5 and 6 Generaton Fighter

[probad]

he's taking the concept of "real" far too much at face value, he seems to think that "real" is synonymous with fidelity

 

a "real" simulation in this case only means that its an official product used by lockmart, but the objective of the simulation can actually be anything at all. in the example op cited, it's just for public promotional purposes. any amount of information can be omitted from the simulation.

 

dear op. this is not the ace combat forums

[Mars Exulte]

YEah, you seem to not be getting it. They can take a random kid out of Walmart and plop him down in a simulator and it doesn't matter. A plane is a plane, it doesn't matter if it's a 1910s Sopwith Camel or a modern F-35, the basic principals are the same. The classification is in HOW things work, WHAT SPECIFICALLY their limitations are, etc.

 

 

ED can make a F-22/F-35/Su-57. That isn't the problem. The problem is everything they do besides how it looks will be completely made up and pulled out of their bum, because there is no accurate DETAILED data available. And before you do it, do NOT link us a Wikipedia article, I swear to God........

[Northstar98]

ED can make a F-22/F-35/Su-57. That isn't the problem. The problem is everything they do besides how it looks will be completely made up and pulled out of their bum, because there is no accurate DETAILED data available.

 

This

 

I've been to a simulator for a Merlin HM.2 before, every single sensor apart from my eyes, every single weapon system, even some aspects of the flight dynamics was either omitted entirely or heavily abbreviated (which was the case for the FDM) point is, just because the simulator has an accurate cockpit and the dials, sticks, pedals and panels look right it absolutely does not mean that anything and I mean anything, possibly extending as far as everything, else is either guessed, not representative or outright omitted.

 

I can make a full home cockpit for a sci-fi spacecraft - but how do I know it's right when the data is unavailable.

 

For the aircraft proposed by the OP here are the things that aren't going to be accessible

 

• Sensor performance: things like range, gain, sensitivity, contrast, what messes with it, what doesn't mess with it, scan rates, jamming resistance/burn-through ranges, PRF, low-probability of intercept details, beamforming details etc. All these things are necessary to even start making a RADAR that is representative of the real life equivalent. The same principles are the same for IRST systems or other EO sensors.
  
• Countermeasures: ECM effectiveness and against what threat, frequencies, details of modes, transmitting power, signal processing power, even as far as how does it work? Is something that's kept a guarded secret. It's part of the reason why AFAIK all jammers in DCS do exactly the same thing and are heavily limited and approximated. How good is the RWR/MAWS what's it's gain like, how good is reception, at what range can launches be detected, how prone is it to false alarms, how likely is the RWR to pick up low-probability of intercept RADARs.
  
• Datalink: What's it capable of, can it be spoofed/jammed and by what means, what's it's range, can it be exploited to betray aircraft location, how likely is this to happen and what systems do you need to do so.
  
• Stealth: Precise radar cross-section data from multiple aspects, which areas are less stealthy, what's it like with bay-doors open, or external store carriage, what about slats and flaps, control surface deflection. Which specific frequencies is it most effective against? Which RADAR types and frequencies isn't it effective against. All of this you're not getting - it's critical because exposes this reveals an exploitable weakness that potential adversaries would love to get their hands on, and thus it's a guarded secret. Now we can guesstimate numbers but it might be inaccurate to the real thing and we won't be able to check if it's right - we end up in DCS la la land and not in something that's supposed to resemble reality
  

 

And this is before we get to airframe limitations and other hardware limitations, we all know the current state with transponders.

 

The only thing we could get correct is probably the external 3D model, including weapons, the cockpit and what the instruments look like. That's it, everything else is a guess. DCS World is focused on making modules that closely resemble reality as much as we can. A module where the only thing accurate about it is the cockpit, external model and weapons carriage is kind of a leap in the polar opposite direction.

 

Not only that the developers have to make sure they don't get in trouble by simulating something that could effectively compromise the more major military powers. So it's best to stick to aircraft that nearing the end of their service life and/or were introduced at the very latest the 1990s but preferably earlier.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Northstar98

[Xilon_x]

I would say to take a look and this link and understand if these summingers of f 35 are closer to reality

 

https://viperwing.com/

 

 

see also the lockheed martin which offers the PREPARE3D simulator its information.

 

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-05-31-Lockheed-Martin-Offers-Ultrarealistic-Simulation-for-Training-and-Virtual-Reality-with-Prepar3D-R-v4

 

foto

 

[Mars Exulte]

Just because another company decided to create a simulator doesn't verify the accuracy of said simulator. The F-16/F-18 are known quantities, DCS also has them or is developing them. The F-35 is going to be guess work. The Department of Defense is not going to provide a video game available to the public with detailed technical data on one of their most closely guarded secrets.

 

 

-edit

 

 

On closer inspection, those appear to be cockpits designed to work with simulators like BMS, DCS, and Prepar3d. Not an actual independent simulator itself.

Edited September 11, 2018 by zhukov032186

[Northstar98]

I would say to take a look and this link and understand if these summingers of f 35 are closer to reality

 

https://viperwing.com/

 

 

see also the lockheed martin which offers the PREPARE3D simulator its information.

 

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-05-31-Lockheed-Martin-Offers-Ultrarealistic-Simulation-for-Training-and-Virtual-Reality-with-Prepar3D-R-v4

 

foto

 

 

Viperwing only offer home cockpits, the cockpits are representative of their real-world counterparts - but it is just the stick, the panels, the instruments, which are freely available online, they're not classified and it only comes own to a 3D model, I am sure any 3rd party developer wouldn't have too much trouble making a cockpit and making a 3D model.

 

But

• Do they know, in detail, RADAR performance, things like effective range against what, PRF, frequency range, details of performance? No.
  
• Do they know the RADAR cross-section, from different aspects and from what RADAR types/frequency bands? No and a no to all of those things.
  
• Do they know the ins-and-outs of the datalink, what information is sent, how is it secured, can it be used to betray an aircraft's location and by what systems is it vulnerable to? No.
  
• Do they know the ECM and EW capabilities of the aircraft, and the specifics about said system, power, range, effectiveness, what they're effective/not effective against? No.
  
• Do they know detailed flight characteristics, what manuevers are restricted, what can the aircraft do, what can't it do? No. Well you can guess.
  

 

The list goes on and on, and you need this to make a module that represents reality (which is MUCH more than just an accurate cockpit and an accurate 3D model).

 

The problem is system specific to certain aircraft and some of their feature, all viperwing do is give you an accurate cockpit, they absolutely do not give you details that have been discussed above, and in other posts that are needed to make a module that represents reality to an acceptable degree of accuracy.

 

It is not just a cockpit and a 3D model, it's systems, it's data, it's having an accurate, in-depth look at the inner workings of the aircraft, both hardware and software, their capabilities, their flaws. What they can do, what they can't do etc etc etc. If you cannot get this, you can't make a module that represents reality to an acceptable level of accuracy. You'll get a module that has an accurate cockpit with accurate instruments and switches, and an accurate 3D model, and everything else will be estimated and thus essentially made-up, and thus probably won't represent reality to an acceptable level of accuracy.

 

Lockheed Martin P3D is essentially a professional grade re-branded MSFSX with a couple of enhancements, mostly in graphics and a couple of systems - it has a few new features but is ultimately bogged down by what it came from MSFSX - which has a FDM that's inferior to DCS by far, especially when it comes to rotary wing aircraft, sure it's absolutely fine for some customers for their needs but in terms of representing reality it's inferior to DCS.

 

You might get an F-22 or F-35 in P3D, but it doesn't mean it's an accurate representation or is accurate to a level of accuracy. In fact when you fly these aircraft you'll find they have an accurate cockpit, accurate 3D models and that's where the accuracy ends, they typically have heavily 'that'll do' flight models close to what DCS calls simple flight models, stalling, spinning and other over-the-edge manoeuvres are impossible or at best made-up and fictional.

 

It absolutely doesn't give you access to secret information needed to make a module that's accurate. It's even worse because if you look at these addons, especially military ones system specific features are abbreviated (heavily so) or absent entirely.

 

ED and 3rd party developers have strict rules for accuracy to make sure their modules are as close as they feasibly can be to the real thing. The FDM of DCS facilitates over-the-edge manoeuvres and facilitates advanced systems modelling and therefore can better simulate aircraft to a better degree of accuracy. Obviously to actually get modules that represent reality you need accurate data, no data, bye bye accuracy. You cannot get the necessary data for these 5 and 5+ generation aircraft as well as any other aircraft with classified systems. Notice I said classified systems, not classified aircraft it doesn't matter if an aircraft is known, there are pictures of it, there are home cockpit builds of it. What matters is whether or not the systems are classified as data on the systems, the avionics, the equipment available make up the bulk of a modules features. Accurate FDM, or flight dynamics modelling data is also very, VERY important for reasons that I hopefully don't need to explain by now and is major part of user experience, if data can't be obtained, the FDM will be inaccurate It won't represent reality, it will go against the entire point of DCS to simulate reality to an acceptable level of accuracy focusing on military aviation.

 

And if a government won't let you make an accurate representation of an aircraft, because they fear you're exposing it to exploitation or any other reason then it's a no. This will definitely be the case of modern front line aircraft of major military players. Also, if you can't get your module licensed you will also run into difficulty and will most definitely hinder development.

 

Again see my above post, see if you can get the data on those systems, in the detail required. And try and do that without getting into trouble. I can guarantee you won't succeed.

 

Because of these, the aircraft being proposed as well as some 4/4+ generation aircraft won't be possible module prospects for a very long time.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Northstar98

[Doum76]

Come on guys, you all know what the hell you are all atalking about, it's not Rocket Science to come up with a F-22 or any new gen Fighters...

 

 

Here's the total specification data sheet for a Raptor... If Hasbro was able to get their hands on the datas and make it for G.I. Joe, then totaly means we can get it in DCS! tsss :P

 

 

 

 

http://www.jomitoys.com/2012/10/gijoe-raptor-jet-thunderwing.html

 

 

 

 

« Sarcasm » lock here. :)

[Xilon_x]

TEMPEST BAE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DCS AND you have already explained to me that the 5 and 6 generation planes can not be done because they are not classified ok ok.

my question and you can not use the AI ​​models without cockpits and simply simple AI 3D models?

Edited November 28, 2018 by Xilon_x

[cichlidfan]

Sure, as long as they don't have to fly or employ weapons.

[Kev2go]

No

 

 

6th generation is just a concept at this stage. No country had any 6th generstion fighter. It would be akin to pure work of fiction for ed or 3rd parties to even entertain an idea of creating 6th generstion for any level of simulation.

 

And imho even an f22 or f35 shouldnt be done on sfull fidelty standards that dcs has. At least not for many decades to come

 

 

5t generation like f22 and f35 would be acceptable for fc3/mac level of simulation but I still wouldnt hold my breath.

 

 

F117 is feasible as a module I'd say but that is not really 5th generation

Edited November 29, 2018 by Kev2go

[MasterZelgadis]

Combining the words "simulator" and "5th gen" (which is all highly classified) in a wishlist entry, I would call that... interesting :)

[Xilon_x]

 

 

EXAMPLE of 6 generation fighter

 

 

 

[Kev2go]

Why stop at 6th generation?

 

Ed please finally do justice by creating a full fidelty space fighter Hornet :P

 

[Xilon_x]

Why stop at 6th generation?

 

Ed please finally do justice by creating a full fidelty space fighter Hornet :P

 

 

 

we went from the subsonic to the transonic and then up to the supersonic today we are at the hypersonic regime and we speak not of jet engines but of RAMJET engines but now you are exaggerating you are talking about PLASMA propulsion.

[MasterZelgadis]

It's not about 3D Models and propulsion systems. It's about flight performance data and avionics systems. When you post some performance charts and mfd pages, then we talk about implementing 5th gen jets. If you just want to play around with them no matter how realistic they are programmed, you should play Hawx or sth like that

[probad]

this guy will never get the message.

[Mars Exulte]

Why don't you post reams of fantasy drawing board aircraft that don't exist? Oh wait...

[cdrkrotchetyusn]

Might be fun to have a server dedicated to alternate universe fantasy aircraft. I'm not so wrapped around the realistic-axle to preclude wanting a 5th or 6th generation fighter that is based on supposition. Just for a fun diversion. After all, Crimson Skies on PC would be awesome, but Jessica Biel in a Stealth in VR?

 

 

Because Awesome.

[Xilon_x]

Might be fun to have a server dedicated to alternate universe fantasy aircraft. I'm not so wrapped around the realistic-axle to preclude wanting a 5th or 6th generation fighter that is based on supposition. Just for a fun diversion. After all, Crimson Skies on PC would be awesome, but Jessica Biel in a Stealth in VR?

 

 

Because Awesome.

 

 

 

forget it does not complicate things exists star citizen for this type of plasma jet and then we are in space not in the Earth's atmosphere are 2 different things at least that the aircraft has the propulsive ability to adapt. DCS is made to apply reality to simulation but not fantasy to simulation.

[Horns]

we went from the subsonic to the transonic and then up to the supersonic today we are at the hypersonic regime and we speak not of jet engines but of RAMJET engines but now you are exaggerating you are talking about PLASMA propulsion.

 

Yeah, everything else in this thread was realistic but it was cdrkrotchetyusn who took it too far hahaha

 

DCS is made to apply reality to simulation but not fantasy to simulation.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Horns
Fixed wrong name

[Varis]

Actually I could maybe see DCS branching off into a new direction with a roughly FC3 level module detailing the latest/future/prototype aircraft. I'm sure that would be shunned by some but get a small multiplayer following too. After all they did WW2 aircraft as well. Why I don't see them doing it for a while is perhaps spreading their effort too thin... would be another generation/era of aircraft to support and you know, the players are ever hungry and would be asking more and more of them.

 

Also, anybody has a good understanding of the detail needed for AI aircraft?

 

Perhaps a 5-generation plane can be obtained even if it is a simple trainer or bomber.

 

YES YES IS HIM

 

The name is.....YAK 130 or also ALENIA AERMACCHI 346

 

 

This might be the most concrete contribution... what do you guys think? Shouldn't it become declassified before the other craft so we might see it in just 10-20 years in DCS? Or does it closely model the capacity and systems of some more advanced aircraft?

[dopebogey]

Come on guys, you all know what the hell you are all atalking about, it's not Rocket Science to come up with a F-22 or any new gen Fighters...

 

 

Here's the total specification data sheet for a Raptor... If Hasbro was able to get their hands on the datas and make it for G.I. Joe, then totaly means we can get it in DCS! tsss :P

 

 

 

 

http://www.jomitoys.com/2012/10/gijoe-raptor-jet-thunderwing.html

 

 

 

 

« Sarcasm » lock here. :)

 

 

 

DUDE!..everyone knows JOE has WAY more access to classified info than the rest of us... lasers'n stuff??!! just sayin..:spam_laser: