DCS World 1.5 and 2.0 Discussion

[wolle]

Let's hope that we will have an update tomorrow, and let's hope it's for 2.0. NTTR hasn't seen an update for a long time...:music_whistling:

 

2.5 would be even nicer, of course

[MegOhm_SD]

We could go on and on about all the things coming...maybe they will start trickling out "soon". After all, 2016 is about halfway done.

 

A decent and thorough update would do wonders for the suffering masses.

[Drag0nWIng]

sooooooooooon

[Zulu]

DCS not so good at simulating High Altitude?

 

So I may be completely wrong with this but does DCS simulate high altitude well? Say 30 000ft+?

 

Because, I have been fiddling around in the ME and to my mind an AWACS (E3) aircraft should be fine at 30 000ft but rather it struggles to maintain altitude and speed? I mean that's a standard altitude for an airliner?

 

Same with say a Mig-25 or 31, they don't seem to be able to sustain their speed or altitude at 30 000+ even though they are designed exactly for that.

 

Or am I doing/understanding something very wrong?

[Bourrinopathe]

Afaik, the atmosphere at these altitudes should be fine.

I'm not sure how many parameters are modeled (drag, density, oxygen, temperature, etc.) but a MiG-31 is definitely comfortable at 10000 m, 580 kmh, AoA 4.3°, no afterburner - (just tested in the Nevada terrain).

Are you sure you did set the altitude correctly in the ME?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Bourrinopathe

[Yurgon]

Because, I have been fiddling around in the ME and to my mind an AWACS (E3) aircraft should be fine at 30 000ft but rather it struggles to maintain altitude and speed? I mean that's a standard altitude for an airliner?

 

Could it be a problem with IAS vs. GS? I believe the speeds entered in the editor are always ground speed, and values suited for low alt would probably not work that well at high altitudes, unless you wanted to force AWACS to go supersonic. :D

[Zulu]

Could it be a problem with IAS vs. GS? I believe the speeds entered in the editor are always ground speed, and values suited for low alt would probably not work that well at high altitudes, unless you wanted to force AWACS to go supersonic. :D

 

Might be I will play around a bit more.

 

Afaik, the atmosphere at these altitudes should be fine.

I'm not sure how many parameters are modeled (drag, density, oxygen, temperature, etc.) but a MiG-31 is definitely comfortable at 10000 m, 580 kmh, AoA 4.3°, no afterburner - (just tested in the Nevada terrain).

Are you sure you did set the altitude correctly in the ME?

 

I am only on 1.5.3 but I'm sure there can't be any differences in this regard between the two, so that sounds promising. It may be as Yurgon said above, about IAS vs GS.

 

Thanks for your help chaps. :)

[Drag0nWIng]

 

Wags didn't post it on forums, I noticed that the patch in this video is 2.1.0, the terrain pack became the dlc and 2 of them(black sea and NTTR) had merged into one client.

[Raven68]

...

Wags didn't post it on forums, I noticed that the patch in this video is 2.1.0, the terrain pack became the dlc and 2 of them(black sea and NTTR) had merged into one client.

 

The moderators fly wing to Wags also... :D

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2810154&postcount=25

[SkateZilla]

The moderators fly wing to Wags also... :D

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2810154&postcount=25

 

 

 

We lug pig iron for Michelangelo.

[SyntaxError]

Hey how do you get the view Wags has in the latest stream @ 14:00? It sort of looks like he's moving the camera with the head-tracking but not really?

[SkateZilla]

It looks like the externals allow TrackIR/HMD to control rotation of camera.

[SyntaxError]

It looks like the externals allow TrackIR/HMD to control rotation of camera.

I'm assuming it's an upcoming addition as I haven't noticed this in 1.5?

[Zulu]

Could it be a problem with IAS vs. GS? I believe the speeds entered in the editor are always ground speed, and values suited for low alt would probably not work that well at high altitudes, unless you wanted to force AWACS to go supersonic. :D

 

Thanks Yurgon, I just checked and you are right. I was inputting what I thought was a reasonable IAS but it is infact ground speed that you put in the editor.

 

All good now.

[SkateZilla]

I'm assuming it's an upcoming addition as I haven't noticed this in 1.5?

 

That would prolly be the best conclusion.

[Yurgon]

Thanks Yurgon, I just checked and you are right. I was inputting what I thought was a reasonable IAS but it is infact ground speed that you put in the editor.

 

All good now.

 

Glad I could help. :thumbup:

[USSInchon]

Glad to hear that the Black Sea Map is getting a much needed overhaul. Be interesting to see what they are going to incorporate into it.

[dartuil]

Just noticed in last stream WAGS is in 2.1 and he have both maps.

So tiger come with 2.1?

Mig29 new model too!

Edited June 18, 2016 by dartuil

[NineLine]

No, he is in the developer version, they can pull aspects out of that and build release versions as things are ready.

[dartuil]

No, he is in the developer version, they can pull aspects out of that and build release versions as things are ready.

 

 

Ahh I see I forgot about the dev version sorry. :smilewink:

[cichlidfan]

Thanks Yurgon, I just checked and you are right. I was inputting what I thought was a reasonable IAS but it is infact ground speed that you put in the editor.

 

All good now.

 

How does it make sense for an aircraft simulation ME to wan't aircraft speeds input as ground speed?

[Yurgon]

How does it make sense for an aircraft simulation ME to wan't aircraft speeds input as ground speed?

 

I think it makes a whole lot of sense. If it was airspeed, then waypoint timings would have to take wind into account, and changing the wind in the ME would probably change all the timings. And dynamic weather might make it practically impossible to calculate them at all.

 

I guess entering speeds as GS is the easy way in terms of creating the GUI for the ME. If it was IAS, the ME would need to perform much deeper logic calculations - not impossible, but a lot more work.

 

Of course, the best way would be if it was up to mission creators to choose which one they want for each waypoint. But on the long, long list of items that could be improved in DCS, personally, I'd rate this pretty low.

 

It would just make sense to add "GS" next to the input field to make it more obvious to mission creators what the value means. :thumbup:

[cichlidfan]

It would just make sense to add "GS" next to the input field to make it more obvious to mission creators what the value means. :thumbup:

 

It would make sense to document lots of things about the ME.

[Raven68]

It would make sense to document lots of things about the ME.

 

I agree 100%. As powerful as it is there are a lot of functions that are very vague.

[Bourrinopathe]

It's already in the manual (page 130) ;)

(DCS User Manual EN.pdf)

 

SPEED. Indicates the desired ground speed for the waypoint as set by the user when the speed is locked or as automatically calculated by the mission editor when the speed is unlocked. Note, at high altitudes the ground speed is significantly different (higher) than indicated airspeed, which is displayed in the aircraft cockpit.

 

Also, imho, it generally makes more sense to use a value relative to the ground instead of variable other values (altitude, wind, etc.) for the different units/aircraft (easier to compare) (except for the specific use Yurgon explained). But a tooltip when hovering the speed box would be great. Explanatory tooltips everywhere :) (IAS tooltip?)

Edited June 19, 2016 by Bourrinopathe