BS3 still happening?

[Fri13]

On 5/15/2021 at 7:00 PM, Sh4rk said:

You took that from a CGI video talking about the system, not from a cockpit or a picture of any real object or screen.

As much as it's meant to portray the system, it's not a good (reliable) source.

 

This is from S.E.Bulba from russian forum:

 

 

And that is not even the one I said earlier that I have seen (as it was with the exact display that the 3D animation uses with exact same display and all). 

What a Chicz as well said in Russian forum is that they went to own graphical visuals for a reason. So instead missiles they have just the triangles and primary threat is circle. This because their system does not react to anything else than missiles. 

[Katmandu]

On 5/19/2021 at 3:54 PM, dimitriov said:

Problem is that they won't, according to Chizh who's kamov dev on russians forums : 

 

"We invented it ourselves, we implement our own concept.



Launch warning is something that is sorely lacking in this helicopter. The red arrows are a good tool for aerial combat even with aircraft.



It may not have existed at all."

 

 

 

You are quoting out of context and spreading misinformation. Maybe due to google translate doing a poor job, but still.

Chizh posted about the real life Ka-50, how - because it was never fully accepted by the military - it was a never-ending case of upgrades and experiments. MWS, FLIR, active IR defenses were just some of the things installed on the real Ka-50. Ka-50 was in constant flux. ED chose a point in that continuum of change for the BS3. This was his first main point.

His second point was that Russian Laws about gathering info on military equipment, as well as the overall paranoia about these things in Russia are much worse now than at the time of the original BS1/BS2/Su25T. Much much worse. Hence the different approach at ED. Even Su-25T level of modelling the active IR defense is off the table now.

17 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

This is from S.E.Bulba from russian forum:

 

 

And that is not even the one I said earlier that I have seen (as it was with the exact display that the 3D animation uses with exact same display and all). 

What a Chicz as well said in Russian forum is that they went to own graphical visuals for a reason. So instead missiles they have just the triangles and primary threat is circle. This because their system does not react to anything else than missiles. 

Once again, google translate may be at fault, but that is not quite what he said. He said that they (ED) do not want to replicate the real visuals above. (implying the change in laws and paranoia again. And yes, he knows that the above photo is in the public domain. But such is the situation) And after that, he said  that functionally, the design is irrelevant they (ED) could as well used yellow ducks instead of the red triangles. (yellow rubber duck is a mocking symbol of politicians in current Russia).

Quote

 

Это решение продиктовано особенностями российского законодательства.

В былые времена мы сделали бы копию, но сейчас делать этого не будем.

 

Chizh: This decision is a consequence of Russian lawmaking. In the past we would have made an exact copy, but now we will not do that.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Katmandu

[Stratos]

But ED choose to model a helicopter that never existed, and they said just that, a fictional helicopter, with fictional systems. They could hav made this one for example and abstract the IR active defenses, but no, they decided to make a fictional chopper, with MWS but no L-370, a 3 hardpoint wing, and a non real MWS (I can live with that as per Russian law, but it annoys me the deletion of systems).

Edited May 22, 2021 by Stratos

[S.E.Bulba]

50 минут назад, Katmandu сказал:

Chizh posted about the real life Ka-50, how - because it was never fully accepted by the military - it was a never-ending case of upgrades and experiments. MWS, FLIR, active IR defenses were just some of the things installed on the real Ka-50. Ka-50 was in constant flux. ED chose a point in that continuum of change for the BS3. This was his first main point.

No one is forbidden to write whatever they want… paper can't blush. 
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Написать можно всё, что угодно… бумага всё стерпит. 

 

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Katmandu said:

Once again, google translate may be at fault, but that is not quite what he said. He said that they (ED) do not want to replicate the real visuals above. (implying the change in laws and paranoia again. 

 

What is what I wrote exactly. Hence "for a reason", why they do not make graphics exact.

 

It is not really so difficult.....

 

 

[Schmidtfire]

A good way to please both camps would be to ship an additional version with BS3! 
Late 1980's or very early 1990's version. No ABRIS, perfect for Cold War  and low intensity type missions.
It will be the ultimate DLC, giving us a wide range of Ka-50. From very basic to the currrent version and all the way to a
modified plausible version.

Obviusly this type of "creative liberties" should not be a standard practice. We might end up with a strange type of "DCS reality".
However, it is understandable that ED had to go that route with BS3, not only for commercial reasons but for how the laws work.
As Chizh wrote, If they could do it 100% for real they would. Ka-50 is sort of the first born at ED, so I think they will try their best to
make it a good DLC.  
 



       

Edited May 22, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[notproplayer3]

52 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

A good way to please both camps would be to ship an additional version with BS3! 
Late 1980's or very early 1990's version. No ABRIS, perfect for Cold War  and low intensity type missions.
It will be the ultimate DLC, giving us a wide range of Ka-50. From very basic to the currrent version and all the way to a
modified plausible version.

Hey, that's a very cool idea, did some "research" and found a couple of interesting photos. Mainly the ka50sh which I though was more modern than our ka50 but looks to be the opposite. So the TV screens are one per sensor (shkval and flir) I would guess ? I don't know if it has been discussed but are there legal problems with finding information and modeling the flir ? I believe the flir was western and not very much produced so perhaps it could be done ?

The second pic looks to be an older ka50, I don't know if anyone could add any info to the picture.

 

On a slightly different subject.

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

But ED choose to model a helicopter that never existed, and they said just that, a fictional helicopter, with fictional systems. They could hav made this one for example and abstract the IR active defenses, but no, they decided to make a fictional chopper, with MWS but no L-370, a 3 hardpoint wing, and a non real MWS (I can live with that as per Russian law, but it annoys me the deletion of systems).

 

I don't know if it has been cleared up or not but the ka50 has had some models with MWS but no Vitebsk L-370 system. 

Those protrusions in the nose are the MWS detectors but we see none of those L-370 balls near the landing gear. Also, it's number 25 just like on what ours is based too. Number 25 was also the number on the ka50 in your post Stratos. Are they the same helo but your pic was taken at a later time and with additional systems than the above pic ?

So yes, the fact that ED has said they were making their own integration of the MWS already gives away then fact that it may have never existed. But I wonder how the cockpit and MWS integration of this pic's ka50 is and for what reason ED can't model it like how it really was.

Does the 25 have a glass cockpit currently ? 

 

 

[Stratos]

In fact my pic is taken BEFORE yours I think, note the strange circular structure in front the main wheels on your pic, that's where the "balls of fate" were placed on my pic.

 

I think they don't model the proper MWS cause the russian law about military hardware. I can understand that and can live with an aproximation. What I cannot understand is why not to use the L-370 "balls" when they already have the proper 3d model??? They can make and "educated guess" for that as well, together with the Auto countermeasure launcher, but NO, they decided against it, and react in a very dry way when someone try to request for those systems. Sadly, from my point of view it just seems they are interested only in quick money, from a module aready sold 2 or 3 times. Is very sad, at least for me.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Stratos

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

A good way to please both camps would be to ship an additional version with BS3! 
Late 1980's or very early 1990's version. No ABRIS, perfect for Cold War  and low intensity type missions.
It will be the ultimate DLC, giving us a wide range of Ka-50. From very basic to the currrent version and all the way to a
modified plausible version.

Obviusly this type of "creative liberties" should not be a standard practice. We might end up with a strange type of "DCS reality".
However, it is understandable that ED had to go that route with BS3, not only for commercial reasons but for how the laws work.
As Chizh wrote, If they could do it 100% for real they would. Ka-50 is sort of the first born at ED, so I think they will try their best to
make it a good DLC.  
 



       

 

 

YYYYEEEESSSSS AH64ski!

[Katmandu]

15 hours ago, notproplayer3 said:

I believe the flir was western and not very much produced so perhaps it could be done ?

Su-25T has FLIR, in the Russian-made Mercury pod.

Ka-50Sh also had FLIR in one of its versions, but its all moot as Chizh confirmed they will NOT be making BS3 with FLIR capabilities(

[S.E.Bulba]

10 минут назад, Katmandu сказал:

Su-25T has FLIR, in the Russian-made Mercury pod.

Mercury is not a FLIR, but an LLTV.
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

«Меркурий» – это не FLIR, а LLTV.

 

[Katmandu]

3 minutes ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Mercury is not a FLIR, but an LLTV.

You're right) I thought it was IR as it works like FLIR in DCS)

[26-J39]

I'm really on the fence with this one.   I followed the development of the KA-50 before it was released, when it was.... WOW it changed the world of simulation forever.

At the time it was thrilling to run the Shark through it's paces, testing systems, flight performance, auto rotations, all knowing it was a high fidelity simulation of a real aircraft.

Too see it morph into a non-existent air-frame  is a little disappointing but in light of current times i can honestly understand why ED would persue BS3.

In all honesty i think ED, over the years are a little fed up with Russian laws, image how frustrating it must be for a Russian aviation nutbag working at ED coding F-16's, F/A-18, AH-64 etc but never get to work on a high fidelity Su-30 or a KA-52.  

 

AFAIK, with BS3 ED plan to deliver the Stock #25 Shark with an updated cockpit/external model as well as the updated version.

I pretty happy with that i think its a fair compromise for everyone, as long as mission editors can disable upgraded BS3's from MP servers.

 

[26-J39]

In case any one hasn't seen this site, lots of high quality pics of #25. 

 

https://www.net-maquettes.com/pictures/kamov-ka-50-hokum-walkaround/

[zerO_crash]

On 5/19/2021 at 9:35 AM, LeCuvier said:

ED is in a difficult position. On one side there are the "comfort gamers" who would like to have an autopilot on the Bf-109K4, and on the other side the realism purists who don't even want to see features of an experimental version. And both defend their positions heatedly, someties dogmatically.

I think we should all be a bit more tolerant and accept that we don't have a monopoly on being right.

The solution to those on the “chill” side of the spectrum is Modern Air Combat that ED is making. However DCS having always been a simulator, should not aim for the less realism oriented crowd. People keep forgetting what a simulator is. It’s not to please and improve on what’s out there IRL, it’s there to simulate. If it is too difficult for you, then turn up the “assist”-slider or go for something without “simulator” in its name.

 

There was no version of a 3-pylon wing, ever on Ka50. Ka52 yes, and even the couple of frames that were rebuilt from Ka50 into Ka52. However those changed their designation to Ka52. Igla was never there as well. As to MWS, there was a version of it, even the sensors are in the airframe. Also the integration of MWS into Abris...

 

There are systems being simulated, which we don’t know enough about. This is not good at all. I am curious as to what ED will explain this “experimental” ED Ka50 with, because I have never heard about any of those systems on a Ka50 IRL.

[Cathnan]

13 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

I am curious as to what ED will explain this “experimental” ED Ka50 with

I hope to be proven wrong but I have a feeling it won't be explained at all. Considering how the communication about this has gone so far in terms of explaining

[Stratos]

They already explained in the Russian part of the forums. Is a ED invention, point.

[Cathnan]

2 minutes ago, Stratos said:

They already explained in the Russian part of the forums. Is a ED invention, point.

What I'm interested in especially is an explenation why the departure from reality is taking place and how this will affect future developement in general.

[26-J39]

36 minutes ago, Cathnan said:

What I'm interested in especially is an explenation why the departure from reality is taking place and how this will affect future developement in general.

I don't think this will affect ED's future development QA so to speak, i really think this is an exception due to the disproportionate information available on western aircraft compared to eastern, more so the laws governing the said development of respective aircraft.    Im not saying ED are trying to balance game play but i think this is their compromise to some sort of way of providing a more balanced battlefield.       (  ok i have my tomato shield ready )

 

edit:BS3 is ED's KA-52 module.. as best they can get away with. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by 26-J39
spelling and addition

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

They already explained in the Russian part of the forums. Is a ED invention, point.

I know that, I participate on those forums. Still, this is the first module with imaginary features. We don’t guesstimate here. If we wanted to, we’d be playing some R&D simulator, but not this. I am curious how they explain away e.g. the new three-pylon wing. It’s not about being able to still have the old one, it’s the question why the new one has been introduced at all. They have to understand that new customers watch videos of DCS on Youtube, and that their product is getting evaluated both quality- and realism-wise. I’m also curious why this approach was chosen at all (except money). I’m curious on an elaborate answer on why not an F-16 with F-35 wing, and F-22 radar.

 

MWS is good, even if without DIRCM (Vitebsk L-370, it’s more realistic to implement half a system, than guesstimate on 50% of the whole), however 3-pylon wing and Igla not.

Edited May 23, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Stratos]

30 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

I know that, I participate on those forums. Still, this is the first module with imaginary features. We don’t guesstimate here. If we wanted to, we’d be playing some R&D simulator, but not this. I am curious how they explain away e.g. the new three-pylon wing. It’s not about being able to still have the old one, it’s the question why the new one has been introduced at all. They have to understand that new customers watch videos of DCS on Youtube, and that their product is getting evaluated both quality- and realism-wise. I’m also curious why this approach was chosen at all (except money). I’m curious on an elaborate answer on why not an F-16 with F-35 wing, and F-22 radar.

 

MWS is good, even if without DIRCM (Vitebsk L-370, it’s more realistic to implement half a system, than guesstimate on 50% of the whole), however 3-pylon wing and Igla not.

 

I'm curious as well, but cannot coincide with the Vitebsk thing, they already guesstimate how the MWS work.

[zerO_crash]

2 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I'm curious as well, but cannot coincide with the Vitebsk thing, they already guesstimate how the MWS work.

They know how it works. There is a guy on the Russian forums that works with these systems in a factory and has intimate knowledge of it. He is not allowed to share most details, and ED cannot ask as well due to laws and their company policy. However he has been able to shed some light on the basics and confirmed certain info that’s also accessible on the internet. If anything, it will be more restrictive in DCS than IRL, because it’s no doubt a fact that Vitebsk’s MWS has much higher performance than what ED is simulating here.

[Stratos]

2 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

They know how it works. There is a guy on the Russian forums that works with these systems in a factory and has intimate knowledge of it. He is not allowed to share most details, and ED cannot ask as well due to laws and their company policy. However he has been able to shed some light on the basics and confirmed certain info that’s also accessible on the internet. If anything, it will be more restrictive in DCS than IRL, because it’s no doubt a fact that Vitebsk’s MWS has much higher performance than what ED is simulating here.

Then why not have the full system added?

[S.E.Bulba]

2 часа назад, zerO_crash сказал:

… and even the couple of frames that were rebuilt from Ka50 into Ka52.

However, they also did not have 3-pylon wing panels.

 

1 час назад, zerO_crash сказал:

(Vitebsk L-370, it’s more realistic to implement half a system, than guesstimate on 50% of the whole)

IMHO, it would really be more realistic if ED implemented that 50% correctly. However, personally, I do not see anything "realistic" in an incorrect implementation, when information obtained from open sources is deliberately distorted due to paranoia.

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Тем не менее, они тоже не имели 3-пилонных консолей крыла.

 

ИМХО, это было бы действительно более реалистично в том случае, если бы ED реализовывали эти самые 50% правильно. Однако лично я не вижу ничего «реалистичного» в неправильной реализации, когда из-за паранойи намеренно искажается информация, полученная из открытых источников.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

[26-J39]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

Then why not have the full system added?

Seriously are you for real?  Do you not think ED have restrictions on what they can model?   Do u think just because some guy has info on a system ED will just jump on it ?   There are so many factors you have not considered.