Question about fidelity / realism

[Nerd1000]

Yes as WD says in close combat it is not a good place to use TWS even with it not suffering the prediction delay/error and smaller scan pattern of the real limitations of TWS. Unless they have already acquired the bandit from range and are continuing the attack, to start looking for a pop up close with TWS is not good. Vertical, Flood and Bore modes are far more effective for finding surprise targets when they come within 20km in mountainous areas especially when they have a 'U' on the RWR.

 

 

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for correcting me. Out of curiosity, is it a common thing to attack more than one target at the same time in TWS, or is the main benefit of it the 'silent' BVR launch capabilities?

[Frostie]

Silent launch, attacking multiple targets while doable it's just hard enough to take out one highly mobile opponent never mind two.

[Exorcet]

Silent launch is most important given how DCS works now, but I think that tracking multiple targets is fairly valuable. Ironically it's probably better used against more disciplined squadrons or non solo flights because they're more likely to be close and more likely to take advantage of your tunnel vision on a single bandit. Another good point about multi target tracking is when you can convince the second target that you shot at that you didn't see it, usually by turning away from it and looking at the first target. Then they have a silent launch and hopefully a false notion of security.

[Stuge]

Multi launch does provide the occasional double kill. More rare treats also happen, like triple kill or quadruple kill. Usually when the target formation is fully focused on formation flying shortly after takeoff rather than scanning for threats :)

[Flycat]

Sorry about pump up this thread. I think we should limit and focus on the scope of discussion, do not casual to expand the discussion, that will have a result on easy ways.

 

So in order to except the effect of clickable cockpit and aircrafts between different generations, why not compare Flight modeling between FC3's aircraft?

 

And I still confuse about different between every level of flight model, I read that Product Terms many times but could not catch the essence, who can give a clearly example to explain the different between SFM, AFM and PFM during the flight?

 

The last question is what the flight level and system modeling for the module which produced by partner and 3rd partner? ED only list their owned product on that product terms, I thinks it's better to have a list about the realism level of FM and system for every module.

 

Finally, PCFS is still simulator on computer, not the real aircraft, and I just hope much closer to real world, much better, and not everyone have chance to server for the nation and military for many reasons. (however this sentence is not the key point which need to be discussed, it's just my personal thinking, thanks.) Thanks for the guys could answer my questions at first. Have a nice day. (don't blame me plz)

[enigma6584]

Silent launch, attacking multiple targets while doable it's just hard enough to take out one highly mobile opponent never mind two.

 

But when flying with another human being (wingman), TWS mode is also good for one guy acting as mini-AWACS, feeding his wingman descriptive data as to what is going on out in front while said wingman is tasked as the killer. Mini-AWACs is back-up. I have found this to be quite effective. As GG and others have said in previous posts, teamwork is the paramount key in realistic virtual combat flying.

[skinnadoor]

DCS is amazing...plain and simple. When you see the beginnings of flight sims for PC back in the day, to where they are now, well...

 

ED has made things as real as possible for PC flight sims, more so then any other company.

 

I do enjoy when people complain about DCS.....as it is simply the best and some people are just too stunned to realize it.

[Fri13]

DCS is amazing...plain and simple. When you see the beginnings of flight sims for PC back in the day, to where they are now, well...

 

ED has made things as real as possible for PC flight sims, more so then any other company.

 

That is true only for half of the DCSWorld.

 

Combat Aircrafts flight modeling is top notch, beated by only the real simulators.

The level of the working cockpit is just same, there just isn't same level elsewhere.

 

But....

 

Targeting systems (radars/IR) etc are fairly basic. And even more basic is really the terrain. It hasn't really changed much since what.... Flanker 2.0! Nice graphical refreshments from textures to terrain mesh resolution and building textures and lighting, but not really anything groundbreaking.

 

We are still flying on the same "flat" billiard table, trees are just there as visual effect, but not as gameplay effect. A simple AA units that has just a basic radar with very narrow beam width and only used for range metering is still there revealing the unit everywhere like Christmas Tree at night. And ground units really doesn't offer any real danger or challenge as they should.

 

We have DCSWorld that is very awesome and deeply simulated in the perspective for cockpit pilots and altitude fighters. But lower altitudes we get and more we get to combine fighters with ground units, less realistic simulation it becomes.

 

And let not start with the AI....

(You fly 900kph at low altitude and 23-2 can easily hit you. Now fly a 180kph with helicopter at same altitude and path and the same 23-2 doesn't even shoot at your direction!)

 

 

 

Yes, there is great realism and fidelity when we sit in the A-10C cockpit, no matter is the aircraft flying or parked to airfield. But once the A-10C is operating against ground units, the realism can be thrown out of the window almost totally as there isn't the level or realism as there should be.

[XeNoise]

Heh yeah it's true that paradoxically, FC3 offers for me the most complex and satisfying air combat experience available, no contest. Clickable cockpit isn't very relevant when it comes to tactics. Also, I like the missiles the way they are. When missiles aren't ultra-effective-one-shot-kill-devices, it leaves more tactical options for the pilot, which is great :)

 

I've flown combat sims for 20 years and this is the best. Eagle+Flanker PFMs are dreams come true. Thank you ED <3

IMHO clickable cockpits are nice, but in the end they are meant for: startup, takeoff, navigation and radio. During combat all difference between ssm and asm disappears.

 

Anyways, i would prefer to bind all functions on my keyboard/joystick rather than clicking arround.

[FlankerKiller]

Yeah, that MiG-21 relic is a world beater. In game, the AI MiG-21s have super abilities in close-in knife fights. Unfortunately, the real world does not correlate quite so kindly. The restricted visibility from that cockpit alone is a huge disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun module, but I wouldn't get wrapped around the axle that it is the paragon of realism.

Like what? I've taken on eight expert AI Mig-21's in an F-15c, guns only. I wasted all of them with ammo to spare. the AI Mig is only slightly better then the player Mig. As for a world beater I haven't seen it. Mig-29S is a world beater.

 

I just took on the AI Mig-21 in the Mig-21 module in a heater fight. I beat him two out of three fights. I see no evidence of "super abilities". It's a good dog fighter, and it is in real life, but it's no world beater.

Edited September 13, 2015 by FlankerKiller

[esb77]

.......

 

To summarize, this is a rather verbose way of asking my own doubts: are the data table based flight models more appropriated to professional grade simulators? In other words, is it easier to replicated the behavior of an aircraft with them, rather than with the 'forces integration' approach? (The so much hailed AFM and PFM by the way)

 

The problem with the performance data approach is that the data points available are actually pretty sparse. The bulk of the flight envelope is interpolation between those data points, and will give poor results if anything interesting is going on in terms of aerodynamics.

 

A math modeler or engineer would tell you that this sort of model is adequate for, "well behaved regions of the flight envelope," where a high degree of accuracy is not needed in the output.

 

It's the cheapest and easiest sort of model to build, but in most respects accuracy wise is going to be the worst option available unless you stick to the very strict constraints on where it produces good results.

 

The blade element model that the AFM/PFM uses the physical attributes of the plane that can be filled in more accurately and more fully than is the case for most performance charts, and then if the parameters are pretty accurate and the aerodynamic model is good, you have reasonably good output over all or almost all of the flight envelope even in varied conditions.

 

Basically ED is using the best model possible given the current constraints on user computing power, available aircraft data, and financial constraints.

 

A full CFD would give more accurate results (with accurate aircraft data) but that's so computationally intensive that even aircraft manufacturers limit their use of that sort of simulation. I doubt most of us are ready to play DCS at one or two frames per day for the sake of accuracy.

[FlankerKiller]

That is true only for half of the DCSWorld.

 

Combat Aircrafts flight modeling is top notch, beated by only the real simulators.

The level of the working cockpit is just same, there just isn't same level elsewhere.

 

But....

 

Targeting systems (radars/IR) etc are fairly basic. And even more basic is really the terrain. It hasn't really changed much since what.... Flanker 2.0! Nice graphical refreshments from textures to terrain mesh resolution and building textures and lighting, but not really anything groundbreaking.

 

We are still flying on the same "flat" billiard table, trees are just there as visual effect, but not as gameplay effect. A simple AA units that has just a basic radar with very narrow beam width and only used for range metering is still there revealing the unit everywhere like Christmas Tree at night. And ground units really doesn't offer any real danger or challenge as they should.

 

We have DCSWorld that is very awesome and deeply simulated in the perspective for cockpit pilots and altitude fighters. But lower altitudes we get and more we get to combine fighters with ground units, less realistic simulation it becomes.

 

And let not start with the AI....

(You fly 900kph at low altitude and 23-2 can easily hit you. Now fly a 180kph with helicopter at same altitude and path and the same 23-2 doesn't even shoot at your direction!)

 

 

 

Yes, there is great realism and fidelity when we sit in the A-10C cockpit, no matter is the aircraft flying or parked to airfield. But once the A-10C is operating against ground units, the realism can be thrown out of the window almost totally as there isn't the level or realism as there should be.

I agree largely. The ground units and there AI need some work, especially radar equipped close in AA units. Having armor behave like armor would make CAS so much more fun. The infantry is really cool and there AI is a large step forward, they will "stalk" vehicles, each other, and even the occasional helicopter. It would greatly improve the game if MANPADS could move with the infantry. It would also be nice if there were more types of infantry, and all country's had them.

[NineLine]

The truth is that planes with PFM certification still need corrections after release, what contradicts the fact that it was PFM. (the trick here is the 'beta' label :P)

 

The SME is still working on the F-15C, its true, but all that means is that we got access to (in many of our cases for free) early access to the PFM on the F-15. Its a two way benefit, we can offer up bug reports, and we get to enjoy it early. It doesn't say anything about ED's (or in this case BSTs) ability to create such a dynamic FM or contradict that it is a PFM.

[NineLine]

About what I said in that part, I want to clarify that I'm not unhappy with ED. It's just that to me it's a great example of the difficulties (and probably an imposibility) of creating a perfect replica in a computer of a real aircraft.

The truth is that I'm hooked to DCS. It's just that talking about what 'realism' means for each one and what is realistic and what not, etc; it's just so entertaining. But I'm always afraid of sounding unrespectful to ED's work.

 

You will never hit full realism in any type of sim, least not now, certain aspects just cant be simulated fully yet. That said, when the Eagle SME says that what he is flying in ED is better than what he has flown (simulator wise) over his career, I am going to say we have a pretty good simulation :)

[Flycat]

Thanks for you guys reply the thread again with useful example for the detail of every FM. I can have a better detail explanation of it to my friends.

And could I have the official announcement about the Flight &System level confirmed by ED for every module? I think the EFM is like "we have the flight model, but the detail of it have no comment", always make others confuse for it.

[NineLine]

Thanks for you guys reply the thread again with useful example for the detail of every FM. I can have a better detail explanation of it to my friends.

And could I have the official announcement about the Flight &System level confirmed by ED for every module? I think the EFM is like "we have the flight model, but the detail of it have no comment", always make others confuse for it.

 

EFM only describes that it is created outside of ED, so 3rd Party FMs.

[=Pedro=]

(I don't think I've ever been engaged by an F-15 using TWS in multi-player)

 

:megalol:

[=Pedro=]

That is true only for half of the DCSWorld.

 

Combat Aircrafts flight modeling is top notch, beated by only the real simulators.

The level of the working cockpit is just same, there just isn't same level elsewhere.

 

But....

 

Targeting systems (radars/IR) etc are fairly basic. And even more basic is really the terrain. It hasn't really changed much since what.... Flanker 2.0! Nice graphical refreshments from textures to terrain mesh resolution and building textures and lighting, but not really anything groundbreaking.

 

We are still flying on the same "flat" billiard table, trees are just there as visual effect, but not as gameplay effect. A simple AA units that has just a basic radar with very narrow beam width and only used for range metering is still there revealing the unit everywhere like Christmas Tree at night. And ground units really doesn't offer any real danger or challenge as they should.

 

We have DCSWorld that is very awesome and deeply simulated in the perspective for cockpit pilots and altitude fighters. But lower altitudes we get and more we get to combine fighters with ground units, less realistic simulation it becomes.

 

And let not start with the AI....

(You fly 900kph at low altitude and 23-2 can easily hit you. Now fly a 180kph with helicopter at same altitude and path and the same 23-2 doesn't even shoot at your direction!)

 

 

 

Yes, there is great realism and fidelity when we sit in the A-10C cockpit, no matter is the aircraft flying or parked to airfield. But once the A-10C is operating against ground units, the realism can be thrown out of the window almost totally as there isn't the level or realism as there should be.

 

:thumbup: