kazereal

Congratulations to everyone involved :)

There's no talk about how long beta period is going to be. Beta is still a phase where new fixes and updates can be integrated to fix problems found during it (or before).

Unfortunately it is not that simple and can't be "split" that way. Don't get me wrong here, I really like having good simulations and hope this one succeeds as well. Problem seems to be that people underestimate the complexity and amount of work involved in flight model. In personal experience software projects are often underestimated in amount of work so they end up very late, over the cost and/or cancelled. So I do hope whoever they have working on this realizes in detail what the work involves. And as said before, in a perfect world we would just input data and sim engine would magically give us perfect flight model. In real world it does not work that way. In a simulation aircraft performance depends on things like aerodynamic lift and drag at specific altitude, engine thrust at different settings and atmospheric conditions and so on. You can calculate various coefficients and factors separately at different parts of simulation and integrate at physics engine but there are limits and often things "feed back" into other parts of calculations. So until there is a video of working AFM on this I'm somewhat worried about the statements made before.

Hmm.. I don't know how that sounded to you but I don't think it was insulting. Tone really does not carry well over text perhaps.. Anyway, there can be claimed that SFM flies well when you are flying level, constant speed, no crosswind and so on and so on. The thing is that does not matter since it is very rare to fly like that: these are combat aircraft and not passenger airliners. They are normally used in parts of flight envelope that civilian aircraft are not used at. And that means the "corner cases" will matter that much more. I think I've expressed my scepticism here.

That is a really arrogant claim. And I would really like to see someone to manage pull that off.. Really, do go ahead. I can admit I'm not expert on aerodynamics but I'm curious to see what you can do. Would not be the first time someone making claims like that..

I'll skip the part about what the difference is in generic case (theoretically speaking), but in the DCS simulation there are very clear differences with using SFM and AFM. Effect of damaged wings to flight model needs AFM. Proper ground contact handling needs AFM. Stalling, flatspin and so on are easy to notice. I would suggest your developer takes a step out from FSX and start comparing what the different flight models really are like.

Thanks you!

Thank you! :thumbup:

Looking good! :thumbup:

Upgraded from Radeon 7850 2GB to Radeon 7970 3GB (trying to find old post here..)

Sorry, I don't know how to do that in LUA. In C++ it would be easy to do and what I've read LUA has some kindof socket-wrapper support also. I haven't looked into how scripts in missions are executed so it is really upto you to figure out if/how that can be implemented. There are some kind of trigger support in DCS missions that I've seen. So, for example, when enemy unit reaches some marked point it can trigger some script and so forth.

Large parts of DCS is built on the assumption of single threading in places. So trying to multi-thread that might cause pretty large problems. Replacing scripts with actual compiled code would give much better efficiency anyway. Lua does offer some way to do that already I think.. By the way, only reliable way to is to force synchronization at some points or periodically. There are large amounts of reasons why synchronization won't work by expecting each computer to process at same time (they don't). Generally speaking, PCs are not real-time systems but best-effort times: some additional load or delay and you are entirely out-of-sync after. In networked programs sending datapackets with current information is normal way. If that is not possible make triggered conditions that force specific status in the mission.

There some mods in the liveries section in the forums. These often have two versions of the liveries, "sanitized" and historically accurate versions. http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=358

Let's put other things aside for a while but there's one big flaw in this: because you need to calculate a lot of things in real-time in a short time-frame you can't usually calculate everything at that precision in each frame. In single-engine warbirds you have just one engine with roll momentum around longitudinal axis due to engine torque, in four-engine bomber that is less apparent and instead rotational force around vertical axis needs to be calculated. You do need to calculate thrust/drag from each engine, but repeating calculations identically for each engine would need four times as much CPU time to simulate a single aircraft (disregarding all other systems and aerodynamic effects here now). So roughly if you had F4U simulated at 80 frames per second you would simulate Tu-95 at 20 frames per second at most (since there's all the other complexity involved as well). And that is the IDEAL case, in WORST case it might be exponential increase in computations required, not linear increase. In real world we have limited CPU time available for such simulations and we do need to adjust to these things.

Nice work! :thumbup:

Aside from the fact that other has four engines and the other just one? And the whole twin-prop thing does not seem different? There do come all kinds of interesting things with multiple engines like what if two engines are idling and associated drag and so on. Also all the systems required would be much MUCH more work in a four-engine airplane, starting from fuel transfer between different tanks and engines and things like pitch control of a twin-prop propeller. Yes, there would be large amounts of 3D modelling required but do not underestimate the complexity of code needed as well.

No. Due to various technical reasons it is not supported. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/dcs_black_shark_2_upgrade/

Looks beautiful! I hope you are releasing this some day :)

Looks interesting! Thanks for this! :thumbup:

Thank you! :thumbup:

Nice work! :thumbup:

Cool! Thanks for sharing :thumbup:

Very impressed! :thumbup: Very ambitious..? ;) Best of luck for a successful project! :joystick::pilotfly:

Click on "no thanks, take me to download" to skip registration.