Jump to content

Black Shark 3?


Recommended Posts

Like your mentioned FC3 switch "Gear Up" and "Gear Up/Down" but why no "Gear Down"?

 

 

Its even worse: most 2 way switches on throttles and sticks just have one state - up = on, down = nothing (as in "no signal, no button press sent"). So you cant bind something to the "down" position at all. You need a "if switch up = gear up. If switch not up = gear down" logic and bind stuff if the switch is NOT pressed.

 

 

Same with 3 way switches: up and down send a button press signal, but the middle position is just empty, so you need a "if switch down = x. If switch down = y. If switch not up or down = z." logic.

Gone for good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 872
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, they are going with the wing and the igla's because it's an educated guess at what the Shark would have been if it had actually been pressed into service.  This is the same wing that the Ka-52 c

It's because it's what we think the Ka-50 would be if it had ever been mass produced, and since the Ka-52 has three pylons, the Ka-50 probably would have as well ( why make 2 different wings? ).

Unfortunately we have different ideas about what constitutes 'proof', or a 'neutral position'   You demand proof of a negative before you will accept the overwhelming weight of the balance of the evi

Google Translate

 

… But problem seems to be, that ED does not make the glass cockpit version of the KA-50 that has the President-S, so they are holding to 2001 KA-50 version, instead 2008 version that would have proper displays.

Once again: no, and there has never been a Ka-50 with a 'glass cockpit' of 2008 version, about which you persistently tell everyone.

 

I already told you that there was only one Ka-50 with a 'glass cockpit' is the Ka-50Sh No.18, on which this cockpit was installed already in the very late 1990s, according to sources.

 

Those shots from the 2008 Russian film on the basis of which you build your assumptions are most likely the image of the same Ka-50Sh No.18 at the Ukhtomsky Helicopter Plant of the Kamov JSC, where at that moment the installation and setting up a new version of optoelectronic systems for subsequent demonstration at the MAKS-2007.

 

Ka-50Sh No.18 at the MAKS-2005:

14813.jpg

 

Ka-50Sh No.18 at the MAKS-2007:

14792.jpg

 

 

Original in Russian

 

Ещё раз: нет, и никогда не было Ка-50 со «стеклянной кабиной» версии 2008 года, про которую Вы упорно всем рассказываете.

 

Я Вам уже говорил о том, что существовал лишь единственный Ка-50 со «стеклянной кабиной» – это Ка-50Ш №18, на котором данная кабина была установлена уже в с самом конце 1990-х годов, согласно источникам.

 

Те кадры из российского фильма 2008 года выпуска, на основании которых Вы строите свои предположения – это с большой долей вероятности изображение всё того же Ка-50Ш №18 на Ухтомском вертолётном заводе ОАО «Камов», где в тот момент на данном вертолёте происходила установка и настройка нового варианта оптико-электронных систем для последующей демонстрации на МАКС-2007.

 

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be complete lack of improvisation from the Kamov engineers, considering that they already have the HUD with HMS, helmet with the sight and the whole weapons system is designed around pilot designating targets with the monocle and even aiming cannon with monocle while flying toward target.

 

And then the weapons system engineers who are given R-73, wouldn't integrate the missile capability to have its seeker sleeved to HMS in all other platforms, in KA-50. But would instead be like "Naeh, we just turn this extremely agile A-A missile work like a boresighted IGLA so pilot needs to turn this whole big helicopter upwards the air threat..."?

 

No... Not logical.

 

Wow, I left this debate a few months ago and it's still going strong!

 

I'm right. No, I'm right. No, I'm right. No, I'm right. No, I'm right...

It is possible though. Yeah, but it didn't happen. It is possible though. Yeah, but it didn't happen...

:lol:

Valve Index | RTX 2070 (Mobile) | i7-9700K @ 3.6GHz | 16GB RAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is, though I'd characterise it as:

 

P1

"I'd like this feature because if I were in charge of Kamov, it's what I would have done ! "

 

P2

"Maybe you would, but it never happened and here are the documents to show it never happened..."

 

P1

"But I can't believe that, because if I were in charge of Kamov, that's what I would have done"

 

P2

"Maybe you would, but it never happened and here are the documents to show it never happened..."

 

rinse and repeat.... (for months)

While you're tight, both sides say they're right, only one side has ever presented any convincing evidence (mostly provided by S.E.Bulba)

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of wishes for FLIR and other things that didn't much show up on the Ka-50. I mean, I get it; I'd love to have those too, but how about a system that I feel has been sorely lacking: a functioning FAC for the Red side? I shouldn't have to install the Ka-50 JTAC mod to get air control assistance for finding targets. Maybe even include as an AI unit the Ka-29 modified to act as a Ka-50 spotter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

rinse and repeat.... (for months)

While you're tight, both sides say they're right, only one side has ever presented any convincing evidence (mostly provided by S.E.Bulba)

 

Except I have year or two ago provided the evidence, but S.E.Bulba ignored them all completely, why I ignore everything about him.

 

And I deny only that S.EBu,ba provides "there is no evidence that it was fielded" because it is not evidence that there is no documentation that it was not accepted or not tested.

 

I take the neutral position, if there is no evidence, it is not to either direction. Until there is given evidence that it is for either direction, status is neutral.

 

When there are more sources to say "there is", but no evidence "not done so", then it is more toward it was so than neutral or denying everything because there is no evidence it was so.

 

When we have pilot to say something, but no documentation of any kind, we can't accept anything but we can lean toward what pilot has said, yet not accept it solely as so. Because eyewitness reports are not evidence, nor books, etc.

 

S.E.Bulba has invented word "fantasy" to try discredit everything that ED does when it is not for his liking. And he doesn't at all accept a neutral position that because he doesn't know something or accept something, it can be so.

 

I don't care what he talks anymore.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe even include as an AI unit the Ka-29 modified to act as a Ka-50 spotter.

 

The KA-50 is itself a spotter. Its one main tasks is reconnaissance. Capability operate alone.

 

What DCS itself needs is proper radio communications and intelligence network and command structure simulated between units.

so that when a ground unit detects an target, they can request proper other units to assist.

 

What we could use is even a AI KA-52 as a flight leader, assigning targets and commanding KA-50 units.

 

Same logic can be used on anything really when the command structure etc is simulated properly.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except I have year or two ago provided the evidence, but S.E.Bulba ignored them all completely(...)

 

And I deny only that S.EBulba provides "there is no evidence that it was fielded" because it is not evidence that there is no documentation that it was not accepted or not tested.

 

I take the neutral position, if there is no evidence,(...)

 

I don't care what he talks anymore.

 

Unfortunately we have different ideas about what constitutes 'proof', or a 'neutral position'

 

You demand proof of a negative before you will accept the overwhelming weight of the balance of the evidence.

You demand the impossible to defend the possibility of your imaginings.

 

There is no way to prove that something didn't happen in the way you request (unless you think someone would write "we have not done the thing we never said we were going to do" about this one thing and not everything they could possibly have done).

 

To me, that there are no photos of aircraft as E.D. intend to model them, no documentation, no evidence of any form that they were ever fielded - is sufficient to suggest on the balance of probabilities that the reason the documentation doesn't exist is that there was never anything to document...

 

 

There are people that swear transcendental meditation allows people to levitate.

By your logic, it's not possible to say they don't.

Which in a philosophical sense is true, but at a practical level - on balance of probabilities - I think it's blocks.

 

Here's one for you - did you read that scientists have discovered the neurons of birds are much smaller than those of mammals, and that Corvids actually have about the same number of cells in their small brains as some of the cleverer primates (that part is true).

Birds are the last remnant of a group of dinosaurs, which possibly had the same sized neurons - ?

If that were the case, then despite their small brains, those dinosaurs might have been quite clever.

 

This is what I put to you - Dinosaurs didn't die out because of an meteor striking the earth, they discovered capitalism and destroyed their own environment leading to environmental collapse and a mass extinction.

 

The layer of minerals that covers the earth at the transition between ages is the remnants from their rubbish - their 'plastic sea'.

 

The massive crater we've found is not a collision site - it's the last shadow of a massive nuclear blast that ended the wars started by population movements precipitated by the environmental collapse.

 

Your task is to show me the documents that prove dinosaurs never invented capitalism.


Edited by Weta43
  • Like 1

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What DCS itself needs is proper radio communications and intelligence network and command structure simulated between units.

so that when a ground unit detects an target, they can request proper other units to assist.

That's also less likely to happen, since it's replacing my difficult solution with a far more difficult solution.

Just give me bloody FAC. Because if BS3 only gives MAWS and the Igla-V, it's not going to be worth the price tag unless it's something like $8.

 

 

There are people that swear transcendental meditation allows people to levitate.

By your logic, it's not possible to say they don't.

Which in a philosophical sense is true, but at a practical level - on balance of probabilities - I think it's blocks.

This touches into concept of burden of proof. Basically, the one making the positive existent statement is burdened with proof that it exists. When there is no evidence forthcoming, that touches into the null hypothesis. Generally, when there is no evidence, then the default position will be "withhold judgement".

 

However, for ED, withholding judgement would be not pursuing the concept, because doing otherwise would cost time and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Guys what u think ???, 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/222133-dcs-ka-50-black-shark-3-by-eagle-dynamics/?do=findComment&comment=4648264

3 pylons per wing ..... weird stuff going on here ..., Iglas need to work with IFF I interrogator..., what is going on ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, they are going with the wing and the igla's because it's an educated guess at what the Shark would have been if it had actually been pressed into service.  This is the same wing that the Ka-52 carries ( i.e. why make two different wings? ).  We NEED iglas because the shkval is so HORRIBLE at locking even the slowest aircraft.

Not really worried about IFF because we only have short range weapons ( no BVR or such where we can't see what we're shooting at ).

The thing that most Shark players are mad about, is that they left out FLIR.  This becomes complicated, because in the version that had FLIR, it used I believe at better version of the shkval, and also a seperate FLIR camera built above the shkval.  On the Ka-52, it uses an All-in-One type system called the GOES 451 or 452, which I would believe would have been used on a future Ka-50, since it is the same on the Ka-52.

 

We need FLIR, because otherwise, the Shark cannot fight at night.  It has flares, but they're a joke, and instantly give away your position when you fire them.  Not to mention, most of the armor down on the ground probably has FLIR as well.  And of course the AI are ALL-SEEING.

 

And LOL at the guy whose obsessed with putting confused faces on all my posts now, even the ones from years ago.  Get a life.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 3WA said:

Well, they are going with the wing and the igla's because it's an educated guess at what the Shark would have been if it had actually been pressed into service.  This is the same wing that the Ka-52 carries ( i.e. why make two different wings? ).  We NEED iglas because the shkval is so HORRIBLE at locking even the slowest aircraft.

Not really worried about IFF because we only have short range weapons ( no BVR or such where we can't see what we're shooting at ).

The thing that most Shark players are mad about, is that they left out FLIR.  This becomes complicated, because in the version that had FLIR, it used I believe at better version of the shkval, and also a seperate FLIR camera built above the shkval.  On the Ka-52, it uses an All-in-One type system called the GOES 451 or 452, which I would believe would have been used on a future Ka-50, since it is the same on the Ka-52.

 

We need FLIR, because otherwise, the Shark cannot fight at night.  It has flares, but they're a joke, and instantly give away your position when you fire them.  Not to mention, most of the armor down on the ground probably has FLIR as well.  And of course the AI are ALL-SEEING.

 

And LOL at the guy whose obsessed with putting confused faces on all my posts now, even the ones from years ago.  Get a life.

 

Hey, I just don't understand why there is new design of wing with three pylons .. we can see here 2 pylons and iglas, I very interested in Ka-50 helo but I never seen Ka-50 with 3pylons wing ..

2039932998_98032107(1).jpeg.65e77d3ca8751f93182e2bcd20930016.jpeg

44ka50_5.jpg.b6ec596dc7f9ff9f1e6992f3cf73627f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because it's what we think the Ka-50 would be if it had ever been mass produced, and since the Ka-52 has three pylons, the Ka-50 probably would have as well ( why make 2 different wings? ).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people are so emotional about this. 

 

The updates are for sale. 

 

If you don't want them, don't buy them.  

 

If you do want them but want to deploy the Ka-50 in a historically correct way for a certain time period, task or mission, you can still do so.

 

Everyone still has a chance to be happy here. 😎

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Are you ready to take your chopper flying skills to the next level?

Then check out http://www.blacksharkden.com/ Or visit us on Discord https://discord.gg/kaayJ5z and talk to some of our awesome pilots today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

I don't understand why people are so emotional about this. 

 

The updates are for sale. 

 

If you don't want them, don't buy them.  

 

If you do want them but want to deploy the Ka-50 in a historically correct way for a certain time period, task or mission, you can still do so.

 

Everyone still has a chance to be happy here. 😎

You right , to be really accurate with story or spec when 90% or people use zoom in cockpit MEEEEEH.
because i'm more a gamer than a simmer, i prefer to get something not 100% exact but usefull like a FLIR, than a 100 % exact but useless ^^
IGLA exact or not can't become the huge different when you engage a KA50 , it's like sidewinder on A10 , you can take it you do it but who gonna do some PVP with A10 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys ... it's not about emotions, I can do Ka-50 AA stuff with vichrs and make cry other people.., just I'm really curious why ED decided to make this thing, that actually is not real or something, I'm really happy that finally Ka-50 gonna be upgraded l, example witebsk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it from the perspective of the Ka-50 being developed as an all-encompassing platform at the time of its existence. It had such a short service life if any, that it never reached its full and intended potential before the Ka-52 took over. 

 

We're really not dealing with a platform that was produced in great numbers and deployed very widely.

 

Was the KA-50 intended to have Iglas and these other systems at some point?  I believe the answer would be yes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Are you ready to take your chopper flying skills to the next level?

Then check out http://www.blacksharkden.com/ Or visit us on Discord https://discord.gg/kaayJ5z and talk to some of our awesome pilots today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  This is a future iteration of the Ka-50.  It's a vision of what it would have been if it had been actually put into service.  Though I am pretty sure it would have had FLIR, because the Ka-52 does.  And since it would have been an extension of the Ka-52, it would have HAD to have FLIR to fly with the Ka-52 at night.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." © Julius Caesar, & "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." © attributed to Goebbels. 🙂

  • Like 1

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 10:44 AM, Bolec said:

Guys ... it's not about emotions, I can do Ka-50 AA stuff with vichrs and make cry other people.., just I'm really curious why ED decided to make this thing, that actually is not real or something, I'm really happy that finally Ka-50 gonna be upgraded l, example witebsk.

 

They argue that since the Su-25T and Ka-50 are only experimental aircrafts, they can experiment with them and add things they never had because prototypes.
 

 

My skins

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't take a wizard to see what they would have become, and what their intended role would be.

 

And as of now, what little they have done with BS3, I don't see myself buying it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"And as of now, what little they have done with BS3, I don't see myself buying it."

 

I myself miss ED's explicit statement that they will do bug-fix the essential errors with the existing KA-50, such as the absolutely annoying problem with the jumping Shkkval resulting in unintentional helicopter movements in "Turn to target" mode (...). A lot of other present problems with the KA-50 are described in detail in the forum, thanks to the commitment of many users (excluded false reports of uninformed users or fanboys).

So, now we can read in the last newsletter that ED will be adding some more functionalities, which I do welcome. But on what basis? Does the KA-50 gets a new shiny look with three more features but retains its old errors? Exact this way I interpret the vague information on the KA-50 in ED's last newsletter. If they know today that they will launch a BS3 module, they will also know by now what they are going to fix. They will, won't they?  Strange, that I do not find any exact information about it - and not a bit I ask about schedule.

With regard to ED's comment on BS3 price in their last newsletter I have a very simple opion: Good work needs adequate payment. If ED's work complies with this requirement, I will not mind to buy a new KA-50 module and gladly accept the required price, even if it were e.g. on new module level. Seriously, I am not willing any more to dedicate myself to testing DCS or modules for hours and days to make them somewhat run (including stable version). I would rather spend my time with flying and aviation in general. Due to KA-50 history and development as well as ED's marketing communication in their previous newsletters, I unfortunatelly have the dim feeling, that they fob off users with a small priced but half-baked KA-50 module again. So here I absolutely agree with 3WA's statement above. It is evident this feeling is my subjective perception. Should I be wrong, I will apologise here for jumping to a conclusion. Should I be right, I hope, other users will not only make strictures upon ED, but put their money where their mouth is. Beyound doubt, every user has the right to evaluate on his own the (momentary) quality level of DCS and its (future) modules.

 

I am highly sceptical and also miffed at ED these days. Nonetheless I look forward to BS3 and hope that ED makes with BS3 a living proof that I am wrong.

 

 

 


Edited by Fastbreak
misspelling
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...