Jump to content

PFM chances??


Ala12Rv-watermanpc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Profesional Flight Model is an Internal Eagle Dynamics thing. 3rd party devs only have access to EFM or External flight model, which is very good. The Mig 21 Flight model is fantastic, try landing it like a Simple Flight Model plane and pay the price :).

 

Edit: Apparently my understanding is once again way off. This is all way to confusing, please see Sithspawn's post below. who the heck knows what is what around here.


Edited by jeffdude

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Profesional Flight Model is an Internal Eagle Dynamics thing. 3rd party devs only have access to EFM or External flight model, which is very good. The Mig 21 Flight model is fantastic, try landing it like a Simple Flight Model plane and pay the price :).

 

PFM is the level of the FM, EFM just means it was done outside of ED/DCS. SO in theory if they have the info, they could do a PFM.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys...for some reason I thought EFM wasnt as accurate as PFM. Anyway, in the M2000 case I remember reading somewhere that FM wasnt very good as there isnt many un classified info about it, so how are we supposed to have an idea of the level of quality of a 3 party FM if PFM is only an ED reserved term?? EFM sounds quite "generic"...

Take a look at my MODS here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys...for some reason I thought EFM wasnt as accurate as PFM. Anyway, in the M2000 case I remember reading somewhere that FM wasnt very good as there isnt many un classified info about it, so how are we supposed to have an idea of the level of quality of a 3 party FM if PFM is only an ED reserved term?? EFM sounds quite "generic"...

 

This is a pretty valid concern, if you ask me. The only way I can think of is to actually ask the developer.

 

In the case of LNS' modules, they're equivalent to PFM.

Frog blast the vent core.

If you get your news from blogs, you are not clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
And why cant ED just rate the FM of 3 parties and unify terminology??...now that they are testing the viggen, why not test FM in flight and in paper and give it a PFM "seal of approval" if its up to that level?..same for all modules of 3 parties.

 

Who says they dont, I am not sure ED would allow a SFM to be sold as a PFM.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats the thing, in 3 parties cases its not a PFM but an EFM...to me, the "E" instead of "P" makes me wonder what is different in the quality of the FM of a 3 party over the FM of ED to make that differentiation. If its just because its not an ED FM (which is obvious when you purchase a non ED module), then why not just call it PFM.

Take a look at my MODS here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies guys...for some reason I thought EFM wasnt as accurate as PFM. Anyway, in the M2000 case I remember reading somewhere that FM wasnt very good as there isnt many un classified info about it, so how are we supposed to have an idea of the level of quality of a 3 party FM if PFM is only an ED reserved term?? EFM sounds quite "generic"...

 

That probably wont be a problem with the Viggen since theres even openly released studies done by NASA on the aerodynamics of said aircraft. :-)

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19860019453.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Thats the thing, in 3 parties cases its not a PFM but an EFM...to me, the "E" instead of "P" makes me wonder what is different in the quality of the FM of a 3 party over the FM of ED to make that differentiation. If its just because its not an ED FM (which is obvious when you purchase a non ED module), then why not just call it PFM.

 

E Stands for external, meaning the 3rd Party did the FM themselves. They could do that FM and a number of different quality levels.

 

The 3rd Party might opt to buy the FM from ED, similar to RAZBAM waiting on ED"s ground radar solution, but Leatherneck built their own as far as I am aware. In this case the FM wouldnt be EFM as it was built by ED.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the quality has to meet PFM standards, its just not an internal build, hence the "E"FM

 

It's kind of strange to me that those two are considered different anyways. One would think that the flight model of all of the DCS modules would strive for the same quality level that ED does on their internal ones. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
It's kind of strange to me that those two are considered different anyways. One would think that the flight model of all of the DCS modules would strive for the same quality level that ED does on their internal ones. :-)

 

There are scenarios where it might be impossible to get all the data for a PFM and you might have to settle for an AFM+ or AFM... I dont think you can sell a module without atleast an AFM though.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These designations are actually quite unhelpful to the customer

 

What's this AFM+ and AFM difference now? That wasn't in the post explaining these terms

 

To the end user, these terms are almost totally unhelpful since there's no way to tell based on them if they flight model is accurate to the aircraft, it only tells you under what circumstance the flight model was made (PFM = ED huzzah! EFM = Probably just as good huzzah!)

 

The only way to find out is by trawling the subform of whatever module you're interested in and considering people's opinions on the FM

 

Which isn't a bad thing per se but the multitude of semi-hierarchical designations only confuse the issue from where I'm standing, people say things like "oh the Gazelle has an EFM so THAT's why it doesn't behave like the Huey" while in reality that's almost nothing to do with it.

 

I think it might be worth re-examining this, I don't think it's fit for purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These designations are actually quite unhelpful to the customer

 

What's this AFM+ and AFM difference now? That wasn't in the post explaining these terms

 

To the end user, these terms are almost totally unhelpful since there's no way to tell based on them if they flight model is accurate to the aircraft, it only tells you under what circumstance the flight model was made (PFM = ED huzzah! EFM = Probably just as good huzzah!)

 

 

The only way to find out is by trawling the subform of whatever module you're interested in and considering people's opinions on the FM

 

Which isn't a bad thing per se but the multitude of semi-hierarchical designations only confuse the issue from where I'm standing, people say things like "oh the Gazelle has an EFM so THAT's why it doesn't behave like the Huey" while in reality that's almost nothing to do with it.

 

I think it might be worth re-examining this, I don't think it's fit for purpose.

 

Perfectly explained IMO...it makes people think that there is "something" different in the FM of a 3 party respect the ED FMs. I understand ED wants to differentiate their own FMs from others (and thus the "E" of EFM) but once they test the module for aproval, why not giving an EPFM? That way they clarify its not an ED FM and at the same time they clarify its "as goog" as their FMs.

Take a look at my MODS here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this AFM+ and AFM difference now? That wasn't in the post explaining these terms

 

Er, yes it is:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

Advanced Flight Model (AFM) and AFM+. An AFM uses multiple points of force application and calculation on the relevant flight surfaces. This simulates edge of envelope conditions well and avoids scripted behaviors as used in an SFM. This system also partially implements the aircraft's flight augmentation systems. DCS aircraft that use AFM includes the Su-25T. A further evolution of the AFM is what we term the AFM+ and this uses the same calculations as AFM but adds limited modeling of the hydraulic and fuel systems. Examples of AFM+ in DCS include the Su-25 and A-10A.

That's a pretty clear explaination of the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought hydraulic and fuel systems counted as part of the ASM for systems modelling

 

[edit: also that post was edited with that change more than a year after it was first posted so you'd only know that if you went looking for the post to see if any changes had been made, I don't recall any announcement as to the addition of the AFM+ designation]

 

Another useless designation.

 

Also that post. It's not exactly attention grabbing is it? It's the SEVENTEENTH sticky thread on that subforum! How's anyone going to find that if they don't know what to look for? If you were a new member of the forum would you?

 

Are you defending this system or are you pedantically correcting a point quite independent of my argument?


Edited by Paradox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought hydraulic and fuel systems counted as part of the ASM for systems modelling

 

Depends on what you're thinking of. Modelling fuel line pressure, pumps and such, definitely ASM.

Fuel levels however counts towards flight models, as it (or lack of it) has an effect on CoG when you start taking the distribution across tanks into account and obviously the weight of the aircraft (+inertia and the like) will reduce as fuel gets used. So definitely flight models.

 

Hydraulics are probably more to do with the force the actuators can supply for control surfaces and how that has an affect on the FM.

 

I was just pointing out the information on the terms is readily available, the forum search function is quite handy.

 

I actually agree they're a bit confusing, but I can't really think of a much better alternative to suggest, as no matter how you look at it we do have different flight models at different levels.

 

What would you suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you're thinking of. Modelling fuel line pressure, pumps and such, definitely ASM.

Fuel levels however counts towards flight models, as it (or lack of it) has an effect on CoG when you start taking the distribution across tanks into account and obviously the weight of the aircraft (+inertia and the like) will reduce as fuel gets used. So definitely flight models.

 

Hydraulics are probably more to do with the force the actuators can supply for control surfaces and how that has an affect on the FM.

 

I was just pointing out the information on the terms is readily available, the forum search function is quite handy.

 

I actually agree they're a bit confusing, but I can't really think of a much better alternative to suggest, as no matter how you look at it we do have different flight models at different levels.

 

What would you suggest?

 

Thank you for the measured reply, I think I agitated myself a bit there!

 

Yeah well there's the sticky wicket isn't it? I don't know what would be better

 

As far as the consumer is concerned I think there only needs to be a distinguishment between SFM and AFM like it was before. And really maybe not even that, SFM seems to be a thing of the past now except for the C-101 which I suppose will get an EFM at some point.

 

The ideal is to get DCS to be synonymous with flight models like the A-10's MiG-21's, Huey's etc etc so that we won't need the designations at all.

 

I agree that we don't exactly have that right now with some EFMs seemingly better than others, though naming examples is outside the scope of this conversation I think.

 

For the developers it's probably even more complicated than what we have to endure! So maybe the current system is a compromise so that both customers and developers have *some* idea of what the other is working with?

 

Either way, I believe that the current system is unhelpful to the customer and should be revised by people that understand community management and marketing better than I do.

 

Conclusion:

 

A simple assumption that all future modules will have PFM quality flight models unless stated otherwise seems to be the best system to me.

 

I'm prepared to be disagreed with on that point though, it might be even less helpful in practice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys...if ED had to check if the flight model of the module is accurate aswell as all the other quality checks they have to do, they would get nothing done.

 

What´s the point in TWO independent teams doing the same research twice just to get a module out the door?

 

I trust in the larger community to spot inconsistencies and point them out to the developer. Larger sample size and gets the dev team working on squashing bugs and making new aircraft WITHOUT us having to wait another half a year for ED to cross reference check every flightmodel.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how does anyone find anything in this world?

 

god forbid the issue of fms actually be a more complicated subject than can be adequately expressed in a single word. you tell me what's so wrong about having to actually do some research on what you intend to buy?

МИР

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...