So lets rate Black Shark 1-100

[Dusty Rhodes]

With all the publications coming out with their ratings, rated by people who are hardly hard core maniacs who expect the world from their hard core sims, lets let the real experts rate the sim...................US. Rate it and give a short explanation why. Be good for ED to get some good feedback from it's customer base.

 

 

So here is why I give the score you will see below.

 

 

Without radio calls from the combat area, like you hear in Allied Force, the sim still has a small but noticeable sterile feeling to it. The ATC still needs a little work and I enjoy Allied Force in that there is a appreciable landing pattern of incoming Aircraft. I hope ED works on this in the future. For now, what they have is workable but could be improved. Some ingenius person brought in radio calls from GUNSHIP and for me flying those missions sent the immersion level to an all time high when it comes to radio chatter. I plan on instituting them into my missions once I hit the Mission Editor hot and heavy.

 

The ME is fantastic and just what people were asking for and there is talk from ED that it is going to be even further enhanced. The trigger features and flags really make for a dynamic mission if the mission builder knows what he/she is doing. Having the ability to make templates of units makes the work of the mission builder much easier and was a stroke of genius on a small level.

 

It is an old complaint, but one that won't go away for me, this line of product needs, no BEGS, for a Falcon 4 style dynamic campaign. It is made for a DC. It takes the work away from the tremendous amount of work a mission builder has to do to create a dynamic, living atmosphere. Black Shark is a play a dynamic mission, go home and the world stops. Then the mission builder has to pick up from that minute and try to simulate the next hour of the war and how it goes, but that is impossible because the mission builder doesn't know what the outcome of the players mission was from all the units in the mission. Then he has to spend hours and hours making up the next mission when a DC runs it minute by minute and there isn't a centralized battle area, with nothing happening out side your battle space, but there is a whole front with many battles taking place. It makes the world live and makes you fight the war minute by minute with real time changes in the tactical situation. Having a front line with troops in contact and conducting operations minute by minute in what would take a mission builder days to recreate for just one mission in one area. You have heard it before, so I will shut up about it.............AGAIN :)

 

Some saw the choice of the KA-50 as a curious choice. Mostly us Westerners who forget there is another world out there in the east with a vast array of weapons systems. The KA-50 was just simply masterful and perfect pick. With the weather and a realistic flight model, the KA-50 takes a lot of practice to become efficient at flying her, let alone then fighting her. That goes to a whole other level and that is what flight simmers want. Multi levels of difficulty. The clickable cockpit was a joy to learn (and I still don't know what half those damn buttons and switches do). The shkval is a hoot to use and modelling a minute detail like laser burn out is important to us Simmers. We want to be punished for screwing up or not fighting our steed correctly (how hopeless we are :) )

 

The graphics to me are wonderful and made for a helo sim. The one down fall is the tree's having no collision capability which also affects the combat as the enemy can see you thru them and can fire thru them, taking away a huge tactical advantage to the player. If that were to be fixed it alone would notch up my score for the sim by 2-3 points. Another curious omission and I believe it may be a limitation of the engine is that we lost the Crimea and all the usefulness it would have brought along in mission and campaign building and design. I would like to see it reinstituted and also populate Turkey. Turkey is in the sim but with no cities and airfields, it makes it almost impossible to make a campaign or series of missions that make Turkey a central figure in the fight. Why is that important? Turkey has the KA-50. Me thinks that ED will eventually populate that area but I hope it isn't at the expense of losing another part of the map like we lost the Crimea. ED, we want it all of course :)

 

The selection of AI aircraft and weapons is wonderful and makes for a very interesting battles that can take place. Line of site vision, sensor line of site were all taken into consideration with the AI( I know, I tested the crap out of this), and that is something Simmers have been begging for is an AI that acts and has the limitations of a human. The AI isn't quite there yet (will it ever really be for any sim/game), but it has taken leaps and bounds forward in Black Shark and ED should be proud of that.

 

The Vista problem, though it doesn't effect me, nags at me at the back of my mind. I like to think, though, that Vista came along when it was almost too late for ED change things up and ED did their very best to make it as compatible as possible. I give the benefit of the doubt to ED here and would bet they are working on the problem as I type, knowing their product support.

 

As in any software, there are bugs to be worked out and Black Shark is no exception. But I can honestly say that I have not seen a flight sim come out with this much depth and have so few issue's since Janes F-18. And with ED's business model of patching till they get it right or as right as the software will let them and the promise of new flyable aircraft coming every 9 months or there abouts, future products are going to be in even better shape then Black Shark and that is phenominal. A-10C HOG. gimme gimme gimme gimme. A Model Apache, I wet my shorts just thinking about it!

 

I like the fact that ED didn't foget Joe Simmer. I know it is hard to believe but there are those of us out there who do not want to immerse themselves in a 500 page manual and spend a bazilliion hours trying to figure out how to fire weapons and become befuddled by the avionics and switches and buttons. And believe me, Joe simmer is WAY important to our well being as a hard core community. ED made a gamers mode so that should draw more people into our folds and recruit future hard core simmers. Thank you ED for continuing to expand the customer base. It benefits ED and it benefits us.

 

I was very happy to see that ED included training in Black Shark. But I must say that some of the information in there was so useless it was like they were put in there for filler to make it look better. I rolled my eyes at some of the electrical information passed along. Now there may be a reason for the info but I haven't figure it out. The training is not Longbow 2 training but that doesn't mean it isn't as good. The ability to take over and apply what you just learned is invaluable to those hands on people that like to watch, listen, and then do. That is me and the training was right up my ally, minus the useless information :)

 

Regardless of my comments about needing a DC, ED went miles above their former products of LOMAC and Flaming Cliffs in delivering 3 campaigns that offer a diverse selection of missions requiring not only tactical knowledge but also a knowledge of the aircraft and its benefits and limitations to fly them. The campaigns take into effect your success or failure to assign you your next mission in the mission tree ala Janes F-18. There has been some rumble of late by a very few that the missions in the campaigns aren't much different from each other. I took the time to go thru each mission of each campaign and it sure seemed to me that the mission builder built missions for a KA-50 gunship for what the gunship does, kill armor and protect their own armor. I say the campaigns were well done and I would love to hear the man hours it took to bring those 3 campaigns to life. I would bet it would stun the Black Shark community. This does bring up a niggle I have in that we still don't have a Multiplayable campaign. I believe I read that it is a limitation of the software. Well I hope ED is spending some man hours fixing this problem. Simmers want to be able to fight a war with their buddies, not fight a single battle and go home and then wait for the next mission to come out from the fine mission builders we have out there. This should be a priority.

 

Least I forget a very important single play feature. The campaign builder. ED hit at least a triple with this (it would be a home run if you could MP it). Build your missions using a story line and branch them out depending on success or failure and you put it into the campaign builder and suddenly you have a campaign for other people to single play. As do the campaigns that came with the game there is a bit of dynamics to it and can be as diverse as the man hours you want to spend on it. I hope there is someone out there who is doing up campaigns for us simmers to fly because we can never get enough diversity in our sim play.

 

Well I have rambled enough and I know I didn't hit each and every thing that Black Shark brings but I hope I hit the important parts and my whys and ways of thinking about why I give KA-50 Black Shark the score I gave it. I am very hard on a product and don't grade well when a product isn't what it is advertised. But I think Black Shark is exactly what it was advertised, and maybe in some ways a little more. That is why I give Black Shark with all it's glitz and glitter and small little warts a score of

 

90

 

Agree, disagree, lets hear from you with no bickering or whining and don't rebute my view, write your views and score. Rebuttal does no good. Honest reviews do from ED's customer base. Keep it civil and on point and lets help ED make a better product in the future.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Dusty Rhodes

[Zakk]

Lets not and say we did.

[S7_Viper]

Alright. I have been playing flight sims for a long time. Out of every one that I played, DCS: Black Shark has done something I have been waiting for all of these years. Its hard. I have so much to do to fight and stay alive its amazing.

 

This is the first video game for me EVER, that took a week before I killed something. I could have rushed learning the startup, but I wanted to know what I was was doing as well as how. I now know all of the systems for running the helo and am about to work on learning the navigation system.

 

The Editor, and user made missions from a active community.

 

Just those 2 things are enough for a 98 score. Add graphics, playability on older systems, there is another 5 points.

 

There are many things to say good about the game for sure, I can write a huge post, but those are the positive highlights!

 

The Negitive,

 

No hiding behind trees?

No RWS, modeled or not, without tree cover what hope can we have? (my opinion)

No handheld manual (I know its coming, but still)

No Dynamic campaign

 

All in all, thats pretty petty stuff when you hold it up against what ED has given us.

 

I give it a 95!

[Dusty Rhodes]

Zakk, why did you even post?

 

S7 Viper, thanks for the input. Let's hear from others. Think about it and give an honest thought out score and not a knee jerk score.

[Kwill]

I give it a solid 80, it's still missing things like proper interaction with the ATC and a dynamic campaign, other than that it blows every other sim out of the water.

[Steel Jaw]

Good review Dusty.

 

One thing I will not tolerate is biased reviews from folks with an agenda.

 

I am happy with the sim but very disappointed with the helo itself...it is dated, a relic from the 80s, useless at night when you REALLY wanna fly and fight in a helo.

 

I have flown it now for a couple of months and am returning to Janes Longbow 2 (which OWNS the night) and await the DCS A10.

[Lobo_63]

I rate this SIMULATION :thumbup: x2. Its been years since I have been this impressed with a sim. I'm only scratching the surface since getting it and quite frankly I am amazed at the stunning level of detail, systems modelling is superb and the immersion level is awesome. It runs good on my rig. The graphics are scalable and I can get very nice FPS. It is a stable program out of the box. For the above reasons I give DCS BS a starting score of 100.

 

IMO the best measure of a quality sim, is how well it draws you into the simulated world and causes you to lose track of time in the real world. This sim is already causing me me grief in this respect with the Wife. Way to go ED, and team. Nicely done! Well worth the wait.

 

I deduct one point for each of the following reasons:

I wish the tree's had collision modelling (-1). I am dissapointed that trackir 4 is only supported trackir1 users are left out in the cold (-1). I would have liked the ability to save a mission in progress (-1). I wish my wingmen could rearm/refuel at a farp and then continue mission with me (-1). Dual core not supported natively (-1).

 

I am also wish that I could smell the cordite when firing the cannon, however I have refrained from any deducting points for this as the DCS BS team made up for it in other areas.

 

I give DCS BS a score of 95%.

 

AMD 64 x2 6000+ 3.0GHZ Socket AM2 Cpu (with stock fan)

ASUS M2N SLI Deluxe motherboard (AM2+ NVIDIA nForce 570 SLI)

4GB OCZ DDR 2

GeForce 7900 GS OC 256MB SLI Ready (PCI Express Graphics Card)

Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

Saitek X52 Joystick/Throttle (USB)

Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals (USB)

Windows 7 beta build 7000

Using dual cores via DCS:BS Affinity Tool

[Jagr]

I'd give it several grades.. giving it a single grade is not fair..nor does it fairly describe the Sim.

 

 

Simulation I'd give it a 95% (Got all the switchology, but lots of shortcuts for those less inclined to actually know how to start a real helo)

 

Cockpit I'd give it a 95% (6DOF is wild in that pit)

 

Weapons I'd go with a 90% (The performance and visual effects as well as the targeting are excellent)

 

Editor I'd go with 85% (Its very workable, but nothing earth shattering)

 

Multiplayer I'd go with 90% (I've hosted and been the client, both seem solid)

 

Subject Matter I'd go with 80%I could think of 4-5 attack aircraft I'd have preferred over the Ka-50 with its not quite a helo/not quite an airplane setup.

 

Out of the Box 95% very reliable and polished product for an initial release. For the complexity level I'm very impressed it is so "finished" a product.

[WynnTTr]

Good review Dusty.

 

One thing I will not tolerate is biased reviews from folks with an agenda.

 

I am happy with the sim but very disappointed with the helo itself...it is dated, a relic from the 80s, useless at night when you REALLY wanna fly and fight in a helo.

 

I have flown it now for a couple of months and am returning to Janes Longbow 2 (which OWNS the night) and await the DCS A10.

 

Does Janes flight model equal DCS:BS? Does it simulate rather than guesstimate the performance of the aircraft? Likewise with avionics and weapons systems?

 

Can you fully interact with the cockpit to the extent of this game.

TrackIR support?

 

Just a few questions as this is my first helo sim, which has piqued my interest in others.

[195th_Moses]

Good Stuff Dusty Id rate it a 90 as well. I dont really care about a DC only so many barcaps you can takeover and do what you want to do. Thanks again ED Good Show

[WynnTTr]

NM - just googled it. Didn't realize it was so old.

I'm sticking with BS - I prefer the complete package of sim + eye candy. Looks like I'll have to wait for the AH-64A module (if it's confirmed).

[Feuerfalke]

I'd like to give different scores, too.

 

FlightSimulation: 95%

+ very high fidelity flight-dynamics

+ system correctly modelled with almost all functions enabled (esp. PVI800 and ABRIS)

+ Very good implementation of 6DOF

- laboratoric setting (little weather influence (especially the effects of rain and snow), no interaction (like prop-/jetwash)

- modelled helo based on prototype

 

Helo combat simulation: 60%

+ Fully integrated Link

+ Interaction with Wingmen using the Link and other means

- no collideable trees

- the whole SP-experience is based on the skill of the mission builder and how he is able to script the mission

- which leads to heavily scripted campaigns and missions

- replayability of single missions = near zero (once you learned where the triggers are, you know how to avoid them)

- A.I. behaviour esp. in defending themselves and coordination / interaction between units (C3 networks? Reaction to threats?)

- action is only on spot - fly off the planned path and you cruise through empty space and can mostly win the missions easily

- no dynamic campaign

- most static objects are not counted as kills, not even EWRs and airfield equipment on enemy airfields

 

Editor: 85%

+ Very advanced scripting possibilities

+ neutral and rather intuitive layout

- no 3D-view makes placing of units a trial and error-procedure

- no score for special events like recon, landing, etc.

- no score for destroying statics like bridges, buildings and stuff

 

Userfriendlyness: 90%

+ neutral and intuitive GUIs (big plus indeed!)

+ Nicely reworked Logbook...

- ...lacking online-statistics and detailed logs

- programming buttons... (key+modifier+modifier still irritates me)

- and axis (the seperated axis-point from the pulldown-menu is very unintuitive, as you can tell from the many questions here. Also axis behaviour could be more selfexplaining: e.g. show what the controls do, even with a single icon, so you know if you need to invert or not without testing)

 

Multiplayer: 90%

+ very stable and reliable code

+ inbuilt server-browser (big plus!)

+ Link adding great to MP-experience

- jumpy behaviour still occurs with ping >150

- no debriefing

- no end-mission

- no preflight loadout-screen, to change skin or settings

- no possibility to use the great ABRIS and PVI800-options to add zones, lines and routes before sitting in the cockpit (especially the option to share these with othes would add to teamplay and squad-based missions)

- problems when spawning blue side on FARPs

 

 

 

Graphics: 80%

+ extremely detaled models and skins for some objects

+ complex outside shadows

- but barely any lighting difference inside cockpit

- The updated LockOn Engine looks awesome from altitudes, but not from NOE-altitudes, especially the city-maps and most steeper areas

- it does not take advantage of new DX-features

- it includes the same flaws present in LockOn 1.0: Shader-flickering, FPS-hitting smoke

- no environmental effects

- very basic textures on some important elements (like FARPs)

- Very little variation in effects

- Helo not affecting smoke

- Infantry planned as statics

 

Sound: 90%

+ very volumetric sounds

+ great voices for coms and great training missions

- sound not properly replaying with Vista (problems with increasing/decreasing volume, soundreset when switching to outside views or opening doors.)

- switches extremely loud compared to engine and rotor-sounds

 

 

Overall: 85%

I have no doubt, that DCS will become the holy grail of flightsims. But right now, it rather seems like the prototype, with a few flaws and edges that need to be smoothed out and no doubt WILL be improved, most of them hopefully even with the first patch.

 

The only real big flaws IMHO are on the gameplay-side, like the non-collideable trees and the lacking AI. I hope we can see improvement in these areas with the new engine and I hope we will see this at least for the next helo module.

 

On the bright side, I think the arcade-mode and the scaleability of the realism-options is great and gives newcomers or non-hardcore-simmers a good chance to get in contact with the genre. I'd also like to point out, that the GUI is really a great success, IMHO, and I don't think this has been said before, but I also like the menu-music. The first game I ever had, where I didn't disable menu-sound at first glance. :smilewink:

 

 

(this reflects only my personal opinion - you're free to disagree)

Edited February 15, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[Rhino4]

85%:

 

Uppers:

-Flight Model is sublime.

-Interesting helicopter choice (IMO).

-Very immersive campaigns.

-Good training tracks (although I would prefer them to be more interactive).

-Inclusion of triggers in the mission editor makes for some interesting mission design possibilities.

-Very few bugs in the initial game. (This speaks very highly of the beta testers ability to catch stuff and ED's ability to fix it.)

-Genuinely fun to fly.

 

Downers:

-Dated engine with dated graphics and dated capabilities.

-No multicore support.

-User manual doesn't include troubleshooting/emergency procedures, and while it tells you what everything does, I feel they could have done a better job explaining how to actually go about using all that stuff.

-Lack of collideable trees.

-Lack of stuff going on besides your own small piece of the world.

-Dated comms.

-No incentive for following real-world procedures.

-Mission Editor is still a little clunky (although vastly improved).

-Ground and air AI need vast improvements.

-Basically just lockon with improvements.

 

The downers bring what would otherwise be simming nirvana to a grinding halt. Don't get me wrong. I still have great fun playing this sim...But they could have done better.

 

85%

[MigLeader]

i must agree with Feuerfalke , but i will add more to his list;

 

Helo combat simulation : -5%

+ very nice bullet effects

- bad missile smoke behaviour and gun smoke when in hover

- A.I dont react to anything (i have placed 20 gattling tanks and shoot the first but they did nothing only just watching)

 

Graphics : -20%

+ amazingly nice damage model for the BS (a big big plus)

+ can work even on old computers (nice one)

- Engine don't take any advantage from the dual core CPU (a really big minus)

- Smoke really kills the game completely esp. when getting close to the -ground and the flares

- some objects are extremely modeled in a way in slowing the game while others are really poorly modeled

- flames from destroyed objects have the same heights

 

 

i am not saying that black shark is very bad or i am not playing it , it is the first release of the game and we must expect bugs like these and maybe more , all i am doing is giving the developers an easier list of all bugs and bad things to fix , other than that it is really an amazing sim that there is no sim like it or even near it.

[Feuerfalke]

i must agree with Feuerfalke , but i will add more to his list;

 

Helo combat simulation : -5%

+ very nice bullet effects

- bad missile smoke behaviour and gun smoke when in hover

- A.I dont react to anything (i have placed 20 gattling tanks and shoot the first but they did nothing only just watching)

 

Graphics : -20%

+ amazingly nice damage model for the BS (a big big plus)

+ can work even on old computers (nice one)

- Engine don't take any advantage from the dual core CPU (a really big minus)

- Smoke really kills the game completely esp. when getting close to the -ground and the flares

- some objects are extremely modeled in a way in slowing the game while others are really poorly modeled

- flames from destroyed objects have the same heights

 

 

i am not saying that black shark is very bad or i am not playing it , it is the first release of the game and we must expect bugs like these and maybe more , all i am doing is giving the developers an easier list of all bugs and bad things to fix , other than that it is really an amazing sim that there is no sim like it or even near it.

 

 

Good points.

 

I'd also like to stress, that this is no flaming or bashing BlackShark, DCS in general or ED. Infact, DCS has the potential to push anything from the throne that ever existed in the simming genre. But it's not there, yet, and these reviews have to be taken as feedback, trying to mark the weak spots to further improve BS and DCS in general.

[Kenan]

I rate it 85%.

Lots of room for improvement but still a very good sim.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Good job people. Keep going. Lets keep them like reviews and keep the second guessing others out of this and we will give some very valuable feedback to the community and to most important Eagle Dynamics.

 

Matt, are you watching thread?

[Wags]

Yep, I would rate this thread as 85% useful ;)

 

We just want folks too keep forum rule 1.10 in mind:

 

1.10 - Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Wags

[Dusty Rhodes]

Sweet. So let's give him the low down dirty, good, bad, and indifferent. And don't forget to score it. This is you chance to review a cutting edge peice of software, where the producer is watching and reading it. Reviews only, no rebuttals please.

[soup55]

Overall- A solid 90%. As stated before; nothing in life is perfect. But BS is damn good!

[JimMack]

Many game review sites (Gamespot, Gamespy etc etc) have an option for readers to post their reviews/opinions - so why not post there as well. All PR helps!

[ntonis]

Simulation 97%

Cockpit 98%

Weapons 94%

GRAFFICS 78%

OTHER FLYLIBLE HELICOPTER -:)

TERRAIN 70%

[Vault]

80%. Good sim and the cockpit is good but lacks playability for me, A DC in DCS would of been the créme de la créme.

 

Looking forward to the A-10C Module.

[Boberro]

I would rate this for 70-75% or in school system: -4/6 - with small minus.

 

Pluses:

 

- nice models of vehicles, and some of aircrafts and choppers;

- finally there is working avionic in aircraft\chopper, not like previous LO;

- Really nice to use Mission Editor;

- still quite nice graphics, even for 2009 year;

- flight model;

- really small amount of bugs in initial release;

- FINALLY FAST GUI!!!

- other smaller, or bigger pluses, mentioned by previous users;

 

Minuses:

 

- No 3D viewer in ME;

- Encyclopedia should has more information and text there should be formatted well, not mish-mash. Also nice would be to see real pics of described objects in Encyclopedia;

- AI is still dumb;

- NO MULTICORE - we have XXI century...;

- no full modelled Ka-50 functions, probably doue of engine limitation;

- terrain is still... old

- no collidable or moving trees;

- none of any multiplayer management - ban options ect.

- bad sound engine;

- low combat battlefield realism - tanks ect. under fire don't run away, don't release smoke and similar things;

- vehicles at night don't have lights on - maybe I am wrong here but I think they have it off;

- little and bigger minuses;

 

Overall it is my rate. It is first release so maybe thi is why I have these feelings.

By now ED is only one company which does military games to us so I am happy to have this one :)

Edited February 15, 2009 by Boberro

[Airway]

So, this is my personal opinion, based on my flightsimulation experience, my experiences with Black Shark so far and on based my used hardware and Operating System

 

Simulation : 97 %

++ Detailed Simulation of the Ka-50 and its subsystems

+ Adjustable settings for more or less experienced flightsimmers

+ Detailed manual

+ Detailed cockpit 6dof TrackIR capable

+ Season and Weather effects editable

+ Damage model

+ Recording of missions for replay and debriefung.

+ Replays

+ Training missions

- AI's intelligence and behaviour

- Collision model

 

Editor : 84 %

+ Triggers and Events programmable

+ Possible to add sound and textfiles besides pictures

+ Campaign Editor

- No 3D option for a better object placement on the map

 

 

Multiplayer : 90 %

++ Integrated server list

+ possible to host and join sessions

+ smooth netcode

+ Missions can be paused

+ Mission changing from within the GUI

+ Settings can be preset or made valuable for the players.

- As said above, it's GUI is split from the main GUI

- dependent on Server List operator (?)

 

Out of the Box : 100 %

+ Just installs, activates and runs fine without any issue.

+ Self explaining button descriptions

+ Detailed manual

- Not Linux compatible (for future purposes)

 

Handling / GUI / Functionality / Game Engine : 80 %

++ Integrated movie recording function

++ Integrated Encyclopedia

+ Intuitive GUI decription of knobs and buttons

+ Clean and slim GUI

- Split multiplayer and Gaming GUI's

- resolution not changable for multiplayer GUI - (will be fixed)

- (Easy to workaround) no multicore detection (one core default)

 

Graphics: 88 %

+ Works good on elder machines

+ Also works fine on new machines

+ Good performance, boostable with multicore workaround

- some elder graphical issues (flickering/lod)

 

Sound: 88 %

+ Rotorsound changing slightly with flight attitude

+ Subsystem sounds

 

Terrain: 86 %

+ Very nice huge map included

- Only one map / scenario included

 

My personal Overall rating : 89 % - a good rating for a simulation with space to improve.

It's a must-have for every simulation friend.

 

 

Will review my rating when the DCS series advanced and with every patch.

 

Another 10 %, that don't enter the rating, for the simulation, are for the effort Eagle Dynamics and The Fighter collection made for developing this simulation.

Eagle Dynamic kept with their community ahead the release of Black Shar with great video tutorials and informations.

The missing 1 % ist the odd site every one has - there is no 100% perfect thing but Black Shark is very close.

 

Thank you !

Keep up the good work!

Edited February 15, 2009 by Airway
Typos