DCS WWI

[Svsmokey]

As far as I know, "the other sim" (let alone older sims) is based on parameters and not on actual physics modelling like DCS.

 

 

I think DCS is the only simulation platform that could theoretically do justice to WWI and other early aircraft.

 

 

Maybe some things what I mentioned are more important and/or easier to model than others. I think wing warping is a very important aspect that was already introduced to DCS (but I'm not sure how DCS handles it from a computational fluid dynamics perspective). The physics of rotary engines is another very important aspect that is already modelled in DCS. Damage modelling of wood and fabric is also important for some WW2 aircraft (Mosquito) so it is definately coming to DCS.

 

Sure you're not confusing rotary with radial :) ?

[Kev2go]

Dcs ww1 would be a niche within an already niche community.

 

 

IF you think helicopters are slow....

[Zius]

Sure you're not confusing rotary with radial ?

 

 

You are partially right. ;) DCS has radial engines modelled. Many iconic WW1 aircraft used rotary engines which is indeed different. But also several WW1 aircraft used radial engines (Anzani, Salmson).Anyway, the physics modelling required to simulated radial and rotary engines is similar enough to expect that it should not be that difficult in DCS.

 

 

Dcs ww1 would be a niche within an already niche community.

 

 

 

As long as you consider DCS a sandbox in which you can create missions to your liking I don't see any problem at all.

 

 

The problem partially starts with multiplayer, but if DCS would have two matched rival aircraft (e.g. Fokker D.VII and Spad XIII, or Fokker E.III and Airco DH.2) then it would be no problem and similar to the Korean War situation.

 

 

If you think about simulating the entire Air War of WW1, then I would say that DCS is notoriously bad at simulating actual wars, and it will stay like that at least until we get a good dynamic campaign.

[Xilon_x]

also the wwi? nooo too much stuff.

 

I personally think that DCS was wrong to put WW2 in the program but because it involves the design of aircraft, ships and vehicles and also territories of another era, let alone insert WW1.

 

I agreed if they left everything in the modern era and entered only the planes and not the ships and vehicles and the territories of the Second World War.

 

in fact, in reality 'the planes of the Second World War have restored them and are currently flyable as well as those of the First World War.

 

so my question is this and my advice is this:

 

enter only planes from other eras but not the entire historical context such as ships, vehicles and territories.

[Svsmokey]

You are partially right. ;) DCS has radial engines modelled. Many iconic WW1 aircraft used rotary engines which is indeed different. But also several WW1 aircraft used radial engines (Anzani, Salmson).Anyway, the physics modelling required to simulated radial and rotary engines is similar enough to expect that it should not be that difficult in DCS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As long as you consider DCS a sandbox in which you can create missions to your liking I don't see any problem at all.

 

 

The problem partially starts with multiplayer, but if DCS would have two matched rival aircraft (e.g. Fokker D.VII and Spad XIII, or Fokker E.III and Airco DH.2) then it would be no problem and similar to the Korean War situation.

 

 

If you think about simulating the entire Air War of WW1, then I would say that DCS is notoriously bad at simulating actual wars, and it will stay like that at least until we get a good dynamic campaign.

 

I have to strongly disagree with you there . The physics of rotary and radial engines could hardly be more different . Bolting the crankshaft vs the engine block to the mount resulting in having a massive gyroscope on your nose , cooling , induction , oil supply and valve action are all entirely unrelated between the two designs .

 

I am not trying to be difficult , but rather trying to point out that the developer resources necessary to bring your wish to fruition would be a massively greater task than one might think , from the aerodynamics of relatively flimsy structures , to engine modeling , to lack of real-world experience from which to draw , to the inevitable calls for assets and maps , fulfilling this wish would require a large-scale diversion from ED's core mission .

Breezily blowing off every objection with "pfft , this wouldn't require much for ED to implement" (or words to that effect) won't change those core facts .

Edited May 21, 2020 by Svsmokey

[FlankerKiller]

Or some third party could take on the task. It's a wish list. Yes, I think ED should focus on polishing up DCS world a bit. But those advances will apply across the board, and WWI units, maps, and campaigns would be plugged in. Honestly I would pay for several of the mod assets right now, and asset packs seem to be a niche wide open to third parties. I know how some feel about them. But the pay for what you want model seems to be the way it's going to go. Plus that would allow for growth while keeping ED from shouldering the load.

[Zius]

I have to strongly disagree with you there . The physics of rotary and radial engines could hardly be more different . Bolting the crankshaft vs the engine block to the mount resulting in having a massive gyroscope on your nose , cooling , induction , oil supply and valve action are all entirely unrelated between the two designs .

I agree, but the basic physics are similar. Piston engines (a piston moving in a cylinder) are something that can be modelled in DCS. An engine where the pistons are not moving in line (in the Z-axis) but radially around the X-axis of the aircraft is also modelled already.

 

 

I *think* this means that on a physics level, there is nothing against modelling rotary engines as well.

 

 

trying to point out that the developer resources necessary to bring your wish to fruition would be a massively greater task than one might think , from the aerodynamics of relatively flimsy structures , to engine modeling

That's what I pointed out before as well.

But I do think it may be worth it, because, as it is, DCS is the only simulator capable of capturing the flying experience, as well as accurately modelling the systems.

 

 

 

, to lack of real-world experience from which to draw

Actually there are still several originals still in flying condition, as well as quite a lot of good replica's / recreations. So there is definately real-world experience available, if you want to look for it.

 

 

 

, to the inevitable calls for assets and maps , fulfilling this wish would require a large-scale diversion from ED's core mission

 

I would say that, if there proves to be a market for it, then ED might consider to add asset packs and maps, but I think that there would not be a lot of cannibalisation.

 

 

With that I mean that if someone buys a Fokker E.III module, he's not going to skip buying an F-16 module because he already has a similar aircraft. If he buys the E.III but not the F-16, it is because he's more interested in the E.III or more interested in WW1 stuff in general.

 

 

Or, just because he already has the F-18...

 

 

If a lot of people buy WW1 modules and then call for assets and maps, then ED can make them and sell them at a profit. That profit will at least benefit the core sim, if (maybe) not the development of further modern modules.

[Zius]

Or some third party could take on the task.

Honestly, I have thought about becoming a third party myself to develop a WW1 or pre-WW1 aircraft. But I lack almost everything that is needed to do it, most of all the time...