DCS Product Terms Discussion

[Raven68]

The below is provided to explain the various fidelity levels of flight dynamics and cockpit systems modeling available in our various DCS aircraft simulation products. We provide this to you to help better understand what your are purchasing:

 

Standard Flight Model (SFM). This has not changed and defines a more data-driven means of achieving flight dynamics, in conjunction with some scripting. SFM was used in the Lock On series and is still used in the Flaming Cliffs 3 Su-33 and MiG-29. However, we do plan to update these at a later time.

 

Advanced Flight Model (AFM) and AFM+. An AFM uses multiple points of force application and calculation on the relevant flight surfaces. This simulates edge of envelope conditions well and avoids scripted behaviors as used in an SFM. This system also partially implements the aircraft's flight augmentation systems. DCS aircraft that use AFM includes the Su-25T. A further evolution of the AFM is what we term the AFM+ and this uses the same calculations as AFM but adds limited modeling of the hydraulic and fuel systems. Examples of AFM+ in DCS include the Su-25 and A-10A.

 

Professional Flight Model (PFM). This is generations beyond an AFM/AFM+ and is based upon:

 

• Use a wider array of wind tunnel tests CFD methods for aerodynamics parameters calculations.

• A higher level of aircraft construction details for forces calculations. For example: our landing gear model includes individual kinematics of retracting/extending is used to calculate its movement, servo-piston forces, etc. In such cases, we truly use real lengths, arms, etc. This also includes such items as a realistic simulation of airflow along the airframe due to the propeller or helicopter rotor thrust.

• Realistic simulation of Flight Control, CAS and Autopilot systems.

• Realistic simulation of Hydraulics, Fuel, Electrical, Engine and other systems influence flight characteristics.

• Unprecedented access to test data packs.

 

This is combined with much more detailed and accurate accounting of the physical forces on the aircraft and airfoils. DCS examples of the PFM include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2 and F-15C and Su-27 for DCS Flaming Cliffs.

 

External Flight Model (EFM). Used by our partner developers, the EFM uses only a part of PFM - rigid body physics and contact model. What forces and moments are applied to this rigid body from aerodynamics and any other sources except the contact forces is up to EFM developer.

 

Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft.

 

Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM). An ASM enabled aircraft goes into great depth to model the intricacies of the various cockpit systems, to include functionality for almost all the buttons, switches, dials, etc. A key element of an ASM cockpit is the ability to interact with it using your mouse. ASM DCS examples include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2.

 

In the coming weeks, we will be updating our store pages to use these product definitions.

 

Love it Matt. Nice breakdown. :thumbup: Hopefully end some of the confusion early on.

Module Matrix-1.doc

Edited April 9, 2014 by Wags

[uboats]

The content of the module matrix

 

[TABLE]Su-25T | Advanced Flight Model (AFM) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

Su-25 | Advanced Flight Model + (AFM+) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

A-10A | Advanced Flight Model + (AFM+) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

F-15C | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

Su-27 (In Development) | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

Su-33 | Standard Flight Model (SFM) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

MiG-29 | Standard Flight Model (SFM) | Standard Systems Modeling (SSM)

A-10C | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

Ka-50 | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

UH-1H | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

Fw190-D9 (In Development) | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

Mi-8MTV2 | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

P-51D | Professional Flight Model (PFM) | Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM)

 

[/TABLE]

Edited April 9, 2014 by uboats

[Akki]

If I understand correctly, the Su-27 PFM is now being developed, so in the future Su-27 will have a PFM.

F15C has it from 1.2.8.

[sobek]

Indeed, although the Eagle FM is still WIP.

[lmp]

The post and table have been updated and now Su-27's PFM is listed as "(in development)". Also, Fw190-D9 was added to the list (with PFM and ASM naturally).

 

I might be wrong, but isn't it the first official mention of the MiG-29 and Su-33 receiving a flight model update in the future? I know it's not a huge surprise, but it's always nice to know for sure ;).

[PFunk1606688187]

My take on the new terms is that the difference between 'DCS Flaming Cliffs' and 'DCS' is PFM. The presence of an ASM is not strictly relevant.

 

Whether the Flaming Cliffs distinction itself will still be relevant once they add the new terms to the pages is yet to be seen.

[uboats]

The post and table have been updated and now Su-27's PFM is listed as "(in development)". Also, Fw190-D9 was added to the list (with PFM and ASM naturally).

 

I might be wrong, but isn't it the first official mention of the MiG-29 and Su-33 receiving a flight model update in the future? I know it's not a huge surprise, but it's always nice to know for sure ;).

 

thanks, updated

[Akki]

The post and table have been updated and now Su-27's PFM is listed as "(in development)". Also, Fw190-D9 was added to the list (with PFM and ASM naturally).

 

I might be wrong, but isn't it the first official mention of the MiG-29 and Su-33 receiving a flight model update in the future? I know it's not a huge surprise, but it's always nice to know for sure ;).

 

In any case are wonderful news for both aircrafts pilots. I hope ED has at least SU33 changes implemented when F-18 comes to life.

[piXel496]

I hope the standalone F15C module from Belsimtek will be ASM...

:music_whistling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[tomcatter]

Really good thing to know: what a product will have, and what will not.

 

Maybe a little confusing at the first sight, but we are now, finally, able to push away speculations, rumors, and other noises to talk about flight models, tactics, aerodynamics, etc..

 

So thanks to put some light over the darkness. Good and quick move.

[JunMcKill]

Nice post Wags, it ended a long discussion we had in our squad about flight and system models in DCS vs Falcon BMS

[VincentLaw]

Nice to see an official distinction. I always thought the A-10C flight model was better than the Su-25T.

[SkateZilla]

Lets NOT derail with continuation the DCS F-15C vs F-15C Flaming Cliffs Debate/Discussion guys

[NineLine]

Discuss the new product description. Anything not listed in the original post is not on topic.

[blackbelter]

Before buying a FC3 game player, also need to buy?

 

I think you are asking: If one has purchased FC3, does he need to pay for the PFM? (以前买过FC3的玩家，还需要花钱买吗？)

 

The answer would be no. It will be a free upgrade as far as I have read...

[streakeagle]

The problem is that previously there were only two classes: full DCS (Ka-50, A-10C, and the odd man out, P-51D) and Flaming Cliffs. So, when the DCS:F-15C was announced some time ago in a video about ED's future plans for DCS World, I certainly expected an F-15C modeled to the same level of detail as the A-10C. The recent UH-1H and Mi-8 done by the same company working on the F-15C certainly lived up to my expectations. But it became clear that initially, only the flight model was going to be upgraded, just as the A-10A and Su-25T had AFM (now AFM+) rather than SFM. Later, it was clearly stated that the F-15C was not currently planned to be ASM at all, but merely under consideration for some time in the future. Given my earlier assumption/expectations, this was somewhat disappointing news.

 

Now, there are many tiers/combinations, but still only the original DCS and Flaming Cliffs labels. I expect the situation to get even more complicated once true 3rd party releases are released as opposed to ED partner releases from Belsimtek.

 

Prior to the F-15C, the Flaming Cliffs label applied to all aircraft with SSM regardless of their flight model and all DCS aircraft had ASM in addition to an AFM (now distinguished from later Flaming Cliffs releases as PFM).

 

The F-15C represents a unique tier (soon to be joined by the Su-27?) with its Flaming Cliffs qualifier of SSM and DCS qualifier of PFM. While I appreciate the generosity of ED in providing the F-15C PFM for free to Flaming Cliffs owners, it really was in a new class somewhere in between Flaming Cliffs and DCS labels and probably should have been a separate module with an intermediate price. But since ED didn't create an intermediate class with its own distinct name, the F-15C still has SSM, and it still comes with Flaming Cliffs, I think it should have been labeled a Flaming Cliffs aircraft despite the PFM. This would have left the DCS moniker untainted: PFM/ASM only for true hardcore types. As the last Flaming Cliffs aircraft have their original SFM replaced by AFM/AFM+/PFM, the Flaming Cliffs label would clearly mean SSM with a pretty decent/realistic AFM.

 

I hope ED/Belsimtek decide to make a true DCS PFM/ASM F-15C in the near future, which I would gladly pay full price to get despite owning Flaming Cliffs. However, a lot of people might be satisfied with merely PFM and won't see the cost-benefit of paying full price for something they already mostly have just to get ASM.

 

Perhaps all aircraft released for DCS should simply be labeled as DCS aircraft and it is up to the customer to read the product page and discuss with others on the forums to compare listed features/pricing to decide whether or not to purchase any given product? But for me (and many others I suspect), DCS means Ka-50 and A-10C. Labeling the SSM F-15C as DCS is confusing and dilutes the reputation of the DCS brand.

 

I am curious to see how ED handles all of this and hopefully their decisions result in both happy customers and good profit margins to continue improving/expanding DCS World.

[KaspeR32]

Glad all that was clarified. I'm also very happy I got FC3 on sale =)

[VincentLaw]

But since ED didn't create an intermediate class with its own distinct name, the F-15C still has SSM, and it still comes with Flaming Cliffs, I think it should have been labeled a Flaming Cliffs aircraft despite the PFM.

Check out the new title: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122751

 

This discussion is over.

Edited April 10, 2014 by VincentLaw

[NineLine]

I think the Flaming Cliffs label is really only there to link it to the past now, to acknowledge where they came from, these description should be what is used in the future to describe the depth of the product released. No more DCS level or FC3 level...

 

As for 3rd parties, the have EFM, its probably up to them to explain the depth of their products, whether they can base them off these descriptions or not is probably between them and ED.

 

It is also in place to distinguish where the Flight Models and System modeling has gone over the years, while AFM was the top dog for some time, you can see they have pushed forward from that term (not to mention the term has been watered down somewhat by others picking it up for their own sims). I would even be surprised if we see anything released with SFM from ED anymore, AFM might be the new SFM... you you know what I mean ;)

[NineLine]

Given my earlier assumption/expectations, this was somewhat disappointing news.

 

 

This is actual a core reason for the change in communication on ED's part. Giving little tidbits of information causes peoples minds to race, not saying that is wrong on your part, we all do it, I do it. But in doing this ED can set itself up for exactly what you are feeling, even though they never promised anything.

[statrekmike]

This is actual a core reason for the change in communication on ED's part. Giving little tidbits of information causes peoples minds to race, not saying that is wrong on your part, we all do it, I do it. But in doing this ED can set itself up for exactly what you are feeling, even though they never promised anything.

 

 

let's hope that any future modules are put cleanly into the categories Wags has set, it would indeed avoid a lot of confusion and also prevent many from drawing the wrong conclusions and getting upset/bummed out when something turns out very different from what they thought.

[NineLine]

let's hope that any future modules are put cleanly into the categories Wags has set, it would indeed avoid a lot of confusion and also prevent many from drawing the wrong conclusions and getting upset/bummed out when something turns out very different from what they thought.

 

 

Well ED can only do so much, we have to measure out excitement somewhat as well, its not all on ED for assumptions and reading more into things than is really there. I believe the descriptions listed here will eventually be added to the products on ED's site....

[statrekmike]

Well ED can only do so much, we have to measure out excitement somewhat as well, its not all on ED for assumptions and reading more into things than is really there. I believe the descriptions listed here will eventually be added to the products on ED's site....

 

You are right, we do need to measure our excitement carefully but with the product description we have here, I can only hope that ED will use those terms clearly with every new announcement, thus laying out exactly what we can expect with the simplicity of a couple of acronyms.

 

I think you will find a lot of assumptions and speculations will vanish if such a system was adopted for any future announcements.

[blackbelter]

let's hope that any future modules are put cleanly into the categories Wags has set, it would indeed avoid a lot of confusion and also prevent many from drawing the wrong conclusions and getting upset/bummed out when something turns out very different from what they thought.

 

So you think keeping DCS rigid and static is a good thing? According to this logic, in order to be able to clearly categorize the modules, PFM should not be introduced to FC aircrafts? I don't see where you are going from here...

 

Keeping our minds dynamic and trying to accommodate new things as they appear might be a better option... Confusion in the initial stage will be unavoidable. But once gotten over, only good things such as PFM are left (and maybe some bugs).

 

Categorization is good, but only to the degree at which it does not contradict the development/evolution of DCS. Confusion isn't always bad. It means new knowledge and fresh experience.

[statrekmike]

So you think keeping DCS rigid and static is a good thing? According to this logic, in order to be able to clearly categorize the modules, PFM should not be introduced to FC aircrafts? I don't see where you are going from here...

 

Keeping our minds dynamic and trying to accommodate new things as they appear might be a better option... Confusion in the initial stage will be unavoidable. But once gotten over, only good things such as PFM are left (and maybe some bugs).

 

Categorization is good, but only to the degree at which it does not contradict the development/evolution of DCS. Confusion isn't always bad. It means new knowledge and fresh experience.

 

There is a massive difference between keeping the products static and clearly laying out intentions as they happen.

 

My line of thinking essentially boils down to ED using it's now clearly defined categories to give us a indication of what is being currently worked on, for example, they might say tomorrow that they are working on a new module but instead of leaving us to wonder what it will actually be, they also include information about exactly what it will be on release.

 

If they wish to add to the module, they can indicate that as the project to do so begins.

 

It has nothing to do with keeping things exactly as they are and everything to do with being clear about intentions, i.e, announcing modules or projects with a clear indication (using the now defined categories) as a guide for the benefit of the end user.

 

If they wish to change or evolve products, just use the same categories we now have to define the changes.

 

It is really simple, I don't see how it could be anything but good to use this handy list of categories we have when announcing projects, that way, nobody gets let down and nobody gets confused because they know exactly what is on the horizon.