Waiting for Black shark to arrive as I ordered it yesterday. Should arrive soon. Been flying FA-18, Mac and PC also Falcon in the past (a lot of Janes F-18 online years ago). So the question is, is, or can Black Shark be used in suppression of enemy air Defenses or even some S.A.R. missions? Not to sound like a downer but kinda of tired of blowing stuff up and would rather fly as a support platform in the suppression of enemy air defenses, or even rescue missions. How good is Black shark in sam hunting? I imagine with the mission builder I could make some missions but lack the time, thus would rather fly built missions by some one else or stock missions. I appreciate all responses. You guys are flying it a lot so what do you think?

The Ka-50 was not designed for high-threat environments so no, SAM hunting is not one of its strengths. A lack of both radar and a RWR preclude those types of missions.

Well, looks like tank busting it is. The real trip is the ingress and exiting on one piece. Guess I'll have to taxi the General around until I learn the ropes. How do you guys find Black Shark, it looks great, is the action in it good? Thanks.

No SEAD, but SAR for sure. In fact, there is at least one such campaign mission.

The only thing I don't like about the game is that trees don't block enemy fire, which can lead to a lot of pain at times. But other than that it is an extremely fine game. Having a wingman and half a dozen ground units defending a bridge with the enemy trying to get over it can be extremely exciting. Can't wait for the patch to come out as it will make things even better.

Is there any information about trees'issue ? a patch to make trees block objects ? I don't like this problem, too. In a campaign, even you're flying low, you could be shotdown by some hidden gunners in the forest by surprise, it'll not be happy at all.

I've scanned the net quite a bit regarding the tree issue, sorry to say there is nothing to be done. According to what I've read, we need a new engine for this.

That would be the new engine they (Eagle Dynamics)said they were going to make before release and make available in future add-on.

That is now been changed to the upgraded lomac engine which will receive bolt ons to improve it.

Its a sad shame.

Collidable trees are so important and its a very sad state that this will not be rectified.

For the life of me, i can't understand why they have THE best simulated craft available to simming but yet leave something so important so unrealistic.

Mindboggling................... :-(

Actually, it's pretty simple if you view it from the developer's perspective rather than the end-user perspective (which I don't blame you for in case you don't). At best, making collidable trees would cost major delays in the product (keep in mind the delays it had already suffered without collidable trees). At worst (and reasonable likely), it would not ultimately function at all or not well enough to be accaptable (complications with AI and such) due to any number of technical challenges invoved with making serious engine alterations and the time, effort and money spent on it would be wasted. So there is considerable risk. Making such an investment and taking a risk on top of it is all the less worthwhile when you are already comitted to working on a systemic solution that would solve the problem anyway (new engine components that will hopefully allow for collidable trees). If that wasn't enough you also have to consider the opportunity cost of pulling developers to this task that would otherwise be working in other areas of this or other projects, including ED's military simulators line that is an increasing share of their business (read: potential simulatiors for us, too).

I understand none of this might be of any interst to you as the user, but I hope it's helpful.

Yeah, the tree issue is a serious flaw, in my opinion, as it's a KEY component to helo combat. It'd be kinda like making a submarine simulator where the sub could be seen and fired at by all the ships even when it's submerged.

I can understand developers wanting to keep changes to a minimum, but to leave out such an important feature is a serious mistake, in my opinion. Heck, Gunship! even has collidable trees in it, so it's not like it's a trail-blazing task.

Unfortunately, the fact that Gunship! had solid trees doesn't change anything inside the code of Black Shark or Eagle's other simulations. Again, the reason collidable trees were not implemented is because it was a feature beyond sensible reach. It may seem like a mistake to you as a player and I understand this, but in reality spending the effort to try and make them collidable would have likely been a bigger mistake. It's a shortfall of the simulation, but sometimes you just have to cut your losses. I'm fairly certain it is a shortfall that will be resolved in due time.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it would have been a bigger mistake, so forgive me for not responding in detail directly to that part of your post.

When you say resolved in due time, do you mean that BS might actually get collidable trees, or are you referring to future products?

Future products, albeit ones that Black Shark may still be compatible with, depending on the success of integrating the modules.

Ohh dear,

(please bear with me on this one as i am not nitpicking just to cause a fight)

First it was said that a brand new engine would be released on one of the upcomming modules, and that the modules would all fit together and allow for a totally integrated battlefield with high fildelity simulated crafts.

Now its being referrenced that the engine will remain as a modded lock on engine with upgrades (an engine that Eagle advised had various limitations and hence the need for a new engine)

In addition are you saying that black shark may not be compatable with future addons?
Will all addons be stand alone or will the true DCS not include the black shark?
Or will the updated lock on be the only integrated warfare package on offer?

Sorry for the questions, i have been a big devotee of Lock on and Black shark and the DCS concept and i am now hearing things that are contrary to the idea that was fed to us quite some time back.

Ohhh dear,

Someone hasn't kept up. I believe this was thoroughly explained on the eagle.ru forums - but ok, not everyone has time to keep up with things.

Whether the engine reaches 'new engine' status by being replaced wholesale or by being constantly updated is irrelevant. It'll reach that point.

As for network compatibility, the devs have decided to be cautious. Making the modules compatible is most certainly a very high priority goal, but sometimes things just don't work out.

No, there's no word currently of things not working out. If we were to assume the worst - ie that things won't end up working out - we won't know until the late beta testing phase anyway. I'm also quite confident that if things do not work out for initial release, it'll be looked into and patched in a patch or at least, in the following release.

In other words, ED is looking to fulfill those goals, but should unforseen things occur, they will reach those goals on their schedule and not yours.

And that's really all this is.

It never fails to amaze me how end users expect features to come automatically, easily, and also decide it to be a mistake when they're not there. All this without ever considering the circumstances. Incredible.

Oh well, carry on.

So you're saying that no matter what you buy you'll be happy with it, no matter what it may lack? No, the line gets drawn somewhere, and you and I probably draw it at a different place, that's all.

I don't expect features to come easily or automatically, but I do feel that leaving out a key part of helicopter combat in a combat helicopter simulator was a mistake. What would the down side have been? A longer delay? We lived this long without the sim, I'm sure we could all have lived a bit longer.

Any decision to leave something out or not fix something is made based on the company saving or making money, not on providing something to the buyers. Additional work costs money, and delays in releasing the product delay sales and income. The decision was made to get the product out the door, not for you and me, but for the company.

It wasn't a mistake; it was a decision made deliberately and with good reason. Calling it unfortunate might be better; mistake, bug? No - neither of those reflects reality.



And consequently, good for you. Not only was DCS provided in a good working condition, it was provided for a reasonably low price as well.

The alternative? You don't get anything. You might not care, but others might not value trees quite as much. Further, it was announced reasonably early that collidable trees would unfortunately not make it into the simulation. The explanation was quite clear: ED attempted to incorporate SpeedTree technology into their engine and the results were abysmal in terms of FPS. This cannot be rectified without truly major changes in the graphical engine, and there was simply no time to work on this for the release of Black Shark.

OK, how about a bad decision, in my opinion.



I guess I missed the announcement, as did others, because I saw discussions about it by other people after they purchased it (including in this thread, of course). I even saw people saying there was a way to edit a config file to make them colidable, but to my current understanding, it doesn't work. I'd say however it was announced, it wasn't incredibly obvious.

I guess because trees in the real world are collidable, and that using trees for cover and having to fly around them at low altitude are such key components of helicopter combat, it never occurred to me that someone would make a helicopter simulator without it.

Expanding my analogy from before, it'd be like a company releasing a submarine simulator, but because it was based on their surface ship simulator, the engine didn't support submarines hiding by submerging, and canons weren't affected by hitting the water. Sure, a company could do that to save time and money, and it might not be that important to some people, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to handle the situation, and I think customers would be justified in being disappointed by it.

No problem. The devotion is appreciated. I would only object against the phrase, "fed us," as it seems to imply an intent to deceive. If you really believe this, I don't think any explanation I will provide will be worth the effort. The reality is much more plain - plans change, that's all.

I actually had a very long reply prepared, explaining the reasons behind some of the recent changes. But I will try to be brief here. ED had switched gears from developing a "brand new engine" to continuing to work off the TFCSE engine mainly because of the increasing number of projects they are contracted for using this engine. It had become ineffective to be developing one engine when most of your current and upcoming projects are based on another. Furthermore, as I explained about making collidable trees, even more so creating a new engine is a long and difficult process with no guarantees at the end of the tunnel. Finally, the staffing situation made it more effective to work on TFCSE than the new engine (more programmers familiar with the current engine and less with the new). In case you underestimate the impact that individual programmers can have on a project like this, I offer you my Parable of Jane's A-10.

The idea of developing TFCSE instead of the new engine should not scare you so much. The goals are the same and the difference is in the way we get there. Instead of replacing TFCSE with something else, they will be transforming TFCSE into something else. I think it will be helpful to make sure we understand the term "game engine" the same way. The Wikipedia definition is quite fitting:

A game engine is a software system designed for the creation and development of video games. There are many game engines that are designed to work on video game consoles and desktop operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. The core functionality typically provided by a game engine includes a rendering engine (“renderer”) for 2D or 3D graphics, a physics engine or collision detection (and collision response), sound, scripting, animation, artificial intelligence, networking, streaming, memory management, threading, and a scene graph.

The idea is for ED to replace/introduce new "core functionality" as the modules are developed. For example, we've already said that they are developing a new sound engine and some enhancements to the graphics engine for Warthog. Further and deeper changes to some engine components are also in development for later.

Note, when discussing future plans, we like to use the word "hopefully," because we understand that it's all subject to change.

Regarding your second question of module compatibility, here a recent answer to the same question:

Correct, the idea behind DCS is to continually release new modules around new flyable aircraft that also include additional improvements to the rest of the simulation. Previous modules would be upgradable to the standards of the latest module, regardless of whether the player wishes to purchase the latest flyable aircraft or not.

We have taken a somewhat conservative attitude toward this plan as ED "digs into" the code to actually make it a reality, because accomplishing it is not so simple. However, it remains the plan for the next module - the A-10C Warthog - and hopefully beyond.

You say that as if it's unheard of for flight sim projects to get cancelled and flight sim studios to get canned.

Again, I think you're speaking for yourself. I'm fairly confident that if a poll was conducted on whether the community would prefer to get Black Shark when they did with fly-through trees or wait a year for ED to attempt to develop collidable trees with no guarantee of success, the result would have been a resounding "NOW!".

Yes - it's a business and like any other business it needs to generate a profit to survive. No profit, no company, no flight sim.

It's a debatable analogy. IMHO, fly-through trees do not affect the realistic application of helicopter tactics in the sim nearly to the degree you imagine.

In any case, I agree that customers are justified in being disappointmed by the fly-through trees in Black Shark. Considering it is not currently feasible to fix this in the judgement of the company (whether you agree or not is up to you), the next best thing we can do is explain the reasons for the situation and work toward resolving it in the future. Having already said all of this above, we have somehow ended up in this debate...