SilentEagle

This is amazing news, Wags! Thanks to ED for all the hard work guys you do and I'm sure all the whiners can now see your commitment to the community with this gesture! :)

Every aircraft with an AFM has a dynamic CG that is calculated in real time. To test this, try loading all your weapons on one wing.

Simception indeed. Computer is out of commission running analyses, so that's usually my justification for browsing the forums. I tried the huey at lunch time! Landed successfully the first try then had a glorious crash when I got cocky.

I don't see why not. The P-51 has a civilian option, and three of the four variants of our module won't be able to load a single bullet. I enjoy flying DCS for its feeling of flight and immersion that I dont get from FSX or any other sim. It is not a stretch to imagine the talented civilian aircraft developers would love to work inside DCS (due to its more open development environment) if there was only more land mass available.

Yes, I've thought about this, but the idea of making an aircraft to be a windsocks seems ridiculous, unless you know how to link a flight model dll to a static object? Wouldn't someone have to fly as the windsock, haha?

Same here. Does anyone's work? I'm assuming it is a max 2011 bug.

So much talk, so little action. It may not be easy to develop for DCS, but it certainly isnt impossible if you put forth the effort to learn a programming language and some physics. I can't say that anything I have learned while developing for DCS has been a waste of my time or brain power. ED has obviously made a decision to not put forth the effort to make an easy to use SDK that any Joe Schmo could use, not because they can't or because they hate the "casual developer", but because it would take a lot of resources away from their products. As has been said before, the sim architecture is so open that an SDK to output cookie cutter aircraft wouldn't really make sense or be possible. Everything is built from the ground up on your first aircraft. Subsequent aircraft you develop could use a sort of template that you created for your first aircraft. That is what I am doing, building up a code base, just in case i ever decide to work on another in the future.

There is no documentation, public or private, on the creation of flight models, so don't spend too much time looking for it. 3rd Party Developers often share tips with each other, but the majority of the work in developing a flight model is learning it yourself and trial and error. I do know that one group did release their source code for an EFM (the F-16 FM developed by CptSmiley), but it does not shy away from using more advanced C++ syntax, so if you feel you can follow it, take a look. My first flight model incarnation was written much more simply, but I have been improving it as I learn more aerodynamics and C++. Sorry I can't be of more help due to NDA restrictions. Good luck!

As I said, it is a workaround, because our code cant capture the TIR axes directly for some reason. It isn't the best solution. It isn't that ED can't do this. It is that it is very unlikely, because of net resources being a limitation. Their goal is to make multiplayer stable, and adding shared animations is not the way to do that.

It definitely helps with immersion. We were able to figure out a workaround to get a fully 6DOF pilot external animation for our L-39, but since it is a workaround, it captures TIR input and then redirected it back to the sim, causing some different behavior from what you may be used to. (Only works unpaused and only for this aircraft, etc.). Here is what it looks like in 3DOF rotations, however.

Excellent! Couldn't have picked a better code monkey to do the FMs for your aircraft. :D Congrats, CptSmiley!

What CptSmiley described is what was originally referred to as the AFM API provided by ED to select 3rd parties (and then later included in the base install folder). There have been many discussions on these forums about this topic, so I'll keep it short. ED uses the term AFM to describe the fidelity of their flight models (and the process they use to create them, whatever that may be), but it has also been used by third parties to describe the fidelity of their own work. Some people prefer using the term, EFM (External Flight Model), for third parties, as we are tasked with creating a physics model that plugs into ED's code through the use of external functions. Personally, I use the terms interchangeably, as I consider the work I have done on modelling the L-39 to be more advanced than SFM. While some may prefer to allow ED to define what an AFM really is, I consider it to be the blank slate that Smiley mentioned. The developer is free to build and define all forces and moments acting on the aircraft, without being restricted to defining a pre-set list of coefficients or characteristics. This is what gives these aircraft the truly dynamic responses when flying the edge of the envelope that are not possible with the on-rails standard flight models that require scripting to handle these regions.

Thanks for the updates! Looking forward to the F/A-18C!

End of flight ejections just got more interesting!

It is a bug that was fixed in test versions, so I'm not sure how that fix didn't make it to the public version. I'll inform the appropriate ED dev. What is happening is the drag on the stores does not have the correct drag index and is causing instant deceleration and blacking you out. You just float down because gravity barely overcomes drag, even at that slow velocity.

Light sources are defined at a fixed location relative to the aircraft center, regardless of wing location or even wing existence. It might be possible to have a variable light source location, but ED would most likely have to implement a damage element into the code for light sources.

Depends how detailed the spoiler was. Idiots are spoiling it on every single youtube video, but most are really short sentences (so that you'll read them without thinking) and don't even come close to divulging the complexity of the plot and twist. I had it spoiled for me, but my assumption about the ending was wrong from there and I was still amazed by it.

Exactly. EA doesn't get another dime from me until they ditch that pathetic security hole-ridden origin software and support.

Without access to more ED tools, the only method I know is a workaround. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1610388&postcount=177 You would essentially be using unused external arguments, but I suggest numbers above 500 so as not to interfere with other external argument purposes. Also, I have recently found that using numbers over 602 crashes the game.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to slamraamproductions again. That was awesome!! I was speechless during the entire thing.

Early versions of our module should hopefully be ready later this year as well, and it is not computer controlled either, so add that to your list. :)

Great news! Does anyone know if he misspoke on the L-29 and was referring to the L-39 or are we getting that one too? :)

So I guess I can post this here now: Can anyone provide any description or units for any of these items in the suspension? Many of them are understandable, but without seeing the equations behind the suspension code, understanding these inputs is almost impossible. Here is what I understand so far:

It is probably just the same dynamic weather system that DCS already has. It does provide different pressures and wind at different locations, but I've never tested to see if is truly dynamic, with rainstorms in some areas. I don't think it does that, or else we would see screenshots of cloud fronts. Hopefully this can be improved in the future.

Why not just use the default debug window? In \Config\main.cfg: last line show_debug_output_console = false Change to 'true' A debug window will open up when the sim is started and any "cout" commands will automatically show here.