Jump to content
stalintc

DCS Black Shark.... OHHH YEAHHH BABY!!!

Recommended Posts

Edit: actually, worse than a zero-sum game: if the helos are located half as far from the front, but move half as fast, they take just as long to get to the fight, but their FARP is a hell of a lot easier to overrun!

probably true. but then again, helicopters can fly sideways, backwards, and turn on a dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, right, that's the point: their agility and hover ability is their only definite advantage. So if the tactics don't utilize that, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, I've learned to love the trim button, but that doesn't change the fact that any time you want to change vectors, you're doing a crazy kabuki dance trying to get the cross slip right, and then having to first rudder into the turn to bring the nose around, then rudder OUT of the turn to keep from sliding past as the nose tries to weathercock into the new direction of travel.

Most aggravating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, right, that's the point: their agility and hover ability is their only definite advantage. So if the tactics don't utilize that, why bother?

with a helicopter, you can keep your nose pointed at a target longer than with a fixed wing aircraft, giving you more time to either aim properly at a closer range, or do a longer burst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with a helicopter, you can keep your nose pointed at a target longer than with a fixed wing aircraft, giving you more time to either aim properly at a closer range, or do a longer burst.

Or give the handsome Gentleman on the AAA or SAM more time to fill your world with fragmentation and pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm... I don't know about that... while in a hover battle position, perhaps yes, but as far as a high-speed pass (as such things go with helicopters), I'm not sure I buy it. For one, helicopters are much less stable gun/ rocket platforms, and therefore need a longer burst to get the same effects, for two, fixed wing guns tend to have much higher rates of fire, so they don't need to fire very long. And, in fact, will deplete their ammo if they do.

Besides, what's really better, a minute or two of low volume 20-30mm fire totaling maybe 300 rounds, a ripple of 30-40 70 or 80mm rockets with puny ten-pound warheads, or a single CAS run that lays down a stick of 6 CBU containing a total of 3,900 one-pound bomblets that each have as much or more killing power than the cannon rounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outontheop has a point.... back in the cold war days, the A-10s were assigned to destroying the AAA assets (when present) while helos were tasked with dealing with the AFVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outontheop has a point.... back in the cold war days, the A-10s were assigned to destroying the AAA assets (when present) while helos were tasked with dealing with the AFVs.

I agree that the Gunships ability to loiter at low level and observe in greater detail (and ability to get into places that a CAS jet just can't), lends itself to chopping up AFV's once the ADA assets are Hog food. Of course, if you are doing Hind style slashing attacks, you may as well let an SU25T do the job.

Which leads me to a tangent that may explain WHY the Hind is the way it is, including it's seemingly crazy arse tactics; The Soviets had (1980's) MIG27, SU25, SU17/22 for Battlefield Attack. All these platforms were single seat/daylight only with limited PGM capability. The Hind provided an ability to deliver (comparatively) accurate Gun, Rocket and especially ATGM fire on armoured and soft targets that just couldn't be matched by the fixed wing platforms operating alongside it.

The fact that NATO helos employed popup tactics is largely irrelevant given that they were designed with different tactics and complementary aircraft (A10/F16 which both could deliver several AGM65 with pinpoint accuracy) in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the same time, the Red Army was introducing the first IFVs and the designer, Mil, believed that the next logical step would be to create a flying IFV in the form of a heavily armed and armored helos which could deliver a squad of troops and provide their own CAS.

Like everything else at the time, it was an offensive weapon system and used tactics accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, I keenly anticipate the arrival of the AH64(C please?) module.. in 2015.

I see that you are burning with the flames of optimism... :sonic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive downloaded the English version, and it runs fine. I find the sim is entertaining to a point, but somehow self limiting. I think they could have chosen a better subject for the sim to start with. According to my limited google-fu, there are a very few number of these things even in existence (with good reason if you ask me). I understand they apparently had great access to kamov which allowed them to create a great deal of fidelity. I havent mastered all the systems and truthfully may not even bother. Not sure if I care to memorize how to manually change a route in the ABRIS for example. The manual could do a better job explaining things. I shouldn't have to cruise forums for infowhen Ihavethe manual. Be careful on the forums. There is lots of conflicting info out there.

The problem lies in the single seat attack helicopter concept, the limited degree of overall Russian pilot proficiency(my inference, i haven't researched this. Shoot me.), and the system design to meet these challenges. Apparently someone at kamov figured that the typical mission profile of a helicopter attack based on their Afghanistan experience was a low level approach, a pop up target acquisition and then an attack. Based on this finding it was decided that the pilot didn't have to perform several tasks simultaneously (eg navigate, maneuver, attack etc) so an acft was designed that handled many of these functions autonomously. A pilot who isn't as proficient as they could be, simply has to get the acft into the air, let it fly itself to a point, either on full autopilot, or via control input prompts, pull into a (assisted) hover, acquire the target, conduct the attack, let the acft take him back home and he then lands the acft. All well and good. By the accounts of the developers in the DCS forums and the manual, this is the preferred mode of flight. Fine for the Russians, I guess, but not so great for a flight sim in my opinion. Pretty dull to let the acft fly itself around. In the supposedly preferred method of flight it has to be trimmed during every cyclic input, and is squirelly to fly in general.

In the mode of flight apparently the least used by the Russians, it flies a lot more like a western helicopter with boost/SAS/FPS enabled. Thats OK by me, I fly it around, doing all kinds of cool things. I have flown MP with a few guys and heard some pissed off guys. Many people try to whip it about like some other (non rotary wing) flight sims. This has lead to meshed blades, and an effort to understand things like retreating blade stall and vortex ring state.

Some things could be done better. I find it hard to believe that there is a laser detection set, but no RWR. I would certainly like to know about the radars that are searching and tracking my acft. Stupid, but hey, play the cards your dealt, I guess. The AI is helpful in this aspect as it doesn't always engaged when it could/should.

Its easy enough to kill things, once you learn the right initial button and switch settings. All in all, this is a flying missile truck, designed to fly itself to a BP, conduct an attack and fly itself back home.

If I was DCS I would make getting a MP capable (as in 2 players per bird) AH-64 or AH-1W/Z on the market ASAP. The coop nature of the sim will grow tired quickly. I know the A-10 is next in line, which makes sense as they already have a contract for A-10 sim with the govt. But the AH-64/AH-1 would be a better fit in MP with the current release.

As for the whole AH-64 vs Hind debate that has hijacked the thread... Whatever. I would rather fly an Apache into a battle than a Hind. Does it matter ? Nope. But I dont think any helo is designed to mix it up in a high threat environment. Some acft are better protected then others, but none are really designed to take high caliber fire, irregardless of manufacturer claims. I would say that owning a copy of a Battle Damage Assesment and Repair manual for an acft doesn't mean you are aware of all the protection the acft has.

UH-60s have an MWO which allows them to launch hellfires, that doesn't make it an attack helicopter, just a potential missile truck. Why would I want to use UH-60s to launch hellfires? It has the capability but Ive never heard it discussed as an option anywhere, ever, not even in Clancy-land.

If my Blackhawk needs to carry a cargo weight that is within its limits but makes the acft weigh more then its max takeoff weight, I takeoff with less fuel. Simple. Numbers without context are useless.

BTW 16 hellfires on the ESSS is no big deal. Im not sure what kind of container a hellfire comes in but I think the limiting factor for carrying "reload" hellfires would be cabin space or floor PSI limits, not total cargo weight.

But hey, what do I know ?

Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive downloaded the English version, and it runs fine. I find the sim is entertaining to a point, but somehow self limiting. I think they could have chosen a better subject for the sim to start with. According to my limited google-fu, there are a very few number of these things even in existence (with good reason if you ask me). I understand they apparently had great access to kamov which allowed them to create a great deal of fidelity. I havent mastered all the systems and truthfully may not even bother. Not sure if I care to memorize how to manually change a route in the ABRIS for example. The manual could do a better job explaining things. I shouldn't have to cruise forums for infowhen Ihavethe manual. Be careful on the forums. There is lots of conflicting info out there.

The problem lies in the single seat attack helicopter concept, the limited degree of overall Russian pilot proficiency(my inference, i haven't researched this. Shoot me.), and the system design to meet these challenges. Apparently someone at kamov figured that the typical mission profile of a helicopter attack based on their Afghanistan experience was a low level approach, a pop up target acquisition and then an attack. Based on this finding it was decided that the pilot didn't have to perform several tasks simultaneously (eg navigate, maneuver, attack etc) so an acft was designed that handled many of these functions autonomously. A pilot who isn't as proficient as they could be, simply has to get the acft into the air, let it fly itself to a point, either on full autopilot, or via control input prompts, pull into a (assisted) hover, acquire the target, conduct the attack, let the acft take him back home and he then lands the acft. All well and good. By the accounts of the developers in the DCS forums and the manual, this is the preferred mode of flight. Fine for the Russians, I guess, but not so great for a flight sim in my opinion. Pretty dull to let the acft fly itself around. In the supposedly preferred method of flight it has to be trimmed during every cyclic input, and is squirelly to fly in general.

In the mode of flight apparently the least used by the Russians, it flies a lot more like a western helicopter with boost/SAS/FPS enabled. Thats OK by me, I fly it around, doing all kinds of cool things. I have flown MP with a few guys and heard some pissed off guys. Many people try to whip it about like some other (non rotary wing) flight sims. This has lead to meshed blades, and an effort to understand things like retreating blade stall and vortex ring state.

Some things could be done better. I find it hard to believe that there is a laser detection set, but no RWR. I would certainly like to know about the radars that are searching and tracking my acft. Stupid, but hey, play the cards your dealt, I guess. The AI is helpful in this aspect as it doesn't always engaged when it could/should.

Its easy enough to kill things, once you learn the right initial button and switch settings. All in all, this is a flying missile truck, designed to fly itself to a BP, conduct an attack and fly itself back home.

If I was DCS I would make getting a MP capable (as in 2 players per bird) AH-64 or AH-1W/Z on the market ASAP. The coop nature of the sim will grow tired quickly. I know the A-10 is next in line, which makes sense as they already have a contract for A-10 sim with the govt. But the AH-64/AH-1 would be a better fit in MP with the current release.

As for the whole AH-64 vs Hind debate that has hijacked the thread... Whatever. I would rather fly an Apache into a battle than a Hind. Does it matter ? Nope. But I dont think any helo is designed to mix it up in a high threat environment. Some acft are better protected then others, but none are really designed to take high caliber fire, irregardless of manufacturer claims. I would say that owning a copy of a Battle Damage Assesment and Repair manual for an acft doesn't mean you are aware of all the protection the acft has.

UH-60s have an MWO which allows them to launch hellfires, that doesn't make it an attack helicopter, just a potential missile truck. Why would I want to use UH-60s to launch hellfires? It has the capability but Ive never heard it discussed as an option anywhere, ever, not even in Clancy-land.

If my Blackhawk needs to carry a cargo weight that is within its limits but makes the acft weigh more then its max takeoff weight, I takeoff with less fuel. Simple. Numbers without context are useless.

BTW 16 hellfires on the ESSS is no big deal. Im not sure what kind of container a hellfire comes in but I think the limiting factor for carrying "reload" hellfires would be cabin space or floor PSI limits, not total cargo weight.

But hey, what do I know ?

Mog

...So thats one for... Apache?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the intention is to be able to play the ka-50 against the next or all future release in MP then i think an opposing helicopter would be a better fit then an A-10. If they cant be played together in MP then it probably doesnt matter what comes next. If they knock out a new release in 2009 that's equally as good, that will be good enough for me. Years between releases sucks.

This sim is fine, it fills a hole in high fidelity slight sims that has been missing since F4. I didnt mean to seem like i didn't like it, i just stated a few things i had noticed. I play the sim every day. i like the way it models helicopter flight.

I get a kick out of people out there on the web, not here, but on youtube or flight sim forums, that jump on the bandwagon and proclaim that "X" is the greatest (tank, fighter, atk heli, etc) usually because its their favorite PC game. Then another fellow will rise to the bait and proclaim "no, the Y or Z is better" then the sides are drawn and pages upon pages of uninformed opinion and google knowledge is sprayed across the forum. I dont know a lot about most of these things and tend to stay out of such urination contests. Ive seen Hinds fly, Ive sat in the cockpit of one, Ive heard the stories and seen the TV programs, but does that mean I know if its the greatest thing since sliced bread? Nope. I know more then some and less then others about Blackhawks and thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice Tacbat, and a very good point :)

Mogwa, the next module isn't dictated by what would be bested matched up to the previous one, at least currently - it is dictated by what is being made for some military contract typically.

The radar set detector isn't terribly necessary for the areas this chopper operates in. I'll add that it was originally not accepted into service because the Russian Army Aviation wanted the sensor replaced with something better (and night capable) as well as the addition of an RWR set.

The chopper is currently well equipped to deal with armor and infantry however who wield either IR or laser guided/directed weapons, and even better so against rebels/terrorists, which is where these choppers have been used. They are uniquely suited to mountainous terrain as well.

And you're right, the way it flies might not be perfect for a sim. But it IS a sim, and if you do want to simulate flying the chopper, fly it the way you're supposed to :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Mogwa, the next module isn't dictated by what would be bested matched up to the previous one, at least currently - it is dictated by what is being made for some military contract typically.

I'm pretty sure I used a couple of strategically placed "ifs" in my post. That being said, do you speak for Eagle Dynamics? If so, then perhaps you can answer a couple of questions that I have: Will the next (and all) release(s) be multiplayer compatible with Black Shark? Is there a reason that no two pilot aircraft are player flyable? Things like AH-64 come to mind. Is there a reason that no player flyable aircraft have a ground attack radar? It seems to me that the BlackShark was chosen as a sim subject because it is about the only helicopter that excludes these two items.

And you're right, the way it flies might not be perfect for a sim. But it IS a sim, and if you do want to simulate flying the chopper, fly it the way you're supposed to :)

I'd like to think I'm marginally familiar with how a helicopter is supposed to fly and Im not even sure what that means...

Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh DCS Black Shark

I bought it and found it ran like crap on my computer, so i remembered about LOMAC and got that.

Then i got introduced to Falcon 4 AF through that and then, through a forum about Falcon 4 AF i got introduced to Steel Beasts!

I reckon it was worth it all! ;)

BTW GGtharos doesn't formally 'speak' for ED, but he is a beta tester for them as far as i know... so whatever info he gives you is good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was through Falcon4.0 then to Frugal's Forums then to DCS years later that reminded me about Steelbeasts that I had read about in Frugals that I came here now that I have retired

Phew that was hard work ;)

Not so keen on the Ka50 and never really got into LoMac as at the time it came out I was much too busy at work, I got Flaming Cliffs but it never ran properly on my last PC, so I hoped for an update which is here at last.

While putting and sorting stuff out for my home cinema room I came across Armourd Fist 3, boy is it dated looking now compared with SBProPE :) Was surprised that it ran fine on Windows 7 64!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...