exist' argument isn't really convincing me.

The Russians figured in the end, it was just too much for one person to handle. So, they added an extra seat.

No, it was put in selection trials against the MiL and was selected as the new attack helicopter - with a single seat...

But -

It was considerably more expensive & USSR/Russia had run out of cash (Look at all the AESA radars the Russians built for the Su-27 & offered for export versions, but could never afford to field themselves - it wasn't because the Su-27S radar was better, just they couldn't afford to spend more than they absolutely had to and lots of slightly inferior was better than very few excellent), and it faced resistance from conservative elements within the armed services (a bit like those groups within the USAF hierarchy that fought the F-16 because they objected to the light single engine - 'no redundancy' concept)

In the end Kamov decided against fighting the system & existing prejudices and put another pilot in.

Perhaps it just enables some other systems - like perhaps it turns on a lock tone from the Igla seeker that you wouldn't want whining away every time something hot crossed your path, or maybe it starts the cooling of the seeker head (if it has that). Maybe it marks a boresight on the HUD or schval screen that you wouldn't get from the ballistics computer.

 

Any number of things that have nothing to do with a third set of pylons...

 

Your 'No one has ever seen a Ka-50 with a third set of pylons, but I personally can't think of a better reason for a third switch position than another pylon, so it must exist' argument isn't really convincing me.

 

Exactly my point. there is a million speculated reasons, but a 3rd pylon is not one of them. every one of them that there are pictures of, only has 4. There are also no hardpoints to put another pylon. I mean heck, the early Ka-52's only had 4, and they came AFTER the Ka-50 was already designed.

Well, if they put in an option to include the 3rd pylon, like on the Ka-52, and enable the A-A selection, I'll probably buy. If not, I probably won't. It's not worth giving up major ground attack ordnance just for air protection.

I don't see the problem. To me, it's already a fantasy copter, since it was never really put into production.

It's not worth giving up major ground attack ordnance just for air protection.

Which I suspect was Kamov's position, especially given that the Vikh has some anti-helicopter A-A capability anyway...

You would also get a MLWS & IR countermeasures system (IR 'jammer'), which might be very useful for a ground attack role...

Have you ever tried to shoot down a heli with the Vihker? After hitting lock about 100 times, you might get a lock. Unfortunately, by that time, the other heli has already shot you down. Usually with it's guns, it's so close.

That's why I consider the Shark to have NO air protection.

LOL - yes, that's why I said "has some anti-helicopter A-A capability " not "has anti-helicopter A-A capability"

#Wingmen

3 Ka-50's with Vikhrs

1 KA-50 with Iglas

#Problemsolved

In the end Kamov decided against fighting the system & existing prejudices and put another pilot in.

I was under the impression it was because they wanted to expand its role as a surveillance and command aircraft.. or at least had something to do with it?

If you've got Vikhr on one wing and Igla on the other AA selector would make sense. Or if Igla can also be carried on inner pylons AA selector acts as a universal "no time to think need to shoot this guy now or I'm dead" mode

"I was under the impression it was because they wanted to expand its role as a surveillance and command aircraft"

I thought standard procedure was that they would have a specialist Ka-27(29?) in the flight for that role ?

We really need more info on this. I like the Ka-50 and will purchase the update If is worth, but there are things that would be great If can be clarified like If we can carry both Vikhr and Igla's and, If we will ever get effective S-8 rockets.

Official answer please.

It's not a matter of S-8, it's the splash damage that was changed what, in 2010 or so? In 2008 S-8 and S-13s were my weapons of choise for anything not as armoured as a tank.

A more detailed list of improvements would be very welcome too. I have no problem to pay for them if justified.

It's not a matter of S-8, it's the splash damage that was changed what, in 2010 or so? In 2008 S-8 and S-13s were my weapons of choise for anything not as armoured as a tank.

Yeah, I know, being here long enough to know where the problem is (and with a Mi-24 coming, the problem is a really big one).

It's not a matter of S-8, it's the splash damage that was changed what, in 2010 or so? In 2008 S-8 and S-13s were my weapons of choise for anything not as armoured as a tank.

Can testify to that, 4 pylons of S-8's was my rock n roll load out back in the day. :)

Which S-8 do you use guys ? Cause careful, the KOM don't have any zone effect they have HEAT anti-tank warheads. Dealing with them, there is an issue in the sense that you will need at least 3 of them to hit the flank of a tank to destroy it, even if the code considers that you went through armor. 1 RPG is enough to neutralize an Abrams on the flank simply because it will ignite a fire forcing the crew to evacuate. So here you have an issue. I made a mod some years ago which increased the damage in case of penetration.

You have to use the S-8 OFP2 which are frag rockets, and tbh, I find them quite effective for Btr/Brdm/Bmp-1. Don't know if they should be more.

What we would need would be a complex life bars system for vehicles. Currently for heavy tanks for example you can create (and they did for some) a very complex collision model with each piece having its thickness value, with an additionnal code to take into account the shell angle of impact. Sadly, they didn't go far enough to allow, for example, destruction of wheels for Btr, engine fire, turret disabling etc while it wouldn't be, codewise, a very complicated thing to do. Igniting fire is quite commun for old school light APC. For example, the Bmp-1 has its fuel tanks in the rear doors. In the BMP-2, fuel tanks are located in the infantry compartment, right in the central axis of the vehicle. In case of perforation, you'll get fuel everywhere, and while it's diesel and doesn't ignite so easily, a rocket blast could do a lot of damage. Same for tracks. For MBT, there is nothing more fragile on these vehicles than the main gun. If you shoot with 30mm HE on a tank turret, you have good chances to damage the gun, and make the tank useless. Tanks are fragile.

Fact is that they did such complex damage system for ships. Today CPUs are able to handle relatively complex damage for vehicles. IMO it's not a nice thing to ask for "soft fixes" like increasing blast radius. We should push for a more complex damage system for vehicles. It would make the game 100 times better and the basis is already ingame so it's not 500 h of work for them, it's only writing a "parent code" and then dividing the collision models in few parts (Wheel, engine, turret).

In a Development Update posted in March (

I would hope that this same enhanced damage model, which tracks shell and fragment pathways into and through individual model components, would eventually be added for all ground vehicles.

So much wouldn't even be needed :)

To explain it : Currently you have for example with the M1 tank ingame a damage model with engine, tracks, left side turret, canon, canon mask etc etc etc, with an armor thickness value assigned to it.

You simply extend this way of working on most vehicles (It's nothing else than opening 3dsMax, and dividing your 3D collision model in few parts, 5 minutes work).

Then you say : This block (engine) is penetrated : vehicle stop + fire above engine.

This block (turret) is penetrated : freeze argument 0 which is the azimut turret rotation.

This block (canon) is hit : set ammunition to 0.

Modders would have the tools to do it, you would see it on many vehicle mods, Frenchpack in first :)

You see, it's not a lot, no need for extended shrapnel path etc etc, it's not warthunder we don't really care.

A more detailed list of improvements would be very welcome too. I have no problem to pay for them if justified.

I'm not picking on you, I'm just using this post as an example.

TLDR; Assume that anything that was not specifically announced WILL NOT BE INCLUDED.

I think the speculation machine should wind down just a touch, the announcement from ED said that the "new" Ka-50 is going to get the following "upgrades":

Free (everyone gets this)-

- Graphics update to include complete rework of the exterior model and interior textures.

- Bug fixes (which bugs? unknown, but probably not all of them will be fixed.)

Paid (you only get it if you buy it*)-

- Iglas (Maybe on inner pylons and certainly on outer pylons. There is no third pylon as you can see by the new model pictures. Rack of 2 or rack of 4? Unknown. Which exact version of Igla? Unknown.)

- L370-5 President-S DIRCM/MWS (The announcement just said IR jammers and MWS, but from the pictures that were part of the announcement, it's clear that it's the President-S system.)

ANYTHING ELSE: ASSUME IT'S NOT COMING. If you were hoping for FLIR, stop hoping and just assume it's not coming. If by some miracle ED was holding back to surprise us, then let's be surprised and say "yay." But this is kind of a big deal so I feel very confident that they'd say they were adding it if they were adding it. They did say they were fixing a lot of bugs but missing features are not bugs, they are just missing features which will very likely continue to be missing if they were not already announced.

I agree that it may not be needed, but an enhanced damage model is always appreciated.

Especially for those that play the CA module and prefer to drive on the ground through the mud instead of up in the skies. ;)

I agree that it may not be needed, but an enhanced damage model is always appreciated.

 

Especially for those that play the CA module and prefer to drive on the ground through the mud instead of up in the skies. ;)

Why do you think I made the frenchpack :D

I'm not picking on you, I'm just using this post as an example.

 

TLDR; Assume that anything that was not specifically announced WILL NOT BE INCLUDED.

 

I think the speculation machine should wind down just a touch, the announcement from ED said that the "new" Ka-50 is going to get the following "upgrades":

 

Free (everyone gets this)-

- Graphics update to include complete rework of the exterior model and interior textures.

- Bug fixes (which bugs? unknown, but probably not all of them will be fixed.)

 

Paid (you only get it if you buy it*)-

- Iglas (Maybe on inner pylons and certainly on outer pylons. There is no third pylon as you can see by the new model pictures. Rack of 2 or rack of 4? Unknown. Which exact version of Igla? Unknown.)

- L370-5 President-S DIRCM/MWS (The announcement just said IR jammers and MWS, but from the pictures that were part of the announcement, it's clear that it's the President-S system.)

 

ANYTHING ELSE: ASSUME IT'S NOT COMING. If you were hoping for FLIR, stop hoping and just assume it's not coming. If by some miracle ED was holding back to surprise us, then let's be surprised and say "yay." But this is kind of a big deal so I feel very confident that they'd say they were adding it if they were adding it. They did say they were fixing a lot of bugs but missing features are not bugs, they are just missing features which will very likely continue to be missing if they were not already announced.

Well, if that's the attitude, then I'm probably not buying. We need a modern copter. That means FLIR, Iglas on a third rail, President-S, maybe RWR. The current copter cannot survive a modern battlefield. The Ka-52 appears to even have millimeter wave radar. God knows what else. They built that thing to survive, and the Ka-50 is the prototype to it.

Which S-8 do you use guys ? Cause careful, the KOM don't have any zone effect they have HEAT anti-tank warheads. Dealing with them, there is an issue in the sense that you will need at least 3 of them to hit the flank of a tank to destroy it, even if the code considers that you went through armor. 1 RPG is enough to neutralize an Abrams on the flank simply because it will ignite a fire forcing the crew to evacuate. So here you have an issue. I made a mod some years ago which increased the damage in case of penetration.

 

You have to use the S-8 OFP2 which are frag rockets, and tbh, I find them quite effective for Btr/Brdm/Bmp-1. Don't know if they should be more.

 

What we would need would be a complex life bars system for vehicles. Currently for heavy tanks for example you can create (and they did for some) a very complex collision model with each piece having its thickness value, with an additionnal code to take into account the shell angle of impact. Sadly, they didn't go far enough to allow, for example, destruction of wheels for Btr, engine fire, turret disabling etc while it wouldn't be, codewise, a very complicated thing to do. Igniting fire is quite commun for old school light APC. For example, the Bmp-1 has its fuel tanks in the rear doors. In the BMP-2, fuel tanks are located in the infantry compartment, right in the central axis of the vehicle. In case of perforation, you'll get fuel everywhere, and while it's diesel and doesn't ignite so easily, a rocket blast could do a lot of damage. Same for tracks. For MBT, there is nothing more fragile on these vehicles than the main gun. If you shoot with 30mm HE on a tank turret, you have good chances to damage the gun, and make the tank useless. Tanks are fragile.

 

Fact is that they did such complex damage system for ships. Today CPUs are able to handle relatively complex damage for vehicles. IMO it's not a nice thing to ask for "soft fixes" like increasing blast radius. We should push for a more complex damage system for vehicles. It would make the game 100 times better and the basis is already ingame so it's not 500 h of work for them, it's only writing a "parent code" and then dividing the collision models in few parts (Wheel, engine, turret).

Light vehicles, totally unarmored and infantry is what annoys me, close enough impacts on a truck or infantry should kill them.

Not with KOM, only OFP2. With HEAT shells, you miss, you miss ;)

Have you ever tried to shoot down a heli with the Vihker? After hitting lock about 100 times, you might get a lock. Unfortunately, by that time, the other heli has already shot you down. Usually with it's guns, it's so close.

 

 

That's why I consider the Shark to have NO air protection.

I've downed two Huey's who had the jump on me in one fight. I did get a little lucky in that I had a little bit of elevation trying to peek over a ridge from about 500yards from the ridge so I could chop the lift, drop to gain speed and circle around to get the kills. Took some damage in their first burst but... won in the end :).

Get yourself a VR headset for head tracking and use the cannon :).

You simply extend this way of working on most vehicles (It's nothing else than opening 3dsMax, and dividing your 3D collision model in few parts, 5 minutes work).

 

Ehh… LOL