The issue of the realism of the campaign missions was mentioned only briefly in the previous story. The goal of this article is to take a closer look at the idea of "realism" as it relates to campaigns and missions in DCS: Ka-50 Blackshark (from this point forward referred to as simply "BS").
It goes without saying that the DCS series of flight simulations is the most realistic available in the market today. How they have achieved this is available at their official website www.eagle.ru and in the comprehensive manuals included with the product. To get acquainted with the product, one should devote a few hours to studying it; alternatively you could go watch the latest cliché-filled blockbuster movie. I suggest one spends the time with DCS, as it will provide entertainment, and engage the brain as well.
Realism can be highly subjective. If someone feels heat at 27C, another one is shivering; while one driver is comfortable at 120 km\h on the highway, another one might pass out at 90 km\h; this one is listening to U2, sipping a coffee and smoking a cigarette under enemy fire while another is about to puke from the butterflies in his stomach. Whoever wants to learn more in this area should consider attending psychology, pedagogy or psychiatry schools. No time for school? Google it and satisfy your curiosity.
DCS: Ka-50 BS is a helicopter simulator, specifically a ground troop tactical support helicopter simulation, one that is tightly woven together with the simulator’s AI, which plays the role of the enemy.
Many things in BS are far from its real-world counterpart, for a number of reasons. Because of those reasons, we had to take a step back from realism in the VG campaign missions.
Pilot 233 in the Vergeev group is often assigned with the routine task of escorting convoys to Krasnaya Poliana. This involves the approach, looking around on station, and hovering over the convoy, persistently checking any suspicious locations for possible ambushes.
Part of the road to Krasnaya Poliana includes an interesting geological feature: Az-Hu canyon. Notice the pictures below. At the summit level the distance between the peaks is no more than 200-300 meters, and at the bottom, in the cavities of the boiling Mzymta River, this is reduced to no more than 15 meters across, with a height of almost 1000 meters. Impressive, eh? In the time of Lermontov, any traveler intending to cross this place would not proceed without a prayer. The situation didn’t change for the better in the post-war years. The point here is that no sober-minded pilot would willingly poke the nose of his rotary-wing machine anywhere near it. High voltage wires line the canyon, rough and dense vegetation is pasted over cliffs and steep slopes, and at the top, dense clouds with unpredictable air flows quickly become disastrous to any pilot. If a convoy entered this canyon then at best they could rely on communication from a chopper hovering above, but by no means could they expect fire power or cover. This simply is not possible in the real world Az-Hu canyon. Now compare that with what is possible in the simulated BS environment…can you now see the difference?
As a result of this discrepancy between the real world and our simulated world, map issue arises. Maps are absolutely required in combat, whether it be on land, in the air, or on the sea. Positions, landmarks, etc., are all drawn on maps. I have much respect for those who developed the BS map. The idea and implementation are splendid but could be scaled to another level to specifically accommodate Ka-50 helicopter operations. 1:200 000, 1:100 000 and ideally 1:50 000 maps would be perfect for the Kamov. The product’s built-in map is scaled to an approximate detail of 1:500 000. Such a map is good for fighters but not for front-line forces, and particularly not for a tactical air force. This issue was resolved in VG via the creation of our own maps for briefing. However, the limited window size of 512 pixels per side does not lend itself to a convenient reading experience.
A number of pilots have complained about the absence of "print" size maps used in missions, suggesting they be included in the final archive of files. The project team is now examining this possibility, but initially seem against such a feature. This is not because of the extra man-hours required, but rather due to the fact that in real life, a map is drawn by the pilot during the briefing, typically attached to one of his knees. The flight plan, landmarks, targets, control points, positions etc. are marked on the map. Any virtual pilot who plans to accomplish mission objectives should do the same. This is a prime example of what we would call a step towards realism.
It is imperative that the pilot’s head is always on the swivel, on the lookout for weapon’s fire. The modern helicopter pilot faces small groups of partisans, and partisan movements in occupied territory. Today, "partisans" are called "terrorists".
When a partisan sees an enemy helicopter, he has two ideas in his mind: shoot down an expensive enemy aircraft, and stay unnoticed, safe and sound. In BS, we can see when and from where the enemy fire originates. Shell and bullet tracers give firing emplacements away completely. Little is left to be done at this point: energetically evade enemy fire and take counterattack measures (or fully retire from battlefield). AI-partisan chances are very low in this situation. In the real world helicopter pilot chances are not equal to those of masked AAA when he is incapable of noticing "svarka" ("weld" in English). Svarka is the name for the gas flashes at the edge of a firearm’s barrel. Naturally, partisans prefer not to use tracer bullets with machineguns and anti-aircraft guns as it discloses their position. Fire is adjusted in advance for precise shooting. This is not difficult to do in the mountains.
Target Masking. This is not possible in BS, by definition. Whenever a pilot decides to turn on external views, to simplify the graphical picture – all of the mission author’s ideas become meaningless! All enemy dispositions are in full view as sparse wood is covering only a limited territory. The missions created by the Vergeev group should be run using the highest graphic settings, which naturally requires a rather powerful computer. There is also a similar, though less significant problem with buildings: buildings are not visible at large distances, even on the highest graphic settings. As a consequence, AI units can be spotted with little or no effort.
The easiest target in real life for a helicopter pilot to spot is a motorcade marching on the highway, a country road, or across a field. Enemy units that disperse in a populated area, or in the woods, are harder to find.
The effect of unit masking in VG is accomplished by having units emerge only when players enter their effective shooting range. Thus, they expose themselves only in a situation when they can reach out and touch a LFT (low flying target)--and of course, only in situations required by the scenario.
Real World Weather. The Virtual Pilot in VG (as well as in other campaigns and missions) has to master air environmental physics: wind, rushes, turbulence, and fog layers. Even this is not enough to describe all the possible real weather conditions to the Virtual Pilot. Dirt and dust in the air, and humidity influence the pilot’s ability to observe, assess, and analyze the environment. Cockpit windows get dirty with dust, and visibility deteriorates because of precipitation. Dynamic weather is not available in BS.
Please don’t consider this a criticism of DCS. There is nothing to criticize. The simulator by DCS was developed to the highest possible level. Perhaps "Gunship" could be named as an alternative simulator but the list of its drawbacks would take many pages to detail.
Everything said above speaks to our goals for the Vergeev Group campaign realism. One should bear in mind though, that the realism of any campaign is dependent upon the realism of the instruments available in the simulator. VG is limited to using the conditions set by the BS simulator.
Another important aspect of campaign realism is radio communication. The initial six VG missions were presented to the DCS team in November, 2009. The missions included one custom voice for radio communications. Before we started to work on our project we studied other missions and campaigns carefully. Obtaining information from the real world (except for the graphical part), radio communication was created (without exception) according to the "plain understandability" principle. Pilots address each other by names, nicknames, but rarely by callsigns. We clearly knew (some were using or even using today) ICAO norms as well as rules regulating the exchange of voice information between aircraft crews, maintenance, and requesting services. We were advised to make the "radio" strictly according to the rules, though this is not entirely accurate. There is a note in the Russian Federal Aviation Rules which states that these rules do not apply to aircraft belonging to the army, or rendering services for army.
From my own experience, and that of my friends’, I can assure the reader that radio code violations are quite frequent and lead to penalties. Principles of radio communication for pilots and "ground" utilize the following principle: if accomplished – then the objective was stated in clear language. However, as opposed to in BS, in real life, if something was not heard, not understood, or not accepted (mountain conditions) one may ask for the originator of the message to repeat the communication: "Naval, 233 didn’t get it. Repeat". This limitation is addressed in VG via the "triple reminder":
- Briefing. While being artistic, the briefing includes plenty of useful, necessary and obligatory information for the pilot. First of all, the pilot gets a "picture" of the overall situation, including every group’s job--not just his own. He is then presented with information regarding his objectives: accents, didactic material (flight plan, tactical maps, photos etc.), and orders.
- The briefing is repeated by Naval during start-up. It is important to note that sometimes information in the pre-flight briefing and in the Naval instructions are different. This was done intentionally to realistically provide a dynamic environment. The world changes from minute to minute, and by the time the pilot arrives in the operation area, things might have changed drastically compared to the previous description.
- On-the-go instructions while executing flight plan. This also lends itself to a dynamic environment. The virtual pilot always repeats the information obtained, providing another reminder of any changes to the briefing.
In reality the execution of a flight plan is supervised by the FD (Flight Dispatcher). We’ve intentionally introduced an additional tactical officer with the Naval callsign, leaving management of take-off and landing to the simulator’s FD. This supervisory group consisting of an operational officer, tactical officer, and combat control officer is not a VG innovation – it’s taken from real life experience.
The player’s voice is also present in VG radio transmissions. This is yet another opportunity to gain situational awareness and to digest received information, e.g.
Naval, 233 roger that, my objectives are…etc.
The most difficult aspect of creating game content is the atmospheric design necessary to create a dynamic immersive effect. Radio communication is one of the best tools for this. There have been complaints that radio communication is rather limited. We agree. Please know though, that this is a very hairy process: writing phrases (scenario), preliminary audio dubbing, actors’ dubbing, and the time-consuming work assembling and programming everything all make it a difficult process. A single mission’s sound design can easily take a couple of working days. Additionally, army aviation is not like a few magpies chattering on the clothesline in the yard. They don’t talk as much as say, we do in the forums!
We intentionally gave each aircraft in VG its own frequency. This is not how it works in reality. It’s impossible to imagine all the facilities and equipment and staff that would be required to supervise each aircraft in the air during the execution of a flight plan! Of course, there are moments when aircraft are split into groups and each group is assigned their own frequency. It is very rare for pilots to communicate directly with the ground unless it’s required for completing the mission. There are special nuances here, but they are certainly inappropriate to mention in this article.
Is it generally difficult to complete the campaign? It might be complicated for pilots with less than 40 flying hours. The first 20 missions are built according to the "simple to difficult" principle. No one in his right mind would send a young lieutenant to hell just after submitting his papers and being introduced to HQ. A Sergeant would not have to face it either. This might happen with privates, but not with the officers. The government has spent tens times more funds to get the officer prepared for action than for the draftee. A young lieutenant is given a so called "running in" period. He will perform relatively simple tasks relating to escorts, patrols, and searches, until command is confident that his skills are sufficient in operating the entrusted machine, its weapons systems, and knowing the main operational area and firing ranges. Even in WWII, in spite of complicated staff situations in the beginning, young men from schools were trained on special firing ranges, behind the defensive line, and only later taken to battle.
The campaign is not considered "hardcore", though some moments require a reasonable and wise approach.
I’d like to include a few words about the "corridor-like" plot of the campaign, referring to the lack of initiative for the pilot. This was already discussed on the ED forum, as it related to the first VG demo version of the campaign.
After assessing missions and campaign by other developers, we arrived at the conclusion that the better Thomas d'Aquin (Christian Saint who possessed ability to be simultaneously in several places) capability is realized, the cooler the mission will be! Well, similar missions do have the right to exist. First we fly to one location, looking for targets, and destroy everything in sight. We rush about as a billiard ball on a table , hoping to get all ball in all pockets at once, and within a time limit. Go!
Such mission design is not suitable for a tactical helicopter like the Ka-50 – especially if we are to return to the main topic of this article, realism. Tasks are set and executed in the army. All tools to successfully accomplish the mission are provided along with setting the objectives. Furthermore, in addition to the hardware and weapons, a flight plan is provided. Keeping to the flight plan is the most important mission success criteria. If one follows the flight plan he has a rather high chance to make it back to base to get a reward. Otherwise, a military tribunal might end up threatening the pilot.
As you might have noticed, it’s not so simple to complete the flight plan and accomplish missions as it might have seemed at the very beginning of the campaign. As of today, there are already pilots who have completed all 20 missions of Part 1. One of them handled it in a mere 18 hours, using 28 trials (including rollbacks).
In the next part of our story we’re going to reveal who "Vergeev" is, whose name we are using in the campaign title.
(c) The Author of original content R.Leroni, 2010 UA; (c) the Author of translation O.Schtuzer, 2010 UA.
