Jump to content

ED Please End Qs Re MiG-21's FM?


Horns

Recommended Posts

We've seen -Rudel- (others too, I think) refer to a request from ED in various places, such as here for data to verify the accuracy of the MiG-21's flight model, and ED being satisfied by what they submitted.

 

While statements such as this help, ED could make this conclusive by simply confirming that, in the light of M3's submissions and answers, they are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model. I definitely see why ED would not want to get into an ongoing conversation about the accuracy of 3rd Party Developers works, this situation is different because -Rudel- himself has informed the community at large about this process. ED wouldn't be telling us anything, simply confirming what the developer themselves have already said. In fact, if this was to occur in future, it may make sense to have a precedent that allows ED to confirm that they have certified a dev's work in future.

 

Beyond satisfying the doubts of people who genuinely have questions about the flight model's accuracy, there is a good reason that this would end much of the conversation: if ED are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model, there is no reason to think it will get changed, so the only worthwhile approach would be to accept the module will stay as is permanently, regardless of how convinced they might be that there are actually glaring inaccuracies.

 

Request: I'm suggesting that ED could help end dispute by confirming and supporting what M3 have told us. Pull the idea apart, support it or do both, but please respond to this idea itself rather than making this into a complaint/anti complaint thread.


Edited by Horns
Extend first paragraph characterization

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with your good intentions.

 

I still think if a good report about FM, supported by real documentation, data and info to compare with, writed here in a comprehensive manner should be considerer always by the devs.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have the Mig-21's actual flight manual plus all of the charts. Unfortunately we don't have a real dev kit to test these conditions out in.

 

So us trying to provide this as scientifically as possible is always going to have a few people saying "There's no way you can test this objectively.", and they're right. Even if we meet all of the curves perfectly; those curves are windtunnel predictions.

Furthermore I'm not sure what a statement from ED would mean. They're not going to go re-simulate the Mig-21 just for our benefit. So what are they going to say? "Uh, yeah, sure. It's fine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How should EDs guys have a better judgement about the fligh model of the MiG-21 than M3s flight model programmer who himself is a real life MiG-21 pilot?!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with your good intentions.

 

I still think if a good report about FM, supported by real documentation, data and info to compare with, writed here in a comprehensive manner should be considerer always by the devs.

 

I'd hope that would be the case, especially if that report was either about something they haven't reviewed previously, or if the documentation, data and info illuminates an issue in a way that hasn't been considered before. On the other hand, if that specific issue had already been evaluated and agreed by ED, M3 could communicate that and we would know it's effectively been judged as accurate, so at least we could move on rather than wasting more time on something ED considers solid ground.

 

We have the Mig-21's actual flight manual plus all of the charts. Unfortunately we don't have a real dev kit to test these conditions out in.

 

So us trying to provide this as scientifically as possible is always going to have a few people saying "There's no way you can test this objectively.", and they're right. Even if we meet all of the curves perfectly; those curves are windtunnel predictions.

Furthermore I'm not sure what a statement from ED would mean. They're not going to go re-simulate the Mig-21 just for our benefit. So what are they going to say? "Uh, yeah, sure. It's fine."

 

If ED were inclined to indicate that data was acceptable regardless of accuracy then yeah, we're already done. I'm making the assumption that ED are interested in seeing DCS simulations are demonstrably accurate.

 

As -Rudel- acknowledges in the hyperlink in the OP (or here) this submission of data and explanations has already been mentioned in multiple places, and is being used as evidence that the flight model is sufficiently accurate and therefore will be staying as is.

 

The characterisation of this exchange has been that ED requested data re the accuracy of the flight model, this data was collected and submitted, any variations from known data were explained, and ED did not raise any objections regarding the information submitted, implying ED's satisfaction with said data. If this implicit approval will be used as part of the justification for locking down a flight model many think needs work, it would be helpful to both sides if this approval was confirmed explicitly. If that were done M3 would never need to have the conversation again (instead they could just link to ED's statement), and we users would no there was no remaining mileage in it, no matter how compelling the case. However, if ED were not indicating agreement it would make it difficult for them to refuse to revisit the flight model if a strong enough case was made.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How should EDs guys have a better judgement about the fligh model of the MiG-21 than M3s flight model programmer who himself is a real life MiG-21 pilot?!

 

ED are effectively the final decision maker here, this environment being their sim. As such ED retain the power here, so as anywhere the decision maker decides how things progress, regardless of whether they are more knowledgeable than another party.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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