Black Shark 3 official photos.

[Fri13]

Lol, Only idiots don't arm their heli's with A-A in this modern era.

 

Then there are real idiots flying in real life even today....

 

 

Heli's without A-A = suicide. Jets are always around somewhere in the skies. And it's extremely hard to hide from their radar because of your super sonic rotors tips.

 

Helicopters rotor blades tips doesn't fly supersonic, it would tear them pieces. That is the limitation of the rotor blades that you can't have them going at supersonic speed. There are exceptions like Tu-95 blades going over speed of sound.

 

The helicopters rotors just spin fast, and that is as well problematic for previous radars as you couldn't target them easily as they were jamming your radar by their design. The helicopter blades are constantly flying at various speeds instead just one, and on all directions than just one. And when the radars were made to be able find helicopters, the challenge became their hovering that didn't allow any direction indicators as first you could track them with some time.

Why special modes were required to be added for radars to track and lock on them. A helicopter rotor is very "noisy" in the radar screen, causing lots of interference for that general direction. And even today that can't be avoided even with the best of the best radars, what is limiting the wind turbine installations as you can't be in such area where radars are required to be operational, like near airports, weather stations, air defense training centers etc. That is as ell one of the key elements why a screw kind wind turbines were invented that are set vertically, it heavily minimize the affects to radio transmissions and can be installed even on the ground level instead required to be set on higher altitude, and again so on minimizing the visibility to radars.

 

But even advanced helicopters such as the Apache are hard to deal with, as they have the advantage of a co-pilot and more advanced weapons, like millimeter wave Hellfires.

 

Those millimeter hellfires aint' so widely used, instead the laser ones are mostly used. And your L variant is as well jammable by the ECM in modern helicopters, like KA-50-3 would have with President-S, as it doesn't just jam IR seekers, it jams as well RF seekers, so you would want to use laser guidance (jammable as well).

 

 

Trying to fly and lock on to an Apache or Jet with a vhiker at the same time is near impossible. Hard enough to do it with ground targets while manuevering.

 

Easy, when you just train a little with it. You don't need to be in hover.

The real challenge in the KA-50 is today that it doesn't have a true contrast lock system, so you can't lock on things that you should be able to. And you can easily lose the lock because bugs.

The KA-50 as well has a serious bug at the moment that causes laser ranging to zero just after the designation or middle of the guidance (no, it is not laser burning) and the Shkval starts sleeving automatically to somewhere below you at max speed. So you are fighting with the bugs instead the "flying and shooting simultaneously". And our KA-50 lacks the true inertial targeting system that it would have, helping you to target a fast moving targets, now what it has is just a very cruel and simple targeting input system.

 

And if you think that KA-50 flying with a firing same time Vikhrs is difficult, then you must find a Gazelle and HOT3 missiles impossible to be done same time, yet it is fairly easy really.

 

IR A-A gives you an advantage in that you can more easily get a lock and then Fire and Forget, literally snapping off a shot as you turn to run. Hopefully this give enough distraction to the enemy for you to get to good cover and make your next move, out of his sights.

 

That is its only good thing really. That you can just "snap on the target and launch", but limited range, problems with the IR seeker locking on the sun, hot reflections of sun, the IR jammers on helicopters, flares, IR deflectors on engine outlets etc etc. It just isn't as easy as to think.

 

Personally I take Vikhr over IGLA as long we get Shkval fixed and added missing features to it and to Vikhr. As to this date Vikhr has not had its A-A mode modeled at all. Meaning there is no switching to fragmentation sleeve but you have always just the tandem charge that requires direct hit, and you would need to hit even directly part of target that has something critical behind it. And because no A-A mode, it means as well no proximity fuze and that means exactly that direct hit while proximity fuze adds 7 meter detonation range for near misses.

 

And comparing to many many other missiles, Vikhr is as its name says, fast. It is faster than IGLA even and has longer range and almost 100% immune for jamming. So only real way to avoid the Vikhr is to either distract the pilot to take evasive maneuvers (and no, your IGLA doesn't really help because counter measurements) and brake the lock.

 

I would never fly a helicopter in real combat without A-A. The Vhikers are pretty much useless in the A-A role. Might be somewhat nice if you had a co-pilot to do the lock and try and keep it.

 

If we just would have a true contrast lock you would change your opinion....

 

Though I doubt I will buy BS3 unless it also gets MUCH NEEDED FLIR. Ka-50N

 

Well, FLIR doesn't replace your A-A requirement that you so say that you woudln't fly without.... So which one it is. IGLA's or FLIR that is so important to you?

[Fri13]

ED developers have repeatedly stated that the Shkval in the game is modeled close to real.

 

Please. Anyone who has any experience with KA-50 will quickly learn in the few hours that Shkval doesn't work "close to real" at all.

 

Shkval targeting system doesn't have a target recognition system that will know is the targeted vehicle destroyed or functional. It doesn't either know is the targeted part a complete vehicle, part of the vehicle or is it a tree or building (and denies locking).

 

The real Shkval would lock on anything that has contrast to detect. It wouldn't matter is it a tree, a part of the bridge, a bird, a car, a telephone pole, a MBT or aircraft. Only thing that would matter is that there is a contrast.

 

Now you can't lock even on helicopter that is against a sky, with strongest possible contrast there is. No, the Shkval simply ignores the whole helicopter inside its gate. But set the gate to smallest size and aim at the root of the tail boom and ta-da, you have perfect lock on the smallest detail of the helicopter. Now to get lock on that helicopter you need to chase that tiny part somewhere in its centroid.

 

You can't lock easily on the buildings, on the bridges, on the trees, or even destroyed vehicles etc.

 

We have the magical Shkval system that knows is there a unit ID or not, and if there ain't, it doesn't lock on anything. And once you kill a unit, its ID is removed.

And if the unit ID is not in given parameters, Shkval doesn't lock on. You can have a aircraft flying straight at you as stationary but slightly growing target against clear sky, strong contrast and Shkval does just say "No... I go instead this way!" and starts moving to somewhere else because failed lock.

 

In Su-25T we have even more magical one, automatic target locking once you just get the gate near the live unit ID. It just magically snaps on there like knowing "This one is a live, let me lock on that!". Ignoring everything else.

 

The Shkval system did have automatic target detection and tracking in scan mode, laser spot finder etc. But we can't even hope to see those simulated at the required level either.

 

Nothing would stop ED from developing a true contrast detection system. All they need to really do is once a second capture a Shkval target gate area, resize it to 16x16 pixels grid, convert it to a black and white image. And start tracking it by comparing the previous frames by then generating (once you have lock) more frames in shorter time between, be it like a 10 frames per second.

It would be negligent impact to processing requirements but it would create realistic contrast detection and locking targeting system that pilot can use targeting anything that just has contrast. And for that pilot does visually the image adjustment to maximize it.

Core of this method is based on image fingerprints computed with Haar wavelets theory. You can even find lots of sample algorithms and codes to be learn it and write even your own if wanted, so it ain't even licensing issue. Question is just that is there a will among ED developers to do it properly instead using cheats and code from the Lock-On era using Unit ID.

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

… And your L variant is as well jammable by the ECM in modern helicopters, like KA-50-3 would have with President-S, as it doesn't just jam IR seekers, it jams as well RF seekers, so you would want to use laser guidance (jammable as well)…

I believe that this is not true… at least for the basic configuration of the L-370 Vitebsk, used on the Russian Ka-52s. :)

 

… As to this date Vikhr has not had its A-A mode modeled at all. Meaning there is no switching to fragmentation sleeve but you have always just the tandem charge that requires direct hit, and you would need to hit even directly part of target that has something critical behind it. And because no A-A mode, it means as well no proximity fuze and that means exactly that direct hit while proximity fuze adds 7 meter detonation range for near misses…

DCS: Black Shark 2 Flight Manual EN (p.11-31):

<…>

Special Considerations when Attacking Air Targets

<…>

To use the Vikhr's proximity fuze that will detonate the warhead with a near miss, turn on the "ВЦ" (Airborne target) button from the Targeting Mode Control Panel.

 

Depending on the target's aspect (attack hemisphere), it may be necessary to adjust the missile's proximity fuze delay.

 

If performing a pursuit or side attack, fuze adjustment is not required.

 

If attacking at high aspect (in the Head-on hemisphere) it is necessary to decrease the fuze delay in order to increase hit probability. From the Targeting Mode Control Panel, press the "ППС" (Head-on hemisphere) button to do so.

<…>

 

Please. Anyone who has any experience with KA-50 will quickly learn in the few hours that Shkval doesn't work "close to real" at all…

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? :)

 

Original in Russian

… And your L variant is as well jammable by the ECM in modern helicopters, like KA-50-3 would have with President-S, as it doesn't just jam IR seekers, it jams as well RF seekers, so you would want to use laser guidance (jammable as well)…

Полагаю, что это не соответствует действительности… по-крайней мере для базовой комплектации Л-370 «Витебск», применяемой на российских Ка-52. :)

 

… As to this date Vikhr has not had its A-A mode modeled at all. Meaning there is no switching to fragmentation sleeve but you have always just the tandem charge that requires direct hit, and you would need to hit even directly part of target that has something critical behind it. And because no A-A mode, it means as well no proximity fuze and that means exactly that direct hit while proximity fuze adds 7 meter detonation range for near misses…

DCS: Black Shark 2 Flight Manual EN (стр.11-31).

 

Please. Anyone who has any experience with KA-50 will quickly learn in the few hours that Shkval doesn't work "close to real" at all…

Вы имеете опыт работы с реальным «Шквалом»? :)

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[Rogue Trooper]

When the predator bird swoops low and dips into the water where the shark roams, it will eventually loose some tail feathers.

 

 

It is simply better to get on with the pain and adapt with time!

Toe to Toe, Peer to Peer warfare!

we are moving into a better space, we are securing the development of the western countermeasure!

 

But Fu(king A we are waiting far too long for the BS3 weapon!

We need to start killing everything.... and we need to start soon!

Edited May 14, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[blunt_waco]

What is the point of repeating this? ED developers have clearly said that these systems will not be in the DCS: BS3.

 

I'm not attacking you here.....

What's the point of developing BS3!!. More weapon stations and updated cockpit texture but still can't defend yourself by knowing who is coming after you, can't find targets during pitch black night missions?

I will wait for BS5 because I know BS4 will most likely have an updated tires and rotor blades.

Edited May 15, 2020 by blunt_waco

[Rogue Trooper]

did you know that yellow 25 tested the su-25 shkvall night vision system?

just saying out of interest, not that we would be so lucky to have such an advanced version of yellow 25!

 

:)

 

I got no idea of how high this test bed went!

He He He

I wonder which version of the KA-50 is the most valid in DCS?

Edited May 15, 2020 by Rogue Trooper

[3WA]

I got no idea of how high this test bed went!

 

 

Probably, somewhere in the shadows of a Russian test facility, it's still going. :thumbup:

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

did you know that yellow 25 tested the su-25 shkvall night vision system?..

This is not true. In 1990, the V-80 No.015 (later Ka-50 No.25) was installed a mock-up of the promising Stolb sighting system. As part of this promising sighting system, it was planned in the future to use the TpSPO-V thermal imager, which at that time was still being developed at the Geophysics NPO in Moscow.

<…>

[ATTACH]196978[/ATTACH]

<…>

[ATTACH]196979[/ATTACH]

However, these plans were not destined to come true. The USSR collapsed, and the 1990s began in the newly-formed Russia, which buried both plans to develop the TpSPO-V thermal imager and the Geophysics NPO itself. In connection with the unrealized plans for the development of a promising sighting system, the mock-up of the Stolb sighting system was subsequently dismantled as unnecessary.

 

As for the Mercury low-light level television (L3TV) you mentioned, which was supposed to be used as the night channel of the Shkval automatic TV sighting system, the Mercury mass-scale mock-up was installed in the 1980s on the 2nd flight prototype of the V-80 No.011.

<…>

Then, the working equipment of the Mercury L3TV was installed as the night channel of the Shkval-V automatic TV sighting system on the 3rd flight prototype of the V-80 No.012.

 

However, the test results were unsatisfactory, and inadequate to customer requirements. In this regard, the further use of the Mercury L3TV on the Ka-50 was abandoned in favor of the promising TpSPO-V thermal imager, which was supposed to be developed in the future. However, as mentioned above, these plans were not destined to come true.

 

Original in Russian

 

Это не соответствует действительности. В 1990 году на В-80 №015 (позже Ка-50 №25) был установлен макет перспективного прицельного комплекса «Столб». В составе данного перспективного прицельного комплекса в будущем предполагалось использовать тепловизор ТпСПО-В, который на тот момент ещё только разрабатывался на НПО «Геофизика» в Москве.

 

Однако этим планам не суждено было сбыться. Распался СССР, и в новообразованной России наступили 1990-е годы, которые похоронили как планы по разработке тепловизора ТпСПО-В, так и само НПО «Геофизика». В связи с нереализованными планами по разработке перспективного прицельного комплекса, макет прицельного комплекса «Столб» впоследствии демонтировали за ненадобностью.

 

Что же касается упомянутой Вами низкоуровневой телевизионной системы (НУТВ) «Меркурий», которую предполагалось использовать в качестве ночного канала КАПК «Шквал», то массогабаритный макет «Меркурия» был установлен в 1980-х годах на 2-й лётный прототип В-80 №011.

 

Затем рабочая аппаратура НУТВ «Меркурий» была установлена в качестве ночного канала КАПК «Шквал-В» на 3-й лётный прототип В-80 №012.

 

Однако результаты тестовых испытаний оказались неудовлетворительными, и несоответствующими требованиям заказчика. В связи с этим, от дальнейшего применения НУТВ «Меркурий» на Ка-50 отказались в пользу перспективного тепловизора ТпСПО-В, который предполагалось разработать в будущем. Однако, как уже было сказано выше, этим планам не суждено было сбыться.

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[BranchPrediction]

sad : (

Ka50 is such an amazing helicopter. Imagine it with IR and Iglas. Russians make some awesome military aircrafts and systems.

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

sad : (…

Nevertheless, there is a blessing in disguise… after all, thanks to the unfinished project of the Stolb sighting system, the Black Shark has its own unforgettable profile with a shark nose. After the failure with the Mercury L3TV, the nose of the Black Shark was raised up precisely for the future placement of the promising Stolb sighting system with the TpSPO-V thermal imager.

 

If the project of the Stolb sighting system did not exist, then the DCS: Black Shark in our game would look approximately the same as in the photo under the spoiler in the quote below. :)

<…>

 

4-й лётный экземпляр В-80 (борт №014) до 1999 года:

<…>

UPD. By the way, the Black Shark name, which the Ka-50 helicopter received for the characteristic shape of the nose, would probably also not exist… :music_whistling:

 

Original in Russian

 

Тем не менее, нет худа без добра… ведь именно благодаря незавершённому проекту прицельного комплекса «Столб», «Чёрная акула» имеет свой незабываемый профиль с акульим носом. После неудачи с НУТВ «Меркурий», нос у «Чёрной акулы» приподняли вверх именно для будущего размещения перспективного прицельного комплекса «Столб» с тепловизором ТпСПО-В.

 

Если бы проекта прицельного комплекса «Столб» не существовало, то DCS: Чёрная Акула у нас в игре выглядела бы примерно также, как на фото под спойлером в цитате ниже. :)

 

UPD. Кстати, наименование «Чёрная акула», которое вертолёт Ка-50 получил за характерную форму носа, вероятно также бы не существовало… :music_whistling:

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[3WA]

As I recall from YEARS ago, we Americans used to call it the Alligator.

[BranchPrediction]

Black shark sounds cooler imo, especially when said in russian.

[Blackjack_UK]

Alligator is the Ka-52.

 

Ka-50 reporting name was Hokum, allegedly because there was so much disinformation, rumour and wild exaggeration going around about it. Hmm, sounds like another way this sim is realistically modelled...

 

The aircraft was originally called "Werewolf" and only changed to "Black Shark" after appearing in a movie of the same name. Really.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5140952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

… The aircraft was originally called "Werewolf" and only changed to "Black Shark" after appearing in a movie of the same name. Really.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5140952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

A low-budget film, shot partially with the money of the Kamov JSC, which is essentially an advertisement for the Ka-50 helicopter. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, when I was still quite young and much less picky, I watched this film only because of the Ka-50. :)

 

Original in Russian

 

Малобюджетный фильм, отснятый частично на деньги ОАО «Камов», который по-сути является рекламой для вертолёта Ка-50. Тем не менее в 1990-х годах, когда я был ещё достаточно молод и гораздо менее придирчив, я смотрел этот фильм только из-за Ка-50. :)

 

[Mars Exulte]

sad : (

Ka50 is such an amazing helicopter. Imagine it with IR and Iglas. Russians make some awesome military aircrafts and systems.

 

You mean a Ka-52? Cause that's what the 50 was developed into. This was a low production test bed, originally intended for large scale service, but eventually developed into another, more modern, more capable aircraft.

[Fri13]

I believe that this is not true… at least for the basic configuration of the L-370 Vitebsk, used on the Russian Ka-52s. :)[/Quote]

 

Manufacturer says it has those features at specified frequency of radars.

 

DCS: Black Shark 2 Flight Manual EN (p.11-31):[/Quote]

 

Yes? You did skip the part that it ain't modeled. My point is that targeting system and Vikhr has been to this date broken because those ain't modeled. And if you have fly it all these years and read this forum you would have come to reports of it is not functioning.

 

 

 

Do you have experience with the real Shkval? :)[/Quote]

 

So your argument is that because anyone can detect that KA-50 in DCS doesn't have contrast lock capabilities that the system is by specifications primary mean to lock targets for tracking, that one would need real world experiences with it, to know it doesn't have a contrast lock capabilities?

 

Tell, how does Shkval system acquire a lock in reality?

Using radar emissions?

Using laser spot tracking?

Using a EO scene matching?

 

Or it doesn't have a target locking but is just INS + Laser stabilized by using either measured range, calculated range or simply infinity as stabilization point?

 

How do you know Shkval doesn't have a contrast locking capability?

 

Or do you know there is somekind recognition system that will identify objects to be locked on and helps to avoid incorrect target locking?

If so, what kind a Artificial Intelligence does it then use to identify a valid target from invalid ones? What kind a prioritize system it has for informing pilot that it is incorrect target that will not be locked on?

[kotor633]

Alligator is the Ka-52.

 

Ka-50 reporting name was Hokum, allegedly because there was so much disinformation, rumour and wild exaggeration going around about it. Hmm, sounds like another way this sim is realistically modelled...

 

The aircraft was originally called "Werewolf" and only changed to "Black Shark" after appearing in a movie of the same name. Really.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5140952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

This film is a hot contender for SchleFaz (If no one can do anything with it: https://www.schlefaz.de/)

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

Manufacturer says it has those features at specified frequency of radars…

Sources? If you know, then explain to me how it is technically possible for the L-370 Vitebsk mounted on the Russian Ka-52s?

 

Stella-K JSC.

The L-370 includes:

• MWS
  
• DIRCM
  
• CMDS
  
• ECU
  

 

… Yes? You did skip the part that it ain't modeled. My point is that targeting system and Vikhr has been to this date broken because those ain't modeled. And if you have fly it all these years and read this forum you would have come to reports of it is not functioning…

I don't understand what you are talking about. Probably the reason is my lack of knowledge of English and poor machine translation. Have you claimed that there was no simulation in the DCS World of a proximity fuze for the Vikhr ATGM? I gave you a quote from the Manual, which says about how to use it correctly. Meanwhile, starting from the time of the DCS: BS1, I personally observed aerial explosions of the Vikhr ATGM when it missed the maneuvering air target, if the "ВЦ" (Airborne target) mode was activated.

 

If you think that this does not work, then you can turn to the ED bug tracker with the evidence (tracks, logs, screenshots, etc.), otherwise it's nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations.

 

… So your argument is that because anyone can detect that KA-50 in DCS doesn't have contrast lock capabilities that the system is by specifications primary mean to lock targets for tracking, that one would need real world experiences with it, to know it doesn't have a contrast lock capabilities?..

So you have not answered the question. Instead, just a large number of words. :)

 

If you have technical documentation on the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system, then you can try to prove your point on the Russian forum in the [thread=193971]'Баги Ка-50'[/thread] topic. ED developers know English, and Chizh often willingly engages in controversy. If you do not have any specific technical sources, then all this is nothing more than demagogy and fortune-telling on coffee grounds.

 

Original in Russian

Manufacturer says it has those features at specified frequency of radars…

Источники? Если Вы знаете, то объясните мне как это технически возможно для Л-370 «Витебск», установленного на российских Ка-52?

 

АО «Стелла-К».

 

… Yes? You did skip the part that it ain't modeled. My point is that targeting system and Vikhr has been to this date broken because those ain't modeled. And if you have fly it all these years and read this forum you would have come to reports of it is not functioning…

Я не понимаю, о чём Вы говорите. Вероятно причина в моём незнании английского и плохом машинном переводе. Вы утверждали об отсутствии моделирования в DCS World неконтактного взрывателя ПТУР «Вихрь»? Я Вам привёл цитату из Руководства, где говорится про то, как его правильно использовать. Между тем, начиная ещё со времён DCS: ЧА1 я лично наблюдал воздушные взрывы ракеты «Вихрь» при её промахе по маневрирующей воздушной цели, в том случае если включен режим «ВЦ» (Airborne target).

 

Если Вы считаете, что это не работает, то Вы можете обратиться на баг-трекер ED с приведёнными доказательствами (треки, логи, скриншоты и т.п.), иначе это всё не более, чем голословные утверждения.

 

… So your argument is that because anyone can detect that KA-50 in DCS doesn't have contrast lock capabilities that the system is by specifications primary mean to lock targets for tracking, that one would need real world experiences with it, to know it doesn't have a contrast lock capabilities?..

Таким образом Вы так и не ответили на вопрос. Вместо этого просто большое количество слов. :)

 

Если у Вас есть техническая документация по реальному КАПК «Шквал», то Вы можете попытаться доказать свою правоту на русскоязычном форуме в теме [thread=193971]«Баги Ка-50»[/thread]. Разработчики ED знают английский, а Чиж зачастую охотно вступает в полемику. Ежели у Вас нет никаких конкретных технических источников, то всё это не более чем демагогия и гадание на кофейной гуще.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by S.E.Bulba
update.

[Lt_RAzOr_957]

A-A Mode works perfectly fine, VIKHR fuzes perfectly shot down MI28 and Gazelle with it last week. Also Gun predicts perfectly, can speak out of experience last week also a Beaming Gazelle at 90 kts IAS had a bad day as i locked her up at 2.4 km distance and shot it down with 2 Bursts of HE 30mm Rounds ;)

[BranchPrediction]

Maybe Fri13 is talking about the vikhr fragmentation not being modeled in dcs and not the proximity fuze?

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

Maybe Fri13 is talking about the vikhr fragmentation not being modeled in dcs and not the proximity fuze?

If we are talking about a fragmentation, then at present it really is not modeled in the DCS World (at least at the end of 2018, ED developers wrote that they continue to work on implementing this effect). However, a blast effect is modeled in the DCS World, so when it affects objects, they get damaged in the game.

 

Original in Russian

 

Если речь об осколочном эффекте, то в настоящее время он действительно не смоделирован в DCS World (по-крайней мере в конце 2018 года разработчики ED писа́ли, что они продолжают работать над реализацией этого эффекта). Однако в DCS World смоделирован фугасный эффект, поэтому при его воздействии на объекты – они получают повреждения в игре.

 

[Fri13]

If we are talking about a fragmentation, then at present it really is not modeled in the DCS World (at least at the end of 2018, ED developers wrote that they continue to work on implementing this effect). However, a blast effect is modeled in the DCS World, so when it affects objects, they get damaged in the game.

 

1. Fragmentation is has not ever modeled in DCS, until in the future when they get the new damage models in.

 

2a. Proximity fuze in the Vikhr is not modeled. It is only a two object ID getting close enough that triggers a damage effect.

 

2b. Because lack of the proximity fuze, the Vikhr missile does not trigger itself correctly by obstacles at its proximity. This causes situations like:

 

a) You launch Vikhr in A-A mode on the ground and it will impact directly on the target point that it was flying directly at. If you would launch Vikhr from 90 degree directly from up toward ground, the A-A H/O mode would make Vikhr explode few meters from the ground. The normal A-A mode instead would make the Vikhr impact the ground because it is timed to blow at about 5-7 meter distance as the proximity fuze has longer detection range than the maximal explosion range. The A-A H/O mode purpose is as the two fast objects, Vikhr and Head-On target at high speed are flying in collision course, that Vikhr is blowed up as soon as possible of the detection. Without using the lowest threshold for the detection, Vikhr would fly past the target (if not impacting it) and detect the proximity too late and explode behind the target and behind the missile where fragments are not meant to fly (only to front hemisphere).

 

b) If you launch Vikhr in a very shallow angle on the ground in A-A mode (again, proximity fuze is activated some time after launch) it will keep flying over the terrain just above couple meters and it will not trigger proximity, but will fly directly on the aiming point where the Vikhr itself will impact the ground.

 

c) Vikhr can be launched so it will fly between obstacles, like a large trees just by few tens of centimeters not to touch them (and trigger collision and so on explosion) because there is no proximity fuze sensing the trees, as the trees do not have a object ID that the game engine would count to be near the Vikhr object ID and so on explode the Vikhr as "simulated proximity fuze". This can even be done with some buildings where Vikhr will nicely fly past the large oil tankers or such, to the impact point on the ground far behind them. If the Vikhr would have a true proximity fuze, it would trigger explosion when reaching the solid objects and not fly past them way below its proximity sensor range.

 

d) We can even simulate this same process with the terrain and other units like BTR-80, where we can get the Vikhr triggered only by the proximity of the unit ID, but not by the terrain or other obstacles that are not Unit ID based. It can be shot at a destroyed ground unit because its unit ID has been deleted and game engine doesn't count that destroyed big unit as an obstacle and Vikhr will fly perfectly past.

 

 

If one goes testing the Vikhr behavior with the game modeling, only conclusions to come up are:

 

1) There is no proximity sensor modeled, only two unit ID collision.

2) There is no fragmentation modeled, only a area of effect for damaging units at X amount. The same thing as with any other bomb, rocket etc.

 

And this leads to another problematic situation, Vikhr capability to be used against air targets is purely depending that someone can guide it on it. As any missile, it doesn't know what the target is or where it is going. It only purpose is to get close to the target and explode when the fuze goes off. It doesn't matter is the target a destroyed target, a rock, a tree, a boat, or any specific piece of the aircraft even like a tail, wing, engine you name it. The missile only task is to fly toward target and explode when commanded by the fuze. That's it.

And the problem with the Vikhr against air targets is that Shkval is not truly a contrast lock based system in DCS, but it is Object ID based tracking.

 

You can lock on the buildings behind the trees without problems, but if we remove building away behind the trees, we can't anymore lock on the trees. Because the system is not locking on the contrast but on the object ID.

 

We can lock Shkval easily on the buildings, they are just huge object ID's that Shkval is programmed to lock on. No matter is there any contrast, any detail, anything what so ever, the Shkval will lock on one and stay on it. The tracking gate can be largest possible or smallest possible, it doesn't matter because the Shkval is programmed to track object ID model, not the contrast.

 

This cause the main problem that Shkval has difficult and unrealistic behavior to lock on targets. You can have a perfect flying aircraft correctly inside the Shkval target gate parameters with perfect contrast, and the Shkval will deny the lock. Because it does not recognize the unit ID by its RCS or something. There is a difference is the aircraft flying toward you or away from you or sideways. Even when visually it is nothing more than a same high contrast blob inside the target gate, it doesn't lock in many cases.

 

The same problem is with the ground units, you can have strongest possible contrast and the Shkval does not lock on it unless you make the target gate smaller than the model itself. Sometimes it needs to be made smallest gate so you are literally locking on tiny element on the target model like a wheel or window, but it does completely ignore the lock if it is filling 80% of the gate and it is nothing more than black dot surrounded by pure white.

 

A simulated contrast lock system would literally use contrast detection in the game to be used for locking and tracking. It is not complex thing to do and doesn't require much processing.

Such system would allow proper and realistic contrast lock and tracking functionality.

It would result that Shkval could be locked on anything for a tracking as long there is a contrast. It would make possible lock on any aircraft on the sky as long it is inside the Shkval target gate. It doesn't either matter is the target a tree, rock, boat, car, window on the building etc, as long there is a contrast then the lock can be made and track initiated.

 

I asked from you that what other tracking system does Shkval system use than contrast based? You have not answered for that but demand me to answer to your question.

It is your turn to explain that why "ED developers have repeatedly stated that the Shkval in the game is modeled close to real." is correctly, because Shkval in KA-50 (or Su-25T in otherhand) doesn't have even semi-realistic contrast detection based tracking capability.

So if Shkval is not using contrast (hence limitation for low-light situation as contrast levels drop quickly in low light, and contrast levels increase dramatically in sunrise/sunset moments when light is very harsh, and in various other weather conditions contrast gets very low like mist, rain and even just smog, and cause problems in hot areas like deserts etc where distortion comes challenge for light) then what it is using for locking and tracking?

 

1) Laser

2) Radar

3) Thermal

 

or is it just so that Shkval uses a contrast for locking and tracking as it is only a electro-optical targeting system?

 

And to model a such system, one needs to actually model and perform contrast detection because we are actually doing it in the game anyways! We do not need to do anything else than really input the video signal from the Shkval screen inside the gate, process it and perform the contrast lock and tracking functionalities. There is no need to simulate radars, lasers or anything like that, as all the visuals are done by the 3D engine, textures, lighting system etc etc.

But it would require that object ID system to be scratched. No more fake and unrealistic targeting capabilities, no more challenges to lock on easy air target. No more magical tracking capabilities and increased realism by requiring pilot to keep an eye that target doesn't get obstructed or confuse otherway the tracking system.

 

But that is the whole idea of the contrast detection system and its configuration as the human can do a great job to adjust imagery to get a strongest contrast, even when you can't anymore identify target by that way.

 

All that we have in the DCS KA-50 (Black Shark 2 up to day) is:

 

1) No realistic fragmentation modeling

2) No realistic proximity fuzing modeling

3) No no realistic target locking and tracking modeling.

 

All based to object ID's and just some randomness "No sorry, I can't see that black dot on the white sky because..... "

 

The same thing is not just against air targets, it is for the ground targets as well.

 

And to be very clear for you, this is NOT ABOUT:

 

1) Does Vikhr explode at 5 meters from the aircraft/armor.

2) Does Vikhr destroy aircraft/armor when exploding.

3) Can you get Shkval to track an aircraft.

 

Because all that can be faked, just like it is done in the DCS by very simple means using object ID's and simple LUA scripting. Any programmer can be lousy and make a code "When object A is X distance from object B, do a explosion and kill A and B".

 

As well it can be made lousy manner "When object X is inside this area of screen, X = RCS is >0.5, X = range is <X, track X".

 

And all that is exactly "modeled close to real".

But when it comes to simulate things, it is a far from the real.

 

Why these two are "No Lock" scenarios?

 

 

 

Why is Shkval incapable to lock on those and track them?

That is your task to explain because you defend ED position that "Operates close to real" and you are not answering to my original question, what tracking system Shkval uses for targets if not contrast based?

 

And if you would be using DCS for long enough, you would learn quickly that so many systems are super simplified and not simulated. Be it a instantly correct CCIP or CCRP solutions on targets regardless terrain height (good example in AV-8B), or be it a targeting pod perfect tracking on the ground without any kind common sensor stabilization errors (Hornet, Viper, Warthog etc), magical target recognition and locking (good example in Su-25T).

 

Many things are "good enough", but when going for deeper in the simulation, many things must be taken seriously and they need to be done properly.

 

And if you have listen the Nick Grey interview, he talks exactly about this limitation that has been in the past and they are improving it currently for the future. Starting with those damage modeling levels for WW2 aircrafts, then to ground units and then to modern aircrafts etc.

 

Many things can be skipped and simplified. Like a bombs fragmentation effect. No one cares where does ALL FRAGMENTS fly. Only thing that really matters is that if there is a unit near by, then what effects does it receive from the fragments flying toward it.

So you perform simple explosion, you check the range and the angles for the near by units and then you calculate the random count of fragments flying in their directions, you random generate their weight and size, and then you simulate their impact on the units. And doing so you ignore every single other piece of fragment that would be flying to any other direction.

No one cares about those. They can be completely faked by making some impacts around the initial explosion like piece of fragments would be hitting ground etc. But there is no reason to perform any accurate explosive calculations at high level simulation if there is no one caring about it.

 

This is the same problem as in overall simulator performance. No one is seeing from aircraft how a ground unit turret turns at you, tracks at you and how the wheels and tracks rotate on terrain. Just drop all that modeling.

If someone is flying 50 kilometers from your position, there is no reason to even have any 3D models loaded and even less have any animations and simulations done that doesn't matter in the moment. A ground unit sitting somewhere doesn't need to be checking does it spot an enemy or not when there is no one close by.

But going for oversimplified manner problems raises and performance impacts appears and sometimes faked things becomes noticeable and it breaks the illusion.

 

And such illusion is that you are looking at the target on screen, clear strong contrast and easy to lock, but no. The system doesn't see it that way as for it it is nothing!

 

You can lock Shkval even on a tiny fence because it has unit ID, even when you barely see it. But that strong contrast tree next to it is "No go... Nothing there!". Or building behind trees and "Oh boy, didn't I get strong perfect lock on that pure white wall that has nothing on it!".

 

The magical detection "Nope, that tank is destroyed and I will not lock on it!" is suppose to be "close to real"? Yeah, by what? If there is something that is fantasy, it is like such systems. That magically detects that the burning unit on the ground is a destroyed and it is waste of time to lock on it to be shot at because it is already dead. But magically the system does detect when something is alive and a threat and must be targeted and destroyed!

 

And it doesn't matter do you accept that Shkval in KA-50 is far from reality or not, because ED really needs to invest serious time to implement the proper systems for target locking and tracking for many modules, and especially in Shkval if they are going ever to model those various Shkval filters for targeting at various environments and situations that has been non-functional since the first Black Shark.

[Fri13]

Sources? If you know, then explain to me how it is technically possible for the L-370 Vitebsk mounted on the Russian Ka-52s?/QUOTE]

 

Delivered already to developers by others, manufacturer confirmed data that President-S has as well RF detection and jamming capabilities.

 

You don't need to worry about that, as it is not my task to explain to you anything.

[S.E.Bulba]

Google Translate

 

1. Fragmentation is has not ever modeled in DCS, until in the future when they get the new damage models in…

TL;DR

 

I don't speak English, so I won't even try to guess the machine translation of the verbose full-page text. :)

 

Once again, I am forced to repeat the fact that if you have something to evidence-based tell about the work of the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system or Vikhr ATGM, then you better contact the ED developers directly, because they speak English. If you don't have anything like that, then it makes no sense to waste time here, where no one will read you anyway.

 

Delivered already to developers by others, manufacturer confirmed data that President-S has as well RF detection and jamming capabilities.

 

You don't need to worry about that, as it is not my task to explain to you anything.

Don't get flurried, I am not worried at all by the empty words that some writers on the forum present with a mysteriously meaningful look. :)

 

Original in Russian

1. Fragmentation is has not ever modeled in DCS, until in the future when they get the new damage models in…

TL;DR

 

Я не говорю по-английски, поэтому я даже не буду пытаться разгадывать машинный перевод многословного текста на всю страницу. :)

 

Ещё раз вынужден повторить то, что если у Вас есть что обоснованно рассказать о работе реальных КАПК «Шквал» или ПТУР «Вихрь», то Вам лучше непосредственно обратиться к разработчикам ED, т.к. они говорят по-английски. Если ничего подобного у Вас нет, то соответственно и нет смысла впустую тратить время здесь, где читать Вас всё равно никто не будет.

 

Delivered already to developers by others, manufacturer confirmed data that President-S has as well RF detection and jamming capabilities.

 

You don't need to worry about that, as it is not my task to explain to you anything.

Не волнуйтесь, меня совершенно не беспокоят пустые слова, которые с загадочно-многозначительным видом преподносят некоторые форумные сочинители. :)

 

[Fri13]

TL;DR

I don't speak English, so I won't even try to guess the machine translation of the verbose full-page text. :)

[/Quote]

 

Then I repeat, don't challenge if you don't understand.

 

Once again, I am forced to repeat the fact that if you have something to evidence-based tell about the work of the real Shkval automatic TV sighting system or Vikhr ATGM, then you better contact the ED developers directly, because they speak English. If you don't have anything like that, then it makes no sense to waste time here, where no one will read you anyway.[/Quote]

 

Then again do not challenge when you don't know what you are talking about.

I asked that what evidence you have that Shkval is not a contrast based tracking system, and you dance around the question. If you want to be ignorant, then be such...

 

As you can't answer for a simple question, and you can't understand the question itself, it is no use for you to participate to English side.

 

It is clear that Shkval doesn't model correctly anything really, but you ignore all the evidence for that. It becomes obvious for anyone who uses it long enough that DCS is not capable simulate it to this Maybe in future when new FLIR and all gets implement in overhaul of optical systems.

 

Don't get flurried, I am not worried at all by the empty words that some writers on the forum present with a mysteriously meaningful look. :)[/Quote]

 

Yes you do....

And that is it.