Realistic flight model compared to....

[GurbY]

A question I've been asking myself the last few weeks: how realistic is the A10C flight model compared to, lets say, the flight models of planes in Flight Simulator X and Prepar3D?

 

The reason I'm asking is as followed. I've been a simulator fan since Flight Simulator from Bruce Artwick (... yes... really..).

Until FSX I really thought it gave quite a good performance. In the tech forum's I'm on here in the Netherlands, there is a special Flight Sim section. People over there consider FSX and Prepar3d (and X-Plane) real flight simulators. DCS World is considered a "game".

 

However. I've been flying glider- and motorplanes for over 16 years, and since I'm flying the A10C I really think the flight characteristics implemented in DCS World (A10C) are way more sophisticated than the flight models in FSX/etc.

 

What do you think..?

Edited April 13, 2015 by GurbY

[OnlyforDCS]

No one who has flown any DCS study sim (such as the DCS: A10C) can say that it's just a 'game' when compared to those two other sims, with a straight face.

 

DCS has many issues, the foremost being visibility and missile modeling. But the flight models are simply superb. The only potentially better simulators out there are either commericial simulators or military sims. In other words, on the PC, it doesn't get any better than DCS.

[skendzie]

Agreed. While the "game" severely struggles with AI, visibility, and the missile AFM, the flight model and weapon systems are pure joy. It's just so damn fun to have a couple of your drunk friends try to take off in a UH-1H Huey for example.

 

"I bet you $10 you can't take off without crashing."

 

"Pfffff, just tell me the controls and I'll do it. No problem."

 

Easy money. Works 60% of the time...everytime :D

[Teapot]

This is why I NEED a DCS civvie sim. Nothing comes close in the civvie market to DCS fidelity ... I live in hope that a Sandbox Sim will one day realise it's potential with accurate world map and a few turboprops ... but lets have a few complete WWII theaters first ;).

 

Really ... nothing comes close.

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember Ka-50-2 has A-10C on DCS: W has the "entertainment" versions as a technology demonstrator by Kamok of the Ka-50, and A-10C the "civil" version of a cockpit training destock simulator by the Air National Guard military products. Not sure if the UH-1H and Mi-9 has similar (a BST Mi-8 version has used on pilot training), and the level of the DCS: W addons has very high compare with the most of products on FSX and P3D (I think only PMDG can reach that category on FSX/P3D)

[kefuddle]

PMDG NGX is a study sim par excellence and due to the nature of the subject it is more complex than the DCS A10. With FS2Crew it is way ahead of anything DCS can offer. But the flight model is not realistic and suffers from the usual FSX limitations, I am a 737 Captain so can see the differences more so than most. Whilst the DCS flight models seem to be very realistic and believable in most regimes of flight.

 

I would say, however, that sometimes that realism results in an experience that is more difficult than reality because of the lack of sensory information and the unrealistic nature of standard flight sim controls. So such realism can be a double edged sword.

Edited April 13, 2015 by kefuddle

[StrongHarm]

From an interview with Producer Matt (Wags) Wagner:

 

DCS: A-10C Warthog was an outgrowth of the A-10C Desktop Trainer we did for the Air National Guard, U.S. Air Force, and Reserves. Much of the A-10C specific avionics were brought over directly to the DCS A-10C. However, the 6 DOF cockpit, 3D model, flight dynamics, engine, hydraulic, electrical, lighting, emergency, flight control, and fuel systems are all new and much more advanced than the military version. After working on the software A-10C for a couple of years I had the opportunity to sit in the USAF full dome A-10C cockpit simulator. Based on our software, I was able to start up the aircraft, taxi, take off, navigate, kill the target, and land without a problem. I see no reason why one of our DCS: A-10C Warthog customers could not do the same.

[KesMonkey]

Any time that I've read the opinions of those that seem to know what they're talking about, they all say the same thing. FSX is great at simulating some of the procedures of flying, such as navigation methods, air traffic control etc. But in terms of flight modelling and combat systems modelling FSX can't even begin to compare with what DCS offers.

 

I really think the flight characteristics implemented in DCS World (A10C) are way more sophisticated than the flight models in FSX/etc.

I highly doubt that anyone familiar with both FSX and DCS would disagree. You might find it difficult to convince FSX fans of that though. PC Pilot magazine (which covers FSX more than it does any other simulator) has advocated the authenticity of DCS on multiple occasions.

Edited April 13, 2015 by KesMonkey

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Top quality in flight dynamics, and some aspects of systems modelling - DCS

Top quality for an airliner sim - Aerowinx PSX

Good for World Wide Visuas - FSX or X-plane 10

 

I use:

 

1) DCS

2) Aerowinx PSX + FSX : SE + ORBX FTX Global + ASN for the visuals ( terrain and weather ), and some freeware and a payware scenery...

 

Nothing, not even the best prop add-ons in FSX or even worse, X-Plane 10, can fall short of what DCS offers... The P51d, the Dora, now the K4, and I am sure the upcoming ww2 modules.

 

When it comes to rotary wing, again, nothing can be compared with DCS ...

 

What I dream of ? A C130, C212, ... for DCS :-) Or a Tanker! Or a B52, a Hustler maybe ... well....

Edited April 13, 2015 by jcomm

[Yurgon]

[..] It's just so damn fun to have a couple of your drunk friends try to take off in a UH-1H Huey for example.

 

"I bet you $10 you can't take off without crashing."

 

"Pfffff, just tell me the controls and I'll do it. No problem."

 

Easy money. Works 60% of the time...everytime :D

 

Haha, gotta try that sometime. :lol:

[PFunk1606688187]

Depends on what we're talking about. Out of the box FSX isn't even close. Some of the third party developers however do a very respectable job with flight models by using external simulation.

 

There are plenty of holes in the flight model for the A-10, things that are probably or definitely not right. On the whole though its easily the best combat aircraft flight model ever. However I'd be confident in stating that the PMDG 777 has greater total systems modeling than the A-10, but thats like talking about 95% versus 99%.

 

That's a very very very small sector of FSX add on aircraft that could even enter the conversation. Like a half dozen at most. On the whole its just not even a worthy comparison though.

[SharpeXB]

There's a good PC Pilot issue all on DCS: A-10C that describes it not just as the best combat flight sim, but the best overall flight sim ever, inclusive of MFS

[kefuddle]

Top quality in flight dynamics, and some aspects of systems modelling - DCS

Top quality for an airliner sim - Aerowinx PSX

Good for World Wide Visuas - FSX or X-plane 10

And as I know you are aware Jcomm, in terms of simulated aircraft behaviour within normal flight envelopes, instrument and avionics simulation and failure modes, the most realistic is the little known ELITE Pilot 8.x IFR training software for populate GA types. I believe this has been overlooked by most because of the basic visuals. But less is more and with the Genview visuals proper VFR navigation techniques can be practiced, which is quite ironic. But it is expensive.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

And as I know you are aware Jcomm, in terms of simulated aircraft behaviour within normal flight envelopes, instrument and avionics simulation and failure modes, the most realistic is the little known ELITE Pilot 8.x IFR training software for populate GA types. I believe this has been overlooked by most because of the basic visuals. But less is more and with the Genview visuals proper VFR navigation techniques can be practiced, which is quite ironic. But it is expensive.

 

I absolutely agree!!! I didn't mention ELITE simply because it's on another level, just as the recently released airlinetools Airbus sim... and PSX after all... they are all very specific study sims...

 

BTW: ELITE v9 will probably get released anytime soon this year! The graphics of the cockpits have been considerably updated. For serious GA training, without any doubt, ELITE is the ** ONLY ** way to go!

 

Here's the link to a review of ELITE I wrote last year! Bear in mind I am not associated commercially or even as a beta tester with ELITE. I am just a customer!

 

ELITE v8.6 Review and SimReviewsHouse.com

Edited April 14, 2015 by jcomm

[ARM505]

The thing is, you need to look at what you need the thing to be able to do, or do realistically.

 

I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be? I have the PMDG model, it's very good too, and in 95% of situations it's close enough as to be bang on. If I want to start high G turns, riding the stick shaker kind of stuff, barrel rolls and trying to exceed Mach 1, it may be less realistic (not that I would know!) but it doesn't really need to do that stuff at all to provide a realistic experience, because the real aircraft never do that (sure, it would be nice, and it does do a good enough job there anyway).

 

Combat aircraft sims on the other hand, have a MUCH higher bar to be met - aircraft must be able to be flown to the absolute bleeding edge of performance AND be simulated at that same edge with varying degrees of damage. I'd say the job of the combat sim dev is considerably harder, it's actually amazing what ED have achieved IMHO. The same with rotary winged flight, it's all about the FM details and how it translates into the actual sim. Even stuff like Dodosims B206 for FSX doesn't compare well to DCS. A2A warbirds for FSX/P3D are, IMHO, really well done, and frankly better than DCS when it comes to the 'feel' of sitting in an old cockpit, but don't compare all that well at the extreme outer 5% of the flight model on the other hand.

 

The bottom line is that DCS is both required to, and DOES satisfy the far tougher demands placed on it. I'd be amazed if anybody who's put both FSX and DCS through their paces would think otherwise, or dismiss it outright.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be? I have the PMDG model, it's very good too, and in 95% of situations it's close enough as to be bang on. If I want to start high G turns, riding the stick shaker kind of stuff, barrel rolls and trying to exceed Mach 1, it may be less realistic (not that I would know!) but it doesn't really need to do that stuff at all to provide a realistic experience, because the real aircraft never do that (sure, it would be nice, and it does do a good enough job there anyway).

 

ARM, then I think I am watching some of your videos ( at least one on the Mig-21 I bought yesterday after being in the fence for quite a while ( since it's release )... Excellent video btw! Thx!

 

Regarding PMDG stuff, I agree, it's great, but heck, while I accept that modeling beyond the normal envelope is not really required, I dismay with the effects of failing an engine in the NGX... It continues like if nothing had happened - and this is the stuff that I really think SHOULD be simulated more plausibly...

 

Fail an engine in the A10C, Su-27, F15, even in the Mig, and you'll notice the effects...

 

But indeed, it really is something I can't understand - why can't the civil sim makers get better performance and even more complexity when combat flightsims can cope with som much more details and complex effects, like damage models, the modeling of AI aircraft and other vehicles... etc...

Edited April 14, 2015 by jcomm

[GurbY]

...Fail an engine in the A10C, Su-27, F15, even in the Mig, and you'll notice the effects...

Heck... even shooting a Mav and you'll notice the plane loosing weight on one side...

Little, little bit too much vertical speed (towards the globe, that is...) and you stall when you try to flare above the runway, those are the things that add to reality in my opinion.

[kefuddle]

The thing is, you need to look at what you need the thing to be able to do, or do realistically.

 

I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be? I have the PMDG model, it's very good too, and in 95% of situations it's close enough as to be bang on. If I want to start high G turns, riding the stick shaker kind of stuff, barrel rolls and trying to exceed Mach 1, it may be less realistic (not that I would know!) but it doesn't really need to do that stuff at all to provide a realistic experience, because the real aircraft never do that (sure, it would be nice, and it does do a good enough job there anyway).

 

Like wise Arm. But you'll frequently go well beyond the normal envelope during your recurrent sims with stalls and unusual attitude recovery so we have some inclining of what it would be like to hoon in a 737 :D But even engine failures in any FSX multi (NGX included) is a surreal and bizarre experience compared to the real thing and Level D version of the real thing. Xplane is better than FSX in this regard but still not quite right. So we do know how bad FSX in this regard, even if the actual systems simulations are very complex and realistic.

 

To be honest, I never really bothered to examine DCS A10 in this regard. However, for a straight wing aircraft, it did strike me as being very sensitive to rudder inputs. But I'm not in a position to know if this is a characteristic of the actual aircraft or not.

[OnlyforDCS]

The thing is, you need to look at what you need the thing to be able to do, or do realistically.

 

I fly B738's for a living, and I don't stall them. So how realistic do I need it's 'edge of the envelope' flight model to really be?

 

I find that rhetorical question rather strange, coming from a real pilot. Wouldn't you find it advantageous to at least practice emergency procedures in a sim environment, just in case you have to deal with it in real life? Flying at the edge of the envelope falls square into that category.

[kefuddle]

We do as I described above. We call them "recurrent sims", every six months with an License Proficiency Check every year and a more lenient Operator Proficiency Check at the intervening six month point. Always includes stalls and what we call "unusually attitude" recovery., which is the aircraft at an extreme bank and pitch attitude, usually sprung on us by surprise by examiners who clearly love their jobs :D

[ARM505]

Perhaps I should clarify - People knock FSX for having poor FM's, but if you're planning on operating a B737 realistically, you won't be stalling it - hence my comments on what you need it to do.

 

As for the real sims, I'm pretty sure people here would be able to pick them apart too. Basically they'll be trying to recreate what we're supposed to be on the lookout for - stick shaker or aerodynamic buffet, all the correct instrument indications (PLI's, ASI in the red etc) and then a realistic outcome (rapid ROD with corresponding alt loss for example, slow engine spool up at high alts etc) with the correct response to proper recovery procedures and the correct pitfalls (ie rapid nose up pitching moment on spool up etc).

 

Interestingly enough, on renewals and prof checks, we almost always recover IMMEDIATELY on the stick shaker, ie we never let it progress to a full aerodynamic stall. Only when we're specifically told to hold it in until the stall do we feel the actual buffet, or during high altitude stalls where you'll feel the buffet before the stick shaker. But of course the full aerodynamic model is done as accurately as possible. So, to answer my own rhetorical question, the full Level D does require a high degree of fidelity, and delivers what is needed. But I can pretty much guarantee it would still be given a big ripping by quite a few PC sim fans! Because it's still not exactly like the real aircraft, just 'close enough' :)

 

P.S. I haven't made any videos so I can't claim credit for that! The MiG21 is an awesome purchase anyway....so that's a win anyway!

[NineLine]

Sorry guys, ED doesnt like these kind of discussions on their forums. They usually turn into the bashing of other companies and their products, and there are forums that thrive on that, this isnt one of them. SO this is well off topic for this sub section and forum all together. Closed.