Fidelity ranking?

[tacky_taco]

Howdy,

 

I was wondering if there is a list somewhere that ranks the different modules by how deep they're simulated? Like, as far as I understand the FC3 ones aren't the most detailed aircrafts whereas the A10C is quite deep. I would like to know this list from top to bottom

[Brisse]

Making a list would not make sense, because most modules are created somewhat equally. The only thing you need to know is that any module branded as "Flaming Cliffs" is simplified.

 

Full fidelity modules currently available:

DCS: C-101 Aviojet by AvioDev

 

DCS: MiG-15bis by Belsimtek

 

Hawk T.1A for DCS World by VEAO Simulations

 

DCS: MiG-21bis by Leatherneck Simulations

 

DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst

 

DCS: F-86F Sabre by Belsimtek

 

DCS: Fw 190 D-9 Dora

 

DCS: Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight by Belsimtek

 

DCS: UH-1H Huey by Belsimtek

 

DCS: A-10C Warthog

 

DCS: P-51D Mustang

 

DCS: Black Shark 2

 

Simplified (Flaming Cliffs) modules currently available:

Su-27 for DCS World

 

F-15C for DCS World

 

Su-25 for DCS World

 

A-10A for DCS World

 

DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 (collection of several aircraft, including those listed above)

 

 

Other modules:

DCS: Combined Arms

Edited June 9, 2015 by Brisse

[rassy7]

Does the HAWK have the AFM yet? I thought they were waiting until DCS 2.0 to put that in.

[Snoopy]

Does the HAWK have the AFM yet? I thought they were waiting until DCS 2.0 to put that in.

 

No the AFM isn't out yet but it doesn't have anything to do with 2.0.

[rassy7]

No the AFM isn't out yet but it doesn't have anything to do with 2.0.

 

So we could see the AFM before 2.0? :thumbup:

[Snoopy]

So we could see the AFM before 2.0? :thumbup:

 

 

That is not anywhere near what I said.

[kontiuka]

So we could see the AFM before 2.0? :thumbup:

It's a possibility but only a possibility.

[Aginor]

@tacky taco:

Some of the planes are hard to compare. The A-10C is pretty complex, but it also has a lot of systems.

So actually the BF-109K4 might be simulated "deeper" if you judge the plane by how many % of its systems work exactly like in RL and how many % don't.

Extreme example: If the I-16 project will be finished as a proper DCS module (I hope so) you might even get every single switch working like in the real I-16 (because there aren't many switches) while there are more switches in the A-10C that don't work like in real life than the I-16 has in total! :D

 

Generally speaking: See Brisse's post above. The FC3 planes don't have clickable cockpits, and some planes have simpler flight models than others. (Hawk and C-101 are pretty deep, but with some stuff not working yet and a simpler flight model)

Overall I would say the "deepest" modules (realistic AND complex) at the moment are the MiG-21, the KA-50 and the A-10C, with the Belsimtek modules not far behind.

[King_Hrothgar]

This is somewhat a matter of opinion as not everyone places the same emphasis on different aspects. So I'll simply rank them based on flight modeling, systems modeling and overall complexity individually.

 

Flight modeling:

High fidelity: P-51D, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, MiG-15, F-86, MiG-21, Ka-50 and A-10C.

Medium fidelity: UH-1H, Mi-8, A-10A, Su-25A, Su-25T, Su-27 and F-15C.

Low fidelity: MiG-29A/S/G, Su-33, Hawk and C-101.

 

Systems:

High fidelity: P-51D, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, MiG-15, Ka-50, A-10C

Medium fidelity: MiG-21, Mi-8, UH-1H, Hawk, C-101

Low fidelity: All FC3, Su-25T.

 

In terms of overall complexity:

1) A-10C

2) Ka-50, MiG-21, Mi-8

3) UH-1H, WW2 stuff, F-86, MiG-15, trainers

4) FC3, Su-25T

[NineLine]

Your list has issues.. for example... the Su-27 and F-15C are PFM, thats the top of the line FM from ED...

 

See the word file attached to this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

It needs updating some, but you get the idea.

 

Edit: the word file has been updated.

Edited June 9, 2015 by NineLine

[King_Hrothgar]

Not all PFM's are created equal. The Su-27 doesn't have over stressing damage for example. That's kind of a big deal when someone can switch off the FCS and do a 50G turn at mach 2 without negative consequences.;) Even some of the older AFM standard planes like the A-10A suffer damage in those kinds of cases.

Edited June 9, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[NineLine]

That's damage modeling not flight model....

[theropod]

Not all PFM's are created equal. The Su-27 doesn't have over stressing damage for example. That's kind of a big deal when someone can switch off the FCS and do a 50G turn at mach 2 without negative consequences.;) Even some of the older AFM standard planes like the A-10A suffer damage in those kinds of cases.

 

su-27 and f-15 are still at beta stage ,both aircrafts has similar problem at higher speeds, we disscused that issues before.

now ,all we can expect to see stress and damage model when those aircrafts enter the final stage.

[King_Hrothgar]

It's directly related to how the plane flies, thus I consider it a component of the flight model just like negative G engine stalls on some planes. Either way, it's clear why I rated it lower than other PFM/EFM planes.

 

Edit: ninja'd, I rated flight models in that list as they exist today. There is no way to judge things that haven't been made yet.

[Snarf]

This is somewhat a matter of opinion as not everyone places the same emphasis on different aspects. So I'll simply rank them based on flight modeling, systems modeling and overall complexity individually.

 

Flight modeling:

High fidelity: P-51D, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, MiG-15, F-86, MiG-21, Ka-50 and A-10C.

Medium fidelity: UH-1H, Mi-8, A-10A, Su-25A, Su-25T, Su-27 and F-15C.

Low fidelity: MiG-29A/S/G, Su-33, Hawk and C-101.

 

Systems:

High fidelity: P-51D, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, MiG-15, Ka-50, A-10C

Medium fidelity: MiG-21, Mi-8, UH-1H, Hawk, C-101

Low fidelity: All FC3, Su-25T.

 

In terms of overall complexity:

1) A-10C

2) Ka-50, MiG-21, Mi-8

3) UH-1H, WW2 stuff, F-86, MiG-15, trainers

4) FC3, Su-25T

 

Cant see why you would rate the UH1H and MI8 as medium fidelity. Both have a very high level of detail and great flight models, the UH1H especially. They easily surpass the aircraft you grouped them with in terms of detail and should be in the high fidelity group. Though I would say your about right in terms of complexity.

[msalama]

The Huey FM medium fidelity? What do you base this claim on? According to folks flying real helicoptes, it's actually very hi-fi.

[tacky_taco]

Your list has issues.. for example... the Su-27 and F-15C are PFM, thats the top of the line FM from ED...

 

See the word file attached to this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

It needs updating some, but you get the idea.

 

Edit: the word file has been updated.

 

Great link, just the clarification I was looking for!

 

I'm about to give up on the frogfoot so this was a good place to check out what to try next. I was set on the F-86F but was majorly disappointed to see it didn't have any traning or campaign :(

 

Then I thought Mig 21! I only played through the first training. Seems like it was not taken very seriously and was more of a joke than actual training so nah..

 

So now it's time to try my hand at the P-51D!

 

I know, the grass is always greener... :D

[King_Hrothgar]

The MiG-21's first training mission is a joke, they are poking fun at the A-10C's training while also showing how to cold start the plane. It's something you'd have to play the A-10C's training missions to appreciate. In any case, welcome to the addiction. :)