DCS vs Other Sims, what makes the difference FM wise?

[leafer]

Huh. I hit the hay thinking, now, I haven't seen a rant around here in a while. I'll be dam. :D

[USARStarkey]

Now I am curious. Can you elaborate on the said tactics?

 

Certain E-Retention related tactics work better in DCS than they do in other sims. For example, In the P-51 the sustained turn in this game is about 195-200mph. However, in DCS right around 250-225mph you reach a area where even though you are pulling on the stick just below the buffet, the rate deceleration becomes so low that you can do many 360's before you reach sustained turn speed. This does not happen many other sims. Take Aces High for example, or Il246. In both of these games deceleration in a turn is near constant and you get to sustained corner speed much more rapidly.

Another set of tactics I like in DCS is the extensive use of energy climbs. Yes, these work other sims but the work better in DCS for two major reasons: 1. Extremely low aileron and elevator authority at low speed just before stalling out makes gunnery in the vertical much harder than it is in other games. 2. Energy in general seems to be managed differently. It is hard for me to describe what else is different, but I can say that fighting seems to devolve into turn fights far less often than it seems to in other Sims. I've been doing WW2 sims for over 10 years and SOMETHING in this department is different. Although I cant quite put my finger on it.

[leafer]

Certain E-Retention related tactics work better in DCS than they do in other sims. For example, In the P-51 the sustained turn in this game is about 195-200mph. However, in DCS right around 250-225mph you reach a area where even though you are pulling on the stick just below the buffet, the rate deceleration becomes so low that you can do many 360's before you reach sustained turn speed. This does not happen many other sims. Take Aces High for example, or Il246. In both of these games deceleration in a turn is near constant and you get to sustained corner speed much more rapidly.

Another set of tactics I like in DCS is the extensive use of energy climbs. Yes, these work other sims but the work better in DCS for two major reasons: 1. Extremely low aileron and elevator authority at low speed just before stalling out makes gunnery in the vertical much harder than it is in other games. 2. Energy in general seems to be managed differently. It is hard for me to describe what else is different, but I can say that fighting seems to devolve into turn fights far less often than it seems to in other Sims. I've been doing WW2 sims for over 10 years and SOMETHING in this department is different. Although I cant quite put my finger on it.

 

Ahh those things I've noticed. Especially the gunnery bit at the top of the vertical fight where you grimace at the wobbling piper you work so hard to get on the bandit. I hate it! :D

 

I take it you used to paly Warbirds online? :D

[USARStarkey]

I try to play aces high but I'm torn. i love the persistence and scale, but I hate some of the FM's. Warbirds seems better but the visuals are awful and the game is dead. I hate il2's fms period. Everything in that game feels so squishy. ( am not refering to CLOD or BOS here)

DCS make me really excited because I think we will find advantages and disadvantages of these planes that we've never seen before in the other sims. Everything may not boil down to who turn tighter or who is faster or who climbs better. I have a feeling based on some of the things in my last post that there will be all sorts of other factors to consider in DCS WW2. What if a plane with more speed cant keep its power up for any amount of time? Il2 BOS's 109F4 can reach 1,42 ata, but it is almost meaningless because you have to revert to 1.3 ata after about 60 seconds unless you want a engine death. What if we find that one plane turns better sustained and slow, but another can hang in a dogfight because it can maintain its E a higher speed long enough to somewhat negate that advantage? DCS is so different that I honestly have no idea what to expect from some of the planes we are getting.

[Strut]

I have been following "the conversation" in this thread and keep reminding myself that a lot of intelligent and talented people rub shoulders around here ( and in some cases the opposite as well), i just wanted to butt in and say thanks to all those here and keep it up, i love what is to be learned and what there is to know. I rekon DCS is a great sim, i have flown most sims on desktop since the commodore 64 and have got to say that they all have flaws, but DCS gets on with it and gets the job done. Thanks all.

[realtrance]

Agreed. There will always be different aspects of simulation that are strengths and weaknesses. However DCS (and ROF) pursue specifics related to being able to model with effective physics granularity the interactions in different flight regimes that give a wide variety of aircraft the distinctiveness in competition with each other needed to have a broad range of interesting and plausible A-A and A-G combat. Which nothing else out there comes anywhere near to providing. The work of these two teams is light-years ahead of anyone else. :)

[BitMaster]

Hey Weta,

 

 

 

*** I messed up the quote section, its is hard to read now since one has to read the quote as well, as most of my answers ended up in it !! My fault, Sorry guys *******

 

 

 

 

I went by the topic and it says" DCS vs other Sims, what makes the difference FM wise"

 

That's what I replied to. It didn't say all Sims but R/C Sims ;)

 

The reason why I choose that is simply: Those I know very good, have spent hundreds of hours using them and .. more important.... one can fly more different airframes with it and thus try out more maneuvers that most AC in DCS are by nature not really capable of.

 

Also, I don't see that models disqualify. Most if not all ( incl NASA ) build small models and R/C fly them to test overall capability. It is also possible to log all data while in flight. G-Force, Speed, altitude, RPM, Temperatures, Barometric Pressure, Volts, Ampere ( for each servo, so you can read the power demands for each control surface needed ). There is a sensor for all you can think of and they are realtime too, you can read them off your iPad/Radio/Android while the AC in in the air and they are also stored on SD cards usually for after flight reading.

I am talking about AC the size of drones, Jet turbine or Radial engine powered, wingspan 2-7m

and weights up to over 100kg. Those you can hardly deny to qualify as aircraft.

 

:-) It seems to me that to some extent, that's what the P-51 started out as - a technology demonstrator/investigation - & it seems to have done pretty well, there are people out there flying aerobatics with DCS.P-51, and providing feedback that it is realistic in its responses - in the case of some of the Testing team, feedback based on RL experience

 

 

I dont argue about the quality of the P-51, but I asked myself after reading about the fuselage consideration in calculations how close to RL a knife edge can be if you A: don't consider the shape of a fuselage precisely and B: how precise, in the case of knife edge ( a very good example of everything twisted of what is what ) how for example the down facing elevator is calculated. It usually sits in the streaming shadow of the fuselage. Due to the high AOA sideways of the fuselage any input done on the elevator shows up as if you also give some portion of sideslip too.

The Cw is also of interest while in this attitude cause the wings are ( dihedral left alone ) are perpendicular to G and Cw goes to 0.000x from 0.0x.

Even more complex with Cwp ( wing profile ) Cwi ( induced resistance ) and Cws ( resistance induced by non flying surface parts, struts, pitot, beacon lights etc.. ) when going from straight path to DIVE ( fast steep dive, not shallow at modest speed )

One example:

 

Gliding ( straight path ) Dive

Cwp: 0.0170 0.0046

Cwi: 0.0105 0.00000

Cws: 0.0025 0.0025

TOTAL 0.0300 0.0071

 

The higher your speed, the smaller Cwp gets due to high Reynolds numbers

 

This is so complex and dynamic that most if not one sim can reproduce it cause it is a fluent scenario.

 

First - I think you've misunderstood what the intent of the sim is (& how exactly do you decide that the 'feel' of an imaginary aircraft is correct ?), 2nd - Only to the extent that you're prepared to ignore the interaction of those modules with each other.

Regarding the 'feel', for the PFM & rotary wing aircraft modelled to date, pilots with experience in the actual aircraft have provided 'tuning' advice to bring the aircraft 'feel' close to that of the actual plane.

The Sim or "Game" as a whole is what matters. DCS is the best yet but it has a few spoilers that

are hard to oversee over time but those are mostly not due to aerodynamics but weapon and radar modeling and such and how it interacts with your play.

As I said, DCS is a Warfare Simulator foremost and thus must not focus on only 1 thing but has to balance each and every aspect so it is a usable product. The game designers for sure have a hard time cause the set goals are very high.

 

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that it's apples with apples. The Power to Weight ratios on RC aircraft - the entire flight regime on RC aircraft - tend to be a long way from those of real combat aircraft, and w/ regard to performance or 'feel' I'm not sure how well I can tell how good the FM is, if I try controlling the aircraft from an F3 view -which is essentially what you're doing in RC simulation.

It is possible to control from any aspect, including Pilot Seat.... and yes vise versa, I sometimes fly DCS from outside & stationary, usually the choppers. That is a totally different thing than from inside when left is right, down is up etc.. but nothing that refers to the topic.

 

Anecdotal evidence should always be taken with a grain of salt. I know 15 people that have at various times made their living selling 20 GWh - 30 GWh of electricity a day into the wholesale market. That doesn't make it a common job. Of those people I'm the only one that does Flight Simming, but none of them do RC flying (or RC flight Simming). That doens't mean no-one else does either thing.

I was only referring to how many potential copies have been sold from DCS compared to mainstream R/C simulators that are heavily advertised in R/C magazines around the globe among people with the same interest. I believe there are more R/C Sim copies sold than DCS.

Just to somehow judge the financial power and thus get a clue of how much money and potential developing power is behind each one. Not to forget that there are at least 3 high end R/C sims that rival vs each other and DCS being alone at the top without a single rival challenging it.

 

Yep, and real life aerobatics teams use little physical models they hold in their hands to go through their routines (and the PLA used to use Lock-On !). Depends what you're trying to practice.

Sure, whatever helps to stay trained helps. I am not talking DCS down, no way, I am just showing that there are DIFFERENT computer programs dealing with the same problems, aerodynamics.

DCS focuses on warfare as well, and as stated above, has to achieve more different good results i all its aspects than just a Civilian flight sim that can skip the whole warfare, weapons and radar stuff that DCS has to master. R/C has the least to cover and thus has the most developing power left for aerodynamics. Thats what those sims are made for. They skip all fancy stuff that are 95% of the forums topics. No cockpit issue, no Radar issues, no misbehaving missiles, nada of that.

What drives and bugs those customers and developers is 3D performance across a wide variety of models, Sailplanes, piston and turbine powered fixed wings, Helicopters.

 

Out of curiosity, which Simulator does a better job (leaving aside RC simulators - I don't think they help your argument) ?

I personally think none is better in flight physics tho I don't own all of them. The IL series for sure not, MS X is great but not as complex as DCS in the short time I used it from my understanding.

If R/C models dispqualify, all birds disqualify too. IMHO a poor statement to any Falcon or Eagle

and their capabilities well superior to any man made AC.

 

Again - I don't think referring to RL RC aircraft, or RC sims does your case any good. If an RC sim might have aircraft do the things in this video

, but it seems to me that you could be 20% out on the trust modelled / forces generated by control surfaces / etc, & as long as you were high not low, who would know ? Where's the test data to compare it to ? The 'feel' ? how do you separate the tuning of your control gear from the performance of the aircraft with no hard data to compare it to ?

Still, as I mentioned, there are people that have flown the F-15 (I've read feedback from the SME F-15 pilot - he was very complementary (I don't think that's giving away secrets - if so apologies), and pilots with Many - Many hours in P-51 & UH-1H & Hi-8 helicopters that say it is close to what the real aircraft are like.

Out of question, sure, a 1:5 scale P-51 will not behave like the real thing due to weight/Power concerns, but that is irrelevant. What I refer to is how accurately things like 3D performance is calculated and present on the screen. The knife edge or flat spin thing represents this real good.

Men used to study birds and still do and have yet to fully understand it. A small Falcon also flies a different style than a Condor but both underly the exact same physical laws. It matters how close you reproduce any given flying thing, be it a beer bottle thrown towards a fellow bar mate or a paper glider made by a five year old. Turbulences, Air resistance etc..

One influences the other and all super computer together worldwide are still NOT capable of calculating all leaves in a single tree in the wind as it is too dynamic. Thats what my physics Guru told me and I honestly think it still applies, its not the power of your CPU its the limitations of algorithms teething into each other. The poor mind of humans just can't think that complex and bring to to mathematical equations that function as a whole.

 

Maybe - and I'm only half joking - they should try flying from F2 view not F1 ? See how that compares to R/C simulation ?

It would help you see moves that look "strange" from outside, non-natural, that you would not see and feel as such when in cockpit. A good point to fine tune characteristics and spot misfits.

 

I've physically jumped when hit by SAM or A2A missiles in game, because I was immersed, and dtressed...

& yet you keep mentioning it...

I am not saying DCS has no Immersion, don't get me wrong, I love DCS and spent WAY too many hours with it ( look what old Bit is doing at the moment )

What matters is ( and the demands are very high ) of how well this is cooked together.

See a Chef Cook and a Novice, give them the identical stuff, same receipe, still, you get two different tasting things, they differ more the more complex the receipe is. The secret is how well you can cook it all together so it is a useful & tasting entity after putting it together.

 

So, apart from the unmodellable intangibles (like the stress of flying through clouds), and fixing bugs (which no-one is going to argue about), how would you suggest the balance should be changed ?

Better FM : " Why don't they make an Extra 300 and fly a FAI pattern with it "

or that doesn't matter :

" DCS is about fighting a War, with decent AC, but it is not meant to simulate a FAI pattern flown by an Extra 300."

 

I honestly think two things about this statement I made with purpose:

DCS in conjunction with the P-51 has shown that some, if not many, also like to just fly demanding patterns from time to time, as a change from fighting Inguri River.

I also think DCS could potentially open a 3rd branch over time, if the Flight model is that outstanding as we all think hope and type/work&cry for: A solid FAI 3D platform.

All it takes is a world without fancy warfare attributes ( radar etc.. OFF to save CPU cycles, should be easy to do for the debs to turn things OFF ) and 2nd: create a few modern and historic Aerobatic Airplanes.

I really think many would by a Pitts Special BiPlane just to dash around over Batumi AirShow 2015, enjoy the Race through Pylons with an Extra 300 or any other high performing Aerobatic AC.

 

It would attract many more Players from the Civilian sector and R/C world too, I am sure about that ! Those guys most often don't wanna shoot or pay attention to Radar, Bogeys & Bandits but want to perform a circle like loop,

fly the cuban eight in a perfect manner and may have a judging component in the sim that rates their figures according to stored templates/algorythms. That would really be fun.

 

The Aerobatic Servers present have shown that this is defacto present right now. Why not give them a World free of CPU intense calculations and throw in a couple of well know Aircraft in the FAI or Red Bull world.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, we are all talking and complaining on a very high level.

 

DCS is anything but trivial or not-well-done, it is outstanding and most of us buy each and every module that there is just to have them and give DCS some OOMPS to keep on going.

 

The thing I missed mostly and still miss today as I have limited time is a more easy but still demanding mission creator or dynamic campaigns.

 

When looking at the Server Browser and counting the missions available and the players online

it is not what we would like to all see. Too few players and only a handful ( if lucky ) useful missions presented to fly. Yet they need to have a somewhat good ping too. This all limits the value of DCS for ones Sunday afternoon fun.

Those missions were hard to create, mostly still being tuned by respected individuals we all cherish and happy to have among us few.

I wish I could do missions but I never find the patience & time needed to create one that is worth to host or present to others.

 

That is what DCS is lacking most, available online options to have fun ;)

It's not the flight model, that is very good. As said, we are battling with words on a very high level. What counts is if I stop flying after 3-5 hours with a smile or if I close the game browser after 10 Minutes cause there are too few missions and servers available with good ping and enough players to make it worth trying. I sometimes wanna play and find none. That is bad.

Edited April 23, 2014 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

I tried to fix your quotes, I hope you don't mind.

[GGTharos]

The reason why I choose that is simply: Those I know very good, have spent hundreds of hours using them and .. more important.... one can fly more different airframes with it and thus try out more maneuvers that most AC in DCS are by nature not really capable of.

 

But you have different airframes to try in DCS as well.

 

Also, I don't see that models disqualify. Most if not all ( incl NASA ) build small models and R/C fly them to test overall capability.

 

NASA flies models to test very specific parts of the aircraft or the flight envelope. Usually, they're testing a new engine, or a wing design for high AoA or something else - but the final test beds for a lot of this stuff are their F-18/F-15 or other full scale test beds. I don't know why you mentioned this part.

 

I dont argue about the quality of the P-51, but I asked myself after reading about the fuselage consideration in calculations how close to RL a knife edge can be if you A: don't consider the shape of a fuselage precisely and B: how precise, in the case of knife edge ( a very good example of everything twisted of what is what ) how for example the down facing elevator is calculated. It usually sits in the streaming shadow of the fuselage.

 

How are you going to model combat performance and departures realistically without taking all this into account? But more to the point, just how precise do you really need to be to get this right? This wouldn't be the first time an FM models wash-out. In the DCS A-10C, you can wash-out airflow to your engines and melt them.

 

This is so complex and dynamic that most if not one sim can reproduce it cause it is a fluent scenario.

 

Then why would R/C sims be capable of it? Or perhaps it's the case that the RCs are readily available and can be test flown and be measured and compiled into data tables for accuracy ... can't do that with full scale planes for an entertainment sim - so yeah, if that was the case, the RC sim would win for accuracy, but it's hard to even tell by how much.

 

 

The Sim or "Game" as a whole is what matters. DCS is the best yet but it has a few spoilers that

are hard to oversee over time but those are mostly not due to aerodynamics but weapon and radar modeling and such and how it interacts with your play.

 

Then why are you mentioning aerodynamics? :P

 

I was only referring to how many potential copies have been sold from DCS compared to mainstream R/C simulators that are heavily advertised in R/C magazines around the globe among people with the same interest. I believe there are more R/C Sim copies sold than DCS.

Just to somehow judge the financial power and thus get a clue of how much money and potential developing power is behind each one. Not to forget that there are at least 3 high end R/C sims that rival vs each other and DCS being alone at the top without a single rival challenging it.

 

Real DCS sales have been high enough that I'd think your estimate of 3 to 10 times more sales of the RC sims are rather optimistic - but, I don't know how many sales those sims have. Seems to me like it's easier and cheaper to get into DCS than flying RC's.

 

DCS focuses on warfare as well, and as stated above, has to achieve more different good results i all its aspects than just a Civilian flight sim that can skip the whole warfare, weapons and radar stuff that DCS has to master. R/C has the least to cover and thus has the most developing power left for aerodynamics. Thats what those sims are made for. They skip all fancy stuff that are 95% of the forums topics. No cockpit issue, no Radar issues, no misbehaving missiles, nada of that.

 

The guys who make the aerodynamics in ED aren't the same guys who work on other stuff, so I'm not sure if your claim is really credible here. There's no reason why a flight model can't be accurate AND computationally efficient.

 

One influences the other and all super computer together worldwide are still NOT capable of calculating all leaves in a single tree in the wind as it is too dynamic. Thats what my physics Guru told me and I honestly think it still applies, its not the power of your CPU its the limitations of algorithms teething into each other. The poor mind of humans just can't think that complex and bring to to mathematical equations that function as a whole.

 

Actually we have pretty good minds and pretty good solutions. Iterative things are iterative, and that's all there is to it :)

 

I honestly think two things about this statement I made with purpose:

DCS in conjunction with the P-51 has shown that some, if not many, also like to just fly demanding patterns from time to time, as a change from fighting Inguri River.

 

You don't believe that dogfighting is aerodynamically demanding?

 

I also think DCS could potentially open a 3rd branch over time, if the Flight model is that outstanding as we all think hope and type/work&cry for: A solid FAI 3D platform.

 

That's what 3rd party developers are for. ED is solidly in the military vehicle development business.

 

The Aerobatic Servers present have shown that this is defacto present right now. Why not give them a World free of CPU intense calculations and throw in a couple of well know Aircraft in the FAI or Red Bull world.

 

Um, they're flying without radars, missiles, AI ... what more do you want? Pyramid mountains? :)

[Frostie]

 

That is what DCS is lacking most, available online options to have fun ;)

It's not the flight model, that is very good. As said, we are battling with words on a very high level. What counts is if I stop flying after 3-5 hours with a smile or if I close the game browser after 10 Minutes cause there are too few missions and servers available with good ping and enough players to make it worth trying. I sometimes wanna play and find none. That is bad.

Ping should not be an problem, you can join servers with pings as high as 400 and have no latency issues whilst flying formation etc. This is not an FPS game. ;)

[NineLine]

NASA flies models to test very specific parts of the aircraft or the flight envelope. Usually, they're testing a new engine, or a wing design for high AoA or something else - but the final test beds for a lot of this stuff are their F-18/F-15 or other full scale test beds. I don't know why you mentioned this part.

 

It should be noted as well that from what I have seen of FM design here that its preferred to have full scale test data as well. So while small scale testing is done, it probably isnt best for everything, and in this case FM creation.

[BitMaster]

Some seem to misunderstand why I wrote this.

 

Again, I refer simply to the topic "OTHER" sims and their approach to recreating a given original Aircraft, regardless of it's size, weight or anything else.

 

Just reproduce as close as possible something given.

 

It seems that my post is misunderstood and people try to understand it in a way that I want to exchange the the DCS way of reproducing FLIGHT to the ones from Sims I Know. This is not what I intended to say or want. All I wanted is to make you aware of superb Sims reproducing MODELS.

Those R/C sims reproduce R/C MODELS and DCS reproduces FULL SCALE MODELS.

 

Still, from the smallest Insect or Bird capable of flying to an Airbus 380, the exact same physics apply, that must be out of question.

 

Different approaches have different outcomes as we can only RE-produce to a certain extend.

Whenever you do reproduce you have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty, this is also out of question. Some posts made me believe some posters see DCS as the Ultimate Grail which none can be. Thts why there are full scale RL tests performed cause nothing beats Real Life experience.

 

The reason why I didn't pick MS X or X-plane is simple: I am NO Real Life Pilot and comparing one sim to another regarding FULL SCALE airplane makes no sense unless I fly the replicated AC myself in REAL LIFE, which I don't do. So I may not speak about that cause I have no experience with it.

 

But I can for sure speak about how well R/C Simulators replicate R/C flying because I call about 2 dozen R/C AC my own and 2 R/C Simulators, so I have a founded experience of how those behave in comparison the the "real but smaller scale" thing. All in reference to the OP topic.

 

I dont wanna break loose a convo about DCS vs. R/C, all I wanted to show is how OTHERS do it.

 

 

MAybe, under this light, you find it easier to accept and understand what I wrote.

 

 

..and yes, Dogfighting and FAI differ a lot. In a dogfight all that counts is SURVIVE. No one judges you on HOW you did it as long as you did it.In FAI all that matters is HOW you did it. A very different mindset for the Pilot.

 

Bit

 

I may add this, although it is not of interest: I did fly a little bit as a twelve year old, while not allowed to land or take off I steered that single engine MBB plane around in the air caused the Pilot let me, I did rolls and other very simple to do

manœuvres and loved it. The Pilot himself took me through the paces of some FAI patterns and I cried for joy, felt up to 3-4G+ and about 1G- many times in my teenager age. Maybe that is why I love flying so much.

My dad offered me to pay for the sailplane and later single engine license but I loved my BMX bike and the quarter pipe and didn't took the chance. A thing I regret till today that I didn't do that. Know, with kids, house and stuff to pay I simply can't afford it and R/C flying is about a quarter foot in real flying... all I can afford today. Many of my friends are RL pilots, one flies an A-10 at Hahn Airbase not far away from here ( he was one of the poorest R/C Pilots I ever saw HAHA ) and he flies this Hog for many years now but we lost contact due to RL going on. When ever I get a hold of him again he must fly the A-10c on my PC and tell me how it flies compared to the real thing.

Edited April 23, 2014 by BitMaster
addendum:

[PLP]

Still, from the smallest Insect or Bird capable of flying to an Airbus 380, the exact same physics apply, that must be out of question.

 

Don't forget different physical effects dominate at different length scales, and I would guess that is why R/C sims might be more close to reality in the end. I guess (would have to look it up though) stuff like air compressibility, sonic effects,... can all be neglected at the R/C scale?

 

Insect aerodynamics are worlds away from A380 aerodynamics, even though they spawn from the same equations.

Edited April 23, 2014 by PLP
punctuation

[PLP]

An example (for shipbuilding at least) is the Reynolds number, which is a way to determine what sort of physical regime you are in (think surfboard or oil tanker?)

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

[GGTharos]

Some seem to misunderstand why I wrote this.

 

Again, I refer simply to the topic "OTHER" sims and their approach to recreating a given original Aircraft, regardless of it's size, weight or anything else.

 

BM, this is a 'vs.' thread, and as such it is conceived as one huge misunderstanding :D

 

Still, from the smallest Insect or Bird capable of flying to an Airbus 380, the exact same physics apply, that must be out of question.

 

Yes, but the exact same flight models certainly do not, not even close. Because a 'real time', or as close to a real time FM as you can get, is a simplification of overall physics (As is any simulation of physics), you have to determine the dominating forces and effects that you want to model. You can't throw in the parameters of an insect into something that simulates a much larger aircraft and hope to get good results (or, perhaps you will because in the case of an insect you're mostly governed by thrust vs. inertia and gravity so it's actually a huge simplification of the fighter jet model - but using an insect flight model for a fighter jet gets you something along the lines of the old F-15E Strike Eagle game).

 

Thts why there are full scale RL tests performed cause nothing beats Real Life experience.

 

Full scale tests are performed because simulations cannot give you the most accurate flight characteristics of a given aircraft, but you can simulate those characteristics accurately once you know them. These are two very different things.

 

But I can for sure speak about how well R/C Simulators replicate R/C flying because I call about 2 dozen R/C AC my own and 2 R/C Simulators, so I have a founded experience of how those behave in comparison the the "real but smaller scale" thing. All in reference to the OP topic.

 

I think the OP wanted to know techniques etc though, but this points OP in a direction at least.

 

..and yes, Dogfighting and FAI differ a lot. In a dogfight all that counts is SURVIVE. No one judges you on HOW you did it as long as you did it.In FAI all that matters is HOW you did it. A very different mindset for the Pilot.

 

Actually it does matter a whole lot how you did it in a dogfight. Why? Because then you need to teach other pilots 'the right way'. Basic aircraft handling and aerobatics is the number one lesson in flying when it comes to a fighter. Next is BFM and associated tactics in 1v1, and yeah, it sure matters how you do them because ... if you do them wrong, you're done. Unless the other guy is screwing up even harder. And even then it matters, because the instructors want to know if it was you getting lucky, or if you did things right.

[SkateZilla]

Does comparing Sims to Radio Controlled Models Even apply to this topic?

 

Most if not ALL of the R/C Models I've seen and had a chance to fly had the most off the wall Thrust/HP to weight ratios; never mind the thrust/HP or weight even being to scale of the R/C models size.

[BitMaster]

Don't forget different physical effects dominate at different length scales, and I would guess that is why R/C sims might be more close to reality in the end. I guess (would have to look it up though) stuff like air compressibility, sonic effects,... can all be neglected at the R/C scale?

 

Insect aerodynamics are worlds away from A380 aerodynamics, even though they spawn from the same equations.

 

 

You are right to some extend and scale but as mentioned, some models, especially Jet powered and Slope Soaring especially reach very high subsonic speeds and experience static charge on protruding edges and Pitot pipes etc..

 

Usually Jet powered planes can easily go 400km/h and above but are limited by Pitot and Micro CPU to stay at around 380km/h for the static charge reason and visibility.

 

Sloap Soaring Gliders easily go 600+ km/h in a vertical tilted loop with around 300-400m diameter.

 

I am not aware of any jet going supersonic yet, despite I think, technically it would be possible but you would have to fly it FPV with onboard cam and a very reliable telemetry. Compression would be solved the same way as the Full Scale planes do it, actually no one would try to push a He-Salamander with straight wings beyond the sbarrier of sound, those guys know what they are doing. But building a swept back purpose-based model with enough power to push it I guess is possible, actually only a matter of times as those guys are more than crazy sometimes.

 

I know of a Me-262 that cruises at 550km/h at air shows, about 4 or 5m wingspan if I recall correctly, that was about 10 years ago.

 

Modest altitude is no problem as many popular flying sites are on mountains, higher than 10.000 feet. Some take their sailplanes to the Himalayans and soar at 18.000 ft. between the Peaks.

 

One guy in our club, the Lufthansa Cargo RL pilot, has a FPV combo that can provide a telemetry link way beyond 30km distance. He has flown from Ramstein AB ( actually the town next to it ) to the rhine vally and back at 1800m alt. That video is on Vimeo, search for TimR if u wanna see it.

Altough it is legally not allowed to do that they give a * about it and just do it. I am awaiting the headlines in the local paper that Ramstein ATC had an incident with a small R/C size object on their radar and calling for 2 F-16s or some SAM launchers LoL, I actually ask myself why they haven't had such problems yet as we are surrounded by military Air Bases, EWRs and SAM launch sites.

 

La Bourget ( hope spelled correctly ) in France has one of the biggest Large Scale R/C festivals in the world. There are small Full Size Aircraft that are smaller than some R/C ones.

 

One time a friend was admiring a ½ scale Pitts Special Biplane there and his mouth was open already till his jaw dropped to the floor when I guy came, opened the canopy, got in, started the engine and took off. Not 10m away was a R/C Biplane of bigger size, controlled by Radio haha.

 

Bit

[realtrance]

Bit I think you are mainly trying to share your joy with R/C, which is a good thing. DCS is a different beast, and has its own, unassailable joys as well. Neither are going to prove to be physics-perfect science across the board, so it's best in both cases to marvel at what's there, and how it can evolve, instead of worrying whether a donkey or a mule is a better four-legged creature. :)

[HansRoaming]

Missiles, RC models, Drones and manned aircraft all obey the same laws of physics, just saying.

[Abburo]

Bitmaster, I am sharing your passion for aeromodels and I also tried various trainers like Aerofly and RealFlight. Iam at that stage where I can say that I am able to " feel" the rc model in the air. It is more easier to fly a real thing after the RC experience then viceversa (basic commands). I know some pilots beeing unable or extremly hard to fly the little toys. Reasons for that are mainly two:

- the external view and lack of any physical feedback which they are used to.

- the Reynolds numbers which makes huge difference between RL and RC. Because of this coeficient even if the physics rules are the same, the dynamics therefore cannot be compared. For exactly same reason I dare to say that flying RC models is like arcade due to small inertia momentum comparing with big boys. And again for these reasons, makes no sense to compare realism between RC and 1:1 neither in real life, nor in simulation.

[leafer]

Airbus to insects. Bit, have you ever seen a dragonfly fly? That is alien physics.

[Exorcet]

Missiles, RC models, Drones and manned aircraft all obey the same laws of physics, just saying.

However there are reasons different physical models and equations are used for each. They're all bound by the same physics, but physics itself varies depending on your operating conditions.

 

A scaled down RC plane doesn't have to behave remotely close to a full sized one. One of the challenges in wind tunnel and scaled testing is making the small one behave like the larger one.

[HansRoaming]

However there are reasons different physical models and equations are used for each. They're all bound by the same physics, but physics itself varies depending on your operating conditions.

 

A scaled down RC plane doesn't have to behave remotely close to a full sized one. One of the challenges in wind tunnel and scaled testing is making the small one behave like the larger one.

 

Different Reynolds numbers means that aerodynamics will be different for different scales but its the same physics.

 

If computers could use Navier-Stokes equations in real time then RC sims and large aircraft sims would use exactly the same computational fluid dyanmics to work out how they would behave.

[CoBlue]

Yeah, it IS rocket science. I wouldn't even be too surprised if the FMs ED produces are "better" (more complete? with better overall coverage?) than those used by RL aircraft manufacturer. Those simulate their planes during development as well - and perhaps even more accurate (hey, lives depend on that!). BUT they probably only simulate things with a certain focus, whereas ED always simulates always the whole aircraft.

Do you really believe that ED has better resources & knowledge than Lockheed, NASA, Boeing, Airbus, Sukhoi, etc? Those company's have 10 000's of aerodynamic & aeronautical engineers, any one of those company's spend on 1day more then ED's net wort (now & in the future), they have extensive experience in REAL flight testing & simulator development etc......common! it's time for a reality check:lol:

[GGTharos]

The reality check is that these companies do as much as they are paid to do and no more. So yes, it is feasible that ED could create a better FM, because it is a work of passion vs a work for money. It isn't a reflection of capability, just a reflection of intent :)

 

All those companies might only need to write simulation code for simulating the systems and emergencies, and they might not be as interested in a super accurate FM.

 

Do you really believe that ED has better resources & knowledge than Lockheed, NASA, Boeing, Airbus, Sukhoi, etc? Those company's have 10 000's of aerodynamic & aeronautical engineers, any one of those company's spend on 1day more then ED's net wort (now & in the future), they have extensive experience in REAL flight testing & simulator development etc......common! it's time for a reality check:lol: