Bumpy ride in bad weather?!

[lemoen]

Yes agreed on above its code all 1010101 LoL

 

Everything can be mimicked or simulated but with compromises of course its never going to be as real.

 

I also posted here if people are interested - https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3127572&postcount=36

 

 

It doesn't have to be 'real'. Nothing in this game is real. Its all makebelief stuff. All it needs to do is convince us (and we look at tables and data and stuff, so a bit of work) that it works like the real thing. There's a saying:

 

All models are wrong but some are useful

 

Turbulence should be modelled in one way or another and it should affect the planes with low wing loading more than the ones with higher loading, especially at low level. Would be really cool.

[Fred00]

It's interesting that this thread popped up now. After flying in a small plane (Piper PA-28) for the first time last weekend I noticed that the plane moves around quite a bit in the air. It is affected by gusts in the wind and turbulence in a way that I feel is absent in DCS. In the real airplane you have to constantly be ready to counter and correct for wind gusts, but in DCS the plane seemingly moves unaffected through the air. You may have cross wind in DCS but not anything that mimics reality with wind gusts. I agree that something like this would improve the whole experience of actually flying. Of course they would have to use simplifications and in some ways "fake it", but as others have already pointed out, most aspects in the game are already simplifications to some degree.

[David OC]

It doesn't have to be 'real'. Nothing in this game is real. Its all makebelief stuff. All it needs to do is convince us (and we look at tables and data and stuff, so a bit of work) that it works like the real thing. There's a saying:

 

All models are wrong but some are useful

 

Turbulence should be modeled in one way or another and it should affect the planes with low wing loading more than the ones with higher loading, especially at low level. Would be really cool.

 

ED is the best at all this cool simulated physics stuff and they do push the limits in this field, I agree they could for the consumer side throw in a bit of scripted buffeting when certain conditions are met tho.

 

I would not want them to add more real life turbulence, this would break the sim with the amount of units in game that's is limited now because of all the real time physic like FM's, ballistics etc.

[BadHabit]

its sad when people only seem to desire fidelity when it gives them an advantage.

So damn True.

 

Why don't we go back to SFM too while we are at it, because shooting at things is much more important than flying really.

 

/s

 

The OP has a great point. Turbulence would really be cool and would increase the fidelity of the flight sim experience.

REP!

Is there ANY consumer simulator that simulates turbulence? I agree with OP having this simulated would be nice. Would make landings much more interesting too.

Yes there IS :D

There is a vertical component to the turbulence, not just 'cross wind'.

 

If you load a mission with an Su-25 ramp starting & high turbulence set in the ME (remembering that the scale is in 1/10 m/s, while the wind is in m/s), then turn on the power & watch the AOA indicator, you'll see it flicking between + & - angles & the vanes on the pitot swinging up and down as vector of the modelled turbulence swaps between upwards and downwards.

 

You don't feel it in your gut, but I'm pretty sure if you come in for a landing and hold the stick dead still you'll see the aircraft getting bumped around both horizontally and vertically.

So far the only AC's I feel simulate some kind of what you say is simulated turbulence is the F-5 and the Mig-21 (ground effect), but turbulence is not created only by being on landing with bad weather. You should feel it in Clouds, in some random moment when atmospheric condition are met and should be more violent regarding your ac's condition/load. DCS simplifies those things too much for a sim and ignores them. It is so simplified that an AC will drift from the runway/taxiway on crosswind conditions when on wheels.:doh:

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

BTW:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187311

[MikeMikeJuliet]

Firstly... there are so many threads about weather in the forums that I can't believe people don't find them. Aaanyway.

 

I do aknowledge the fact that there are A LOT of things to be fixed and improved in DCS that take precedence over the weather modeling.

 

Thag said, I find it very odd that people would not have all possible weather effects modeled into the game. They might be concerned of the performance cost, which is a valid concern, but to dismiss weather phenomenon as "civilian" features is ignorant.

 

As I've said time and again, weather DOES affect the combat simulation and experience. What these people don't realise, is that vibrations, bumps, noises and rumbles have an effect in a real cockpit. It might not be a lot, but try to read your instruments as efficiently in very bumpy weather. Managing switches in the cockpit is slightly slower if you need to keep your hand steady when the aircraft is thrown around in convective turbulence. Turbulent air might just give you the last push to stall when you desperately don't want it in scissors at max AOA. Adverse weather effects might slightly affect missile performance and radar. You can't bloody see in poor weather...

 

And please, don't try to tell me landing and take-off are not part of a combat flight sim. You can't really call your mission a grand success if you crash your plane at the last second because you were too lazy to land it properly in gusty winds...

 

 

I say it again, weather is NOT the greatest priority and the most critical issue, but don't dismiss it because it says "combat" on the tin.

 

 

Besides, all these micro scale weather phenomena affect the control feel of all aircraft, and I do see A LOT of concern on these forums toward accurate flight modelling. Weather is a part of aerodynamics, which is key to accurate flight modeling and proper feel on any aircraft.

 

And I bet most of us here wouldn't have a clue if ED faked these effects if they are done well... because most people here have never touched any of the aircraft presented in the sim. Those that have can are welcomed to tell me to go f myself because of this rant.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

 

PS. sorry for any typos, I'm on a phone

[David OC]

Agreed,

 

I would be more than happy with the implementation of an accu-sim, Accu-Feel level of immersion in DCS. It really is a "game changer" in the other civi developed aircraft that I only have now and would take DCS to another level of immersion.

 

 

-

Edited May 10, 2017 by David OC

[WRAITH]

LoL Mike we are all saying the same...... but you got the wrong end of the stick on the conversation thinking we don't want those effects of realism.

 

:doh: the limitations of having a good conversation on the internet :doh::lol:

 

So my point on a weather engine is no different to your desires I'm just considering the programmers view how he has to formulate computations and algorithms to ensure that we get those features like Buffet or Turbulence etc

 

Thats why I posted here.... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3127572&postcount=36 ..... with a link to a good PDF.

 

ED Programmers would have a good source of their own anyway this is just Forum chatter amongst ourselves.

 

So no one will say to you F............. as your suggestions, desires point of you is/are well desired by many.

 

Also the fun that it adds when creating missions and what a sim it would make if we had something like a fully fledged weather engine later on.

 

Thats the point later on but he lays a conundrum that a developer will have to make compromises that best suits the code-base and GFX engine capability to make those effect possible at least to the eye.

 

So time will tell.

 

As for threads I read everything in Forum takes ages though and there should be proper stickies for things like.............

 

 

• ATC Module
  
• Weather Engine Module
  
• MAP Theater List
  
• Aircraft Modules
  
• Ships Modules
  

 

Where all info is gathered in one place but thats not the case and I dont run the Forum but thats the way i would do it.

 

And as people we will just post over and over what we want in a flight sim air combat game.

 

As for flight time well thats hard when you want things that are still in development and find it hard to commit some dont want whats currently available that all personal preference some love WWII I lover modern stuff.

 

So its all about "THE MERGE" for many in the sim community and when that F-18C is cleared to go m8 its going to ramp up big time.:smilewink::thumbup:

 

I feel like i was having a chat with someone you walk up slap me i go down like whut and you yell and I cry saying but what did i do wrong LoL

Edited May 10, 2017 by WRAITH

[Fri13]

DCS is primarily a AVIATION simulator, secondly it is COMBAT AVIATION simulator and thirdly it is COMBAT simulator.

 

Everything in the cockpit is about simulation of machine, learning to read the cockpit and operate it, is the thing mainly. But we do not do that as we want to do that "Up In The Air". Otherwise it is like owning a expensive car and then just sit on it when it is parked in carag.

 

The thing is that every flight simulator is about flying. And not just going in air like car goes on the highway, we want to fly in different weather, in different conditions. We want to challenge ourselves to do something else than fly a commercial airliner with a few navigation points and then land.

 

Meaning we want to fly loops, circles and all kind maneuvers. That by learning to control and handle the aircraft in challenging situations. That is what dog fight is all about, not to shoot down a another. This example so we can go to fly with a friend and chase each other and try to get to the optimal position where the another can't shake off us from their talls. That is the "ultimate fighter pilot drug".

 

We do not want to kill people. That is all about combat. But seriously, no one of us wants to hurt anyone (okay, there might be few), and that is the thing in reality too, that combat veterans don't think "There is people inside that tank" or "There is a person inside that fighter". It is just "A tank" and "A fighter" without anything else than "Enemy" slapped on it.

And once a soldier starts to see the "other side", they get the human factor in, and that is same thing as "Stockholm Syndrome". There is no such thing as "Stockholm Syndrome", as that is called "Empathy" and "Sympathy". That once you learn about someones suffering and problems that has forced someone to do something bad that they know ain't right, most people can justify the action and can step on their side. That is when the human nature hits that punishing them would be wrong. And no leader wants their citizens and especially soldiers, to know anything about the "Enemy" because you might lose the moral justification for your own actions. That is why media is full of propaganda so people can be controlled, that is the terrorism all about, control of your own citizens.

 

And DCS isn't about combat, it i about skills. Skills to fly and operate a complex aircraft in a time sensitive and high stress environment. That is striking to same experience as hunter being on the hunt.

 

It isn't about press a button to release bombs, it is about flying to the point where pressing that button is successfully and well done. Challenge to the skill to be able to do so.

 

 

And that is the reason why a dynamic weather conditions ARE crucial part of every flight simulator! Just like a diurnal is critical for a infantry games where you don't always fight in perfect weather conditions, but you fight at nights, in mist, in snow storm, in a rainy dim evenings. That is the challenge and fun in ARMA and such.

 

In flight simulator it is that you can handle the aircraft in challenging weather, not just perfect default DCS weather, but in conditions where you are challenged.

And the turbulence is critical element of all that.

 

A challenge to get a gunsight on the target while your aircraft is flying through a turbulence. A challenge to fly in a formation when frontal aircraft generates turbulence.

A challenge to fly overall the maneuvers when the turbulence is throwing off your optimal flight parameters and you can't control the aircraft same way as in perfect conditions.

 

The turbulence doesn't affect the aircraft cockpit parked on the airfield parking slot... That is not what the DCS about. DCS is about flying, all about flying. And turbulence is critical part of that.

 

It would be nice to see how a CAS pilots are doing their support or attacks when a turbulence is throwing their instruments and weapon of destruction off.

 

It would be nice to see how the turbulence is affecting the Surface-to-Air or Air-to-Air missiles performance as well..

 

Suddenly it is a big factor and starts to separate a bad pilots from good ones.... As good ones would know when to press the button or what to do to stay behind someone else, while everything is shaking and jumping around.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

LoL Mike we are all saying the same...... but you got the wrong end of the stick on the conversation thinking we don't want those effects of realism.

 

:doh: the limitations of having a good conversation on the internet :doh::lol:

 

So my point on a weather engine is no different to your desires I'm just considering the programmers view how he has to formulate computations and algorithms to ensure that we get those features like Buffet or Turbulence etc

 

Thats why I posted here.... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3127572&postcount=36 ..... with a link to a good PDF.

 

ED Programmers would have a good source of their own anyway this is just Forum chatter amongst ourselves.

 

So no one will say to you F............. as your suggestions, desires point of you is/are well desired by many.

 

Also the fun that it adds when creating missions and what a sim it would make if we had something like a fully fledged weather engine later on.

 

Thats the point later on but he lays a conundrum that a developer will have to make compromises that best suits the code-base and GFX engine capability to make those effect possible at least to the eye.

 

So time will tell.

 

As for threads I read everything in Forum takes ages though and there should be proper stickies for things like.............

 

 

• ATC Module
  
• Weather Engine Module
  
• MAP Theater List
  
• Aircraft Modules
  
• Ships Modules
  

 

Where all info is gathered in one place but thats not the case and I dont run the Forum but thats the way i would do it.

 

And as people we will just post over and over what we want in a flight sim air combat game.

 

As for flight time well thats hard when you want things that are still in development and find it hard to commit some dont want whats currently available that all personal preference some love WWII I lover modern stuff.

 

So its all about "THE MERGE" for many in the sim community and when that F-18C is cleared to go m8 its going to ramp up big time.:smilewink::thumbup:

 

I feel like i was having a chat with someone you walk up slap me i go down like whut and you yell and I cry saying but what did i do wrong LoL

 

Lol, I'm sorry. The whole rant was more aimed toward cichlidfan and others who "appear" to counter every desire for a more realistic weather model as "not part of a combat sim".

 

I should have specified my intent more. I thought it was apparent of the text itself.

 

Didn't mean to slap you :D

[BitMaster]

I am all for realistic weather, in any "flight sim".

 

I am just as realistic with my hopes as I dont see any chance to squeeze fluid dynamics on that 1 core that drives DCS.

 

MAybe...long time from now in the future, when DCS can make use of multiple cores, we have the means to compute it and THEN the time would be ripe to implement it. For now I donmt see any realistic option to do so.

 

Computing fluid dynamics is a very hefty task, no matter how you look at it.

 

I guess it would needs all 8 cores of a Ryzen to "just" compute wind in the streets of Sukhumi, howling around corners, fall winds, uplift, etc...

 

Sure, I'd love it, who wouldnt, but I have severe concerns if our Home_PC's will be powerful enough to do it precise enough in real-time.

 

I do remember 1 sentence my Physics teacher told me in 13th grade Grammar School ( Physik Leistung, Gymnasium ). Any Supercomputer is unable to predict the movement of leaves on a tree for even ONE second. What it means is, run the simulation 3 times and you will have 3 different outcomes...and none of them is more precise than the other, none is more off than the other, there is no way to determine it, you cant even measure it, PERIOD.

 

Look at a tree with a million leaves for 1 second, each leaf influences the other, just a severy corner of a house influences any other flow, every Postbox in the street will give their 2 cents, every chimney on the house adds something...

 

Dont ask for things we cannot compute precisley, we can only narrow it down to "what is likely to happen" and still, once you do the field test you will see how far off it has been.

 

Thermodynamics are hard to calculate if the system is open to all influences, aka RealWorld.

 

If ED would approach it they would have to abstract it significantly and thus open another discussion.

 

I dont think it can ever be done other than "approached dynamics" "limited influence scenario" or what ever we would call this, but for sure, someone would moan and want it more precise...than you try to do this and break it somewhere else, as their are unlimited influences, no end of scope.

 

my 2 cents regarding turbulences and weather effects

Edited May 10, 2017 by BitMaster

[firmek]

I'm lost why the fact whether the DCS is a combat not a GA simulator is discussed as a decisive factor for a realistic weather.

Be it a 737 or a fighter both fly in an air and should be affected by it. DCS has a state of the art flight models, the best out there. At the same time flying in atmospheric environment simulated in rather a simplified way reduces the overall experience.

IMO putting a lot of attention into flight models and taking shortcuts in simulating the environment forces affecting the airships kind of contradicts each other.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I am all for realistic weather, in any "flight sim".

 

I am just as realistic with my hopes as I dont see any chance to squeeze fluid dynamics on that 1 core that drives DCS.

 

MAybe...long time from now in the future, when DCS can make use of multiple cores, we have the means to compute it and THEN the time would be ripe to implement it. For now I donmt see any realistic option to do so.

 

Computing fluid dynamics is a very hefty task, no matter how you look at it.

 

I guess it would needs all 8 cores of a Ryzen to "just" compute wind in the streets of Sukhumi, howling around corners, fall winds, uplift, etc...

 

Sure, I'd love it, who wouldnt, but I have severe concerns if our Home_PC's will be powerful enough to do it precise enough in real-time.

 

I do remember 1 sentence my Physics teacher told me in 13th grade Grammar School ( Physik Leistung, Gymnasium ). Any Supercomputer is unable to predict the movement of leaves on a tree for even ONE second. What it means is, run the simulation 3 times and you will have 3 different outcomes...and none of them is more precise than the other, none is more off than the other, there is no way to determine it, you cant even measure it, PERIOD.

 

Look at a tree with a million leaves for 1 second, each leaf influences the other, just a severy corner of a house influences any other flow, every Postbox in the street will give their 2 cents, every chimney on the house adds something...

 

Dont ask for things we cannot compute precisley, we can only narrow it down to "what is likely to happen" and still, once you do the field test you will see how far off it has been.

 

Thermodynamics are hard to calculate if the system is open to all influences, aka RealWorld.

 

If ED would approach it they would have to abstract it significantly and thus open another discussion.

 

I dont think it can ever be done other than "approached dynamics" "limited influence scenario" or what ever we would call this, but for sure, someone would moan and want it more precise...than you try to do this and break it somewhere else, as their are unlimited influences, no end of scope.

 

my 2 cents regarding turbulences and weather effects

 

Exactly my point of "most of us wouldn't notice if it was faked or not as long as it is done well". No point in simulating every little detail, but as it stands DCS simulates almost nothing. It would not require a supercomputer to have a system that would generate different kinds of turbulence in different kinds of clouds for example. It's not Real, but it Feels Realistic. Quute frankly I think it is impossible to go full realism on weather in decades, if not centuries... But we could imitate it convincingly enough for it to be called realistic.

 

No reason to go all "butterfly effect" -level of calculations here. Plus, such a complex model would not be appreciated by the audience, since we couldn't tell if a bump in the air was made by a random generator, or a super complex algorithm. Just as long as the random generator is made well, and it applies turbulence approximately where it might actually happen.

 

Games and simulators are always going to be about smoke and mirrors. Reality is way too complex to model on a PC.

[WRAITH]

Lol, I'm sorry. The whole rant was more aimed toward cichlidfan and others who "appear" to counter every desire for a more realistic weather model as "not part of a combat sim".

 

I should have specified my intent more. I thought it was apparent of the text itself.

 

Didn't mean to slap you :D

 

I know what you meant and why :smilewink:

 

I think some gents just think realistically considering how long they have been around thinking that DCS as is today is the case and what we want may never be, and rather just enjoy more aircraft modules.

 

Many here know the sim is old and has an old code-base being rebuilt from an old C/C++ with a combination of LUA master source code to C++ with benefits.

 

As per..................

 

Eagle Dynamics is a software company founded by the Russian Igor Tishin in 1991, based in Moscow, Russia. The company is the leader in developing combat flight simulators, and it develops Oracle-based products

 

Online Reference:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Dynamics

To some extent it holds some truth we may never see DCS to its full potential its allot of work and economy may get worse WWIII may burst out who knows.

 

It's why I asked for this:- https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186909

 

Take into consideration some gents are in their 60-70 and see it from that angle.

 

Others are more hopeful and want a dream sim.............

 

 

• ATC Module
  
• Weather Engine Module
  
• MAP Theater List
  
• Aircraft Modules
  
• Ships Modules
  
• etc....... bla, bal, bla.
  

 

As for slaps mate I've had serious beatings in Forums like....... :chair: ...... so a slap is like saying, I like you be quite........:megalol:

 

So don't fuss m8 time will tell at the moment its all about 1.5 to 2.5 transition aka "THE MERGE" then will see if we get more goodies just have to wait and dream.................

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by WRAITH

[MikeMikeJuliet]

On a side note. I do believe people (me included) come on these forums to post criticism, improvement ideas and wishes, not because we think DCS is a piece of ****, but because it is dear to us and we want to do something to make it better.

 

I apologize if I've worded my posts too strongly.

 

On the whole subject of weather... it adds so much to the experience of flying some may not even believe. A proper flight model is just half of it. It is almost like at the moment we have a brilliant FPS with a great gun... awesome it handles great, it's powerful and it looks terrific... but the sounds and the smoke on the barrel looks like stock assets from 2003...

 

Sorry, a terrible analogy but it had to be done...

[Dehuman]

I am sure most, if not all of the naysayers here aren't against the implementation of more advanced atmospheric conditions, but rather are reluctant to support something that may distract ED from working on the game-breaking stuff.

 

For example AI crashing into each other on the taxiway, or when you drop a wheel onto the grass and get stuck having to abandon the aircraft.

[shagrat]

DCS is primarily a AVIATION simulator, secondly it is COMBAT AVIATION simulator and thirdly it is COMBAT simulator.

 

Everything in the cockpit is about simulation of machine, learning to read the cockpit and operate it, is the thing mainly. But we do not do that as we want to do that "Up In The Air". Otherwise it is like owning a expensive car and then just sit on it when it is parked in carag.

 

The thing is that every flight simulator is about flying. And not just going in air like car goes on the highway, we want to fly in different weather, in different conditions. We want to challenge ourselves to do something else than fly a commercial airliner with a few navigation points and then land.

 

Meaning we want to fly loops, circles and all kind maneuvers. That by learning to control and handle the aircraft in challenging situations. That is what dog fight is all about, not to shoot down a another. This example so we can go to fly with a friend and chase each other and try to get to the optimal position where the another can't shake off us from their talls. That is the "ultimate fighter pilot drug".

 

We do not want to kill people. That is all about combat. But seriously, no one of us wants to hurt anyone (okay, there might be few), and that is the thing in reality too, that combat veterans don't think "There is people inside that tank" or "There is a person inside that fighter". It is just "A tank" and "A fighter" without anything else than "Enemy" slapped on it.

And once a soldier starts to see the "other side", they get the human factor in, and that is same thing as "Stockholm Syndrome". There is no such thing as "Stockholm Syndrome", as that is called "Empathy" and "Sympathy". That once you learn about someones suffering and problems that has forced someone to do something bad that they know ain't right, most people can justify the action and can step on their side. That is when the human nature hits that punishing them would be wrong. And no leader wants their citizens and especially soldiers, to know anything about the "Enemy" because you might lose the moral justification for your own actions. That is why media is full of propaganda so people can be controlled, that is the terrorism all about, control of your own citizens.

 

And DCS isn't about combat, it i about skills. Skills to fly and operate a complex aircraft in a time sensitive and high stress environment. That is striking to same experience as hunter being on the hunt.

 

It isn't about press a button to release bombs, it is about flying to the point where pressing that button is successfully and well done. Challenge to the skill to be able to do so.

 

 

And that is the reason why a dynamic weather conditions ARE crucial part of every flight simulator! Just like a diurnal is critical for a infantry games where you don't always fight in perfect weather conditions, but you fight at nights, in mist, in snow storm, in a rainy dim evenings. That is the challenge and fun in ARMA and such.

 

In flight simulator it is that you can handle the aircraft in challenging weather, not just perfect default DCS weather, but in conditions where you are challenged.

And the turbulence is critical element of all that.

 

A challenge to get a gunsight on the target while your aircraft is flying through a turbulence. A challenge to fly in a formation when frontal aircraft generates turbulence.

A challenge to fly overall the maneuvers when the turbulence is throwing off your optimal flight parameters and you can't control the aircraft same way as in perfect conditions.

 

The turbulence doesn't affect the aircraft cockpit parked on the airfield parking slot... That is not what the DCS about. DCS is about flying, all about flying. And turbulence is critical part of that.

 

It would be nice to see how a CAS pilots are doing their support or attacks when a turbulence is throwing their instruments and weapon of destruction off.

 

It would be nice to see how the turbulence is affecting the Surface-to-Air or Air-to-Air missiles performance as well..

 

Suddenly it is a big factor and starts to separate a bad pilots from good ones.... As good ones would know when to press the button or what to do to stay behind someone else, while everything is shaking and jumping around.

 

Nope. Firstly it was an offspring of a desktop training environment with focus on multiple military assets working together in a CAS environment.

 

That is why we have a strong focus on ground attack and support in DCS, and not on BVR, close combat / dogfighting, with a couple issues ranging from ATC, AI pilot skills and FM to damage model in gunfights, BVR missile behaviour and missile flight characteristics.

 

Main focus of the A-10C project, back then was to provide a procedural training with the new HOTAS controls for ANG pilots during conversion from the older A-10 models.

Not to provide a "Flight simulator" to train bonafide A-10 pilots how to fly the A-10. That's why weapons operations, HOTAS control in COMBAT situations was the focus, not realistic weather modeling.

These things were added for the commercial DCS World.

 

The A-10C accidentally had the JTAC training integrated during beta phase, got removed before release and is now "adapted" into DCS World as a part of Combined Arms. This focus' CAS as well, communication, nine-line over radio, marking and designating targets for ground troops. Still no focus on General Aviation...

 

The only "Flight Simulator part" that got merged along the line was FC1 & 2 and Flaming Cliffs 3 integrated the Combat Flight / dogfighting into the procedural training environment...and Flaming Cliffs wasn't a General Aviation sim with a strong focus on realism, either. :smilewink:

Edited May 10, 2017 by shagrat

[Fri13]

Nope. Firstly it was an offspring of a desktop training environment with focus on multiple military assets working together in a CAS environment.

 

That is why we have a strong focus on ground attack and support in DCS, and not on BVR, close combat / dogfighting, with a couple issues ranging from ATC, AI pilot skills and FM to damage model in gunfights, BVR missile behaviour and missile flight characteristics.

 

Main focus of the A-10C project, back then was to provide a procedural training with the new HOTAS controls for ANG pilots during conversion from the older A-10 models.

Not to provide a "Flight simulator" to train bonafide A-10 pilots how to fly the A-10. That's why weapons operations, HOTAS control in COMBAT situations was the focus, not realistic weather modeling.

These things were added for the commercial DCS World.

 

The A-10C accidentally had the JTAC training integrated during beta phase, got removed before release and is now "adapted" into DCS World as a part of Combined Arms. This focus' CAS as well, communication, nine-line over radio, marking and designating targets for ground troops. Still no focus on General Aviation...

 

The only "Flight Simulator part" that got merged along the line was FC1 & 2 and Flaming Cliffs 3 integrated the Combat Flight / dogfighting into the procedural training environment...and Flaming Cliffs wasn't a General Aviation sim with a strong focus on realism, either. :smilewink:

KA-50 was the first one of DCS. Whole DCS designed for it.

 

Before that it was the Flanker. After that a Lock-On under Ubisoft... Then Flaming Cliffs and then DCS via KA-50 and then A-10C came.

 

From the start CAS has been important part, nothing to do with A-10C.

 

It is AVIATION simulator, not a desktop simulator.

 

And you are forgetting that at the begin when Flanker came, the computer specs didn't support complex things. And even today you can see heritage of it in DCS that is limiting graphically and simulation wise.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Edited May 10, 2017 by Fri13

[shagrat]

KA-50 was the first one of DCS. Whole DCS designed for it.

 

Before that it was the Flanker. After that a Lock-On under Ubisoft... Then Flaming Cliffs and then DCS via KA-50 and then A-10C came.

 

From the start CAS has been important part, nothing to do with A-10C.

 

It is AVIATION simulator, not a desktop simulator.

 

And you are forgetting that at the begin when Flanker came, the computer specs didn't support complex things. And even today you can see heritage of it in DCS that is limiting graphically and simulation wise.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Nope!

 

DCS: Ka-50 Black Shark was the first "full-clickable" simulation from Eagle Dynamics, it was standalone the DCS "brand" (not DCS World) presenting an evolution from LockOn Modern Air Combat and Flaming Cliffs, with a focus on a "battlefield" integrating ground, air and naval assets into a Mission Editor to build complex combat scenarios.

 

It was a commercial product to simulate the Ka-50 in its typical CAS/recon role only.

 

There was the option to play the Ka-50 with FC2 online added later, if I remember correct

 

Then years later DCS: A-10C was developed as an offspring of the military ANG Desktop Trainer still it was a standalone product.

 

After that the idea of a DCS World was developed, as integrating the A-10C into the DCS: Black Shark/FC2 environment for Multiplayer was the original idea.

 

First DCS World incorporated the new enlarged Map of the Caucasus and the DCS: A-10C, then the first "Module" was DCS: Black Shark 2 as changes to the model builder, map and basic sim made it necessary to overhaul BS 1 completely.

To "re-integrate" Flaming Cliffs into the DCS World concept, ED had to overhaul that again resulting in Flaming Cliffs 3 compatible with DCS World.

After that the P-51D came, as what I would call the first "real" module and in parallel ED opened up to 3rd party developers.

 

That was the part where updates to the "World", like graphics engine, combat AI, AI ground, air and naval assets, environmental processing including weather, surface properties and ballistics were done by ED as a sandbox for modules and the focus opened up from CAS simulation for the Ka-50 and A-10C to a "all aspects of simulation".

 

I am not "against" enhancements to the weather engine, the ATC, the surface properties, radio communications etc., just at the moment the priorities we see should be around AI, damage model, and dozens related issues, before we need a fluid simulation based real-time turbulence system...

If we talk about weather, we need clouds synchronized in MP including blocking of LOS, before we should think about a "bumpy ride"... And to make dogfight "more realistic" I would prefer the AI not pulling unrealistic maneuvers with just 10% health left and climbing with SFM as if the laws of physics are different for AI... That may be just my point of view, but it seems I'm not the only one having this or similar priorities.

 

So, yes a better and more realistic weather modeling would be nice, but it isn't as if DCS World has a totally bad and unrealistic weather implemented and the single most important fix is turbulence and air wakes... ;)

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I am sure most, if not all of the naysayers here aren't against the implementation of more advanced atmospheric conditions, but rather are reluctant to support something that may distract ED from working on the game-breaking stuff.

 

For example AI crashing into each other on the taxiway, or when you drop a wheel onto the grass and get stuck having to abandon the aircraft.

 

Which is exactly why I keep telling weather is important, but not a priority-1 -issue... Naturally all bugs and more significant gameplay/simulation features (like the ATC) precede this!

 

I mean, you can say "yes" to an idea without meaning that you want it before anything else...

[cichlidfan]

I am sure most, if not all of the naysayers here aren't against the implementation of more advanced atmospheric conditions, but rather are reluctant to support something that may distract ED from working on the game-breaking stuff.

 

^^^This.

 

ED's currently plate looks like someone's who was told that they can only have one pass at the buffet table.

[ApoNOOB]

^^^This.

 

ED's currently plate looks like someone's who was told that they can only have one pass at the buffet table.

 

Yes but commenting on every whishlist item with this attitude is problematic. You are not policing ED's resources and you can see what kind of rift this mindset might cause in the WW2 vs modern discussions.

 

Better weather at somepoint will not stop bugs from getting fixed, have some confidence in ED. WW2 planes will not stop modern planes from being made etc.

 

Also big lol @"it's a COMBAT sim!!111"

[impeller83]

Funny how things turns out in these forum's.. its a wishlist damit dont get all wierd about it

[BitMaster]

yes, heck...we all want the best to happen in DCS World !

 

Now we all go FLYING...with or without bad weather !? agree ??

[rogonaut]

deffinatly would be awesome to have better weather simulation, rain on canopy, turbulances n stuff, no questions asked. +1.

 

i achieved some good turbulances with setting them to 164 in the editor, that was nice:)