Good News! F15C AFM from "BelSimTek"

[NRG-Vampire]

Youre right, but look at this video. Can your current FC3 MiG-29 fly like this? :huh:

 

unfortunately that's a sfm with the mig-29 in the video

what we actually know ED is working on new 3*external and 3*cockpit 3d mig-29 models

afm for other aircrafts was not mentioned yet - others than f-15c and su-27 - but hopefully they will update all the flight models of fc3 aircrafts step by step in the future: su-27, su-33, mig-29

[SkateZilla]

unfortunately that's a sfm with the mig-29 in the video

what we actually know ED is working on new 3*external and 3*cockpit 3d mig-29 models

afm for other aircrafts was not mentioned yet - others than f-15c and su-27 - but hopefully they will update all the flight models of fc3 aircrafts step by step in the future: su-27, su-33, mig-29

 

Once they have a definitive supersonic AFM Template, future Aircraft can prolly have an AFM Done easily (*i assume)

[NRG-Vampire]

Once they have a definitive supersonic AFM Template, future Aircraft can prolly have an AFM Done easily (*i assume)

:thumbup:

 

sure, finished f-15c afm will speed up all the missing afm development :bounce:

[GGTharos]

I don't think there are AFM templates. There's just more and less experienced AFM programmers.

[VincentLaw]

Once they have a definitive supersonic AFM Template, future Aircraft can prolly have an AFM Done easily (*i assume)

I got the Su-25T supersonic in a dive a couple weeks ago.

[NRG-Vampire]

I got the Su-25T supersonic in a dive a couple weeks ago.

 

:D

fine, then you dont need any other afm :lol: or maybe an autobus afm ? :rotflmao:

[VincentLaw]

I don't think there are AFM templates. There's just more and less experienced AFM programmers.

The "templates" would be proprietary. ED is obviously not sharing their code with everyone, but they already said they can borrow a lot from the P-51D for their other WWII planes.

[SkateZilla]

I got the Su-25T supersonic in a dive a couple weeks ago.

I meant Planes that are classified as supersonic without having to force it into a ballistic dive.

 

I don't think there are AFM templates. There's just more and less experienced AFM programmers.

 

Yeah, I should prolly re-word that, OK, not Template, but experience coding it.

[NRG-Vampire]

Yeah, I should prolly re-word that, OK, not Template, but experience coding it.

 

flight physics of f-15c is the same as flight physics of su-27: this is a template :D

[SkateZilla]

flight physics of f-15c is the same as flight physics of su-27: this is a template :D

 

Both are 4th gen Supersonic Fighters with advanced FCS and Engine Management systems.

[GGTharos]

I talk to Yo-Yo now and then. There's no template. Yes, sure, the 'physics' are a template, but each aircraft requires to have their physics package carefully crafted, because they absolutely do not fly the same way. They are similar, but not the same.

 

For an exaggerated example of this - an F-15 can't do a Cobra, a Su-27 can. The interactions required for this are complex, and it's not a matter of 'cobra on, cobra off' scripting like it is in the SFM.

 

The "templates" would be proprietary. ED is obviously not sharing their code with everyone, but they already said they can borrow a lot from the P-51D for their other WWII planes.

[SkateZilla]

waiting for a Cobra On Corbra off Miyagi meme.

[VincentLaw]

I talk to Yo-Yo now and then. There's no template. Yes, sure, the 'physics' are a template, but each aircraft requires to have their physics package carefully crafted, because they absolutely do not fly the same way. They are similar, but not the same.

 

For an exaggerated example of this - an F-15 can't do a Cobra, a Su-27 can. The interactions required for this are complex, and it's not a matter of 'cobra on, cobra off' scripting like it is in the SFM.

Well physics is physics. If you went all out and modeled both airplanes with full computational fluid dynamics, the code could be completely generic and give the proper flight characteristics for both airplanes... but then you wouldn't be able to run it in real time on a desktop computer.

 

Getting a flight model that accurately portrays the peculiarities of each airplane while still running in real time is probably a big reason the code isn't a simply copy pasta template.

 

Yes, they both have two wings, two tails, and a fuselage; and wings and tails work the same way in general, but the way these components interact with each other will be different on different airplanes and require special attention. (It would be silly to start completely from scratch each time though).

[Grim_Smiles]

waiting for a Cobra On Corbra off Miyagi meme.

 

[marluk]

Well physics is physics. If you went all out and modeled both airplanes with full computational fluid dynamics, the code could be completely generic and give the proper flight characteristics for both airplanes... but then you wouldn't be able to run it in real time on a desktop computer.

 

Getting a flight model that accurately portrays the peculiarities of each airplane while still running in real time is probably a big reason the code isn't a simply copy pasta template.

 

Yes, they both have two wings, two tails, and a fuselage; and wings and tails work the same way in general, but the way these components interact with each other will be different on different airplanes and require special attention. (It would be silly to start completely from scratch each time though).

 

Generally I agree with your thinking, but the interesting fact is that Austin Mayer swears in his X-Plane that it does exactly that: computes flight dynamics according airplane geometry in real time using blade element theory.

 

I'm wondering how much truth is in that.

 

Here is video that shows forces calculated in real time.

 

EDIT:

More documentation on that topic: http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/

Edited March 7, 2014 by marluk
Additional materials

[SkateZilla]

Generally I agree with your thinking, but the interesting fact is that Austin Mayer swears in his X-Plane that it does exactly that: computes flight dynamics according airplane geometry in real time using blade element theory.

 

I'm wondering how much truth is in that.

 

Here is video that shows forces calculated in real time.

 

EDIT:

More documentation on that topic: http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/

 

Umm:

[marluk]

Umm:

 

All right. It seems that DCS AFM and X-Plane are handling physics similarly. :thumbup:

 

EDIT:

I'm going to grease up my Warthog instead of being such smartass :).

Edited March 7, 2014 by marluk

[Exorcet]

Generally I agree with your thinking, but the interesting fact is that Austin Mayer swears in his X-Plane that it does exactly that: computes flight dynamics according airplane geometry in real time using blade element theory.

 

I'm wondering how much truth is in that.

 

Here is video that shows forces calculated in real time.

 

EDIT:

More documentation on that topic: http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/

 

But that is not CFD. CFD resolves what the fluid is actually doing. No desktop sim does this, they use simple models instead that approximate the bahavior of a certain body (like a wing). There is no air in DCS or X-Plane.

[Darkwolf]

X plane is so realistic i could make a loop right after takeoff, with a fully loaded 747. Xplane ? Seriously i prefer dcs, and even fsx.

[leafer]

X plane is so realistic i could make a loop right after takeoff, with a fully loaded 747. Xplane ? Seriously i prefer dcs, and even fsx.

 

You don't say.. :D

[marluk]

X plane is so realistic i could make a loop right after takeoff, with a fully loaded 747. Xplane ? Seriously i prefer dcs, and even fsx.

 

Indeed. I have tried few times with X Plane but it never feels right. Now I stick with Prepar3D and DCS.

[willzah1313]

X plane is so realistic i could make a loop right after takeoff, with a fully loaded 747. Xplane ? Seriously i prefer dcs, and even fsx.

 

that is the fault of the acf designer, if well designed X-plane is very accurate... just like any sim

[hvymtal]

Sweet! Now give us the 120C-7, 7P, 9X, and JHMCS and we'll be good!

No, wait, that doesn't make sense. It'd make the F-15 almost as good as the flanker.

[=Mac=]

... It'd make the F-15 almost as good as the flanker.

 

Give a good pilot just a broom stick, a sling shot, and a small rock and he can take out any flanker out there. Problem is, finding a rock that can take the G-stresses when the pilot launches it.

 

:chair:

[marluk]

X plane is so realistic i could make a loop right after takeoff, with a fully loaded 747. Xplane ? Seriously i prefer dcs, and even fsx.

 

that is the fault of the acf designer, if well designed X-plane is very accurate... just like any sim

 

I doubt that such bad modeling is fault of the sim. I saw very good airplanes for X-Plane (although I don't prefer it) as well as for fsx although they have different approach on modeling.

For instance occasionally I'm flying Accu-Sim C172 trainer on P3D - very good flight model.

Edited March 10, 2014 by marluk