Most Realistic/Accurate Module?

[bolek]

The thing is, ED has always said that they had the policy that any third party must submit real aircraft data and prove that the module follows it. In fact the inability to provide the data to ED was one of the main factors that killed the original Eurofighter effort (not the current one).

 

So one may expect that both Deka and ED have this kind of documentation. Unless rules have changed...

[AeriaGloria]

The thing is, ED has always said that they had the policy that any third party must submit real aircraft data and prove that the module follows it. In fact the inability to provide the data to ED was one of the main factors that killed the original Eurofighter effort (not the current one).

 

So one may expect that both Deka and ED have this kind of documentation. Unless rules have changed...

 

They have mentioned that they have to share the EM charts with ED for QA and other information to verify performance.

 

Notching was added to the JF-17 a few patches ago

 

I’m pretty sure there’s no perfect UV MAWS in ED that only detects engines, I don’t think it’s a JF-17 modeling issue, but DCS

[Alfredson007]

In my mind the L39 is the most realistic plane. Lots of written and video material on the internet and the DCS one seems incredibly well made, that said, it must be one of the easiest plane to model since no prop, subsonic, pretty tame and not very powerful, simple, stable aircraft etc.

 

As for WW2 plane, i have no idea but now that i've tried them all i think the Spitfire feels most realistic for me but it is just a hunch based on nothing solid.

[BuzzU]

I wouldn't fly a Chinese plane if it was the best plane in the world and free.

[msalama]

I wouldn't fly a Chinese plane

 

Bah. Gimme a Nanchang CJ-6 and I'll fly the buttcheeks off it every day. Your loss if you won't.

[BuzzU]

Nope! I'm not losing anything.

[Harlikwin]

I agree. Not sure how anyone can say the JF is a realistic model considering there aren’t any unclassified and independent test/performance data. All the info we have on the JF is performance capabilities provided by the Chinese government, anecdotal comments from pilots and inferences about what things COULD do. China still isn’t able to design and build a modern jet engine and 80% of its airforce is reverse engineered Soviet aircraft. Yet we’re supposed to believe that China produced an aircraft that can outperform the F-16 and has avionics/radar superior to any western aircraft?

 

I’d also add that several “bugs” seem to ere on the side of increased performance. Most notably, the JF’s radar cannot he notched in the game even though it is a pulse Doppler. Also, the missile warning system is an IR system that detects the flash of a missile launch; yet the DCs JF can magically detect ANY missile within 6 miles regardless of how far away it was launched or even if the motor is still burning!

 

This is just MY OPINION and not based on anything other than my own biases and experiences....but it seems to me that the JF in DCS is the JF the Chinese want it to be; what they want people to believe it is. There is no data supporting a lot of its capabilities which is why DCS has no business introducing an aircraft that wasn’t deployed until 2009 in a game taking place in 2008. Too new.

 

I mean I don't really disagree with you on some of this. I do find it problematic that there are no EM diagrams available of even the IN game model (not even the real thing). But at the end of the day the people wanted a modern Red fighter, and realistically its more like a 2012-2015 version. I think this will be the exact same problem if ED or whoever end up doing a modernish flanker or mig. But I don't really find it hard to believe that the JF17 is ish right, its not superior to either the F16 or F18 kinematically, and will get killed in any sort of WVR fight. It has modern(ish) sensors but again they aren't superior to the 2007 era F18 or F16 we have, and really the 2007 era viper is more of a limited ANG model, not top of the line for 2007, same for the C hornet.

 

 

You are wrong on the radar though, its currently very notch able and it was able for people to break locks even prior to the more recent "update", but its also a more modern design than most of the other in game radars. "notching" an AWG-9 with its 1960's barnyard wide analog notch gate isn't really representative of what modern PD radars can do. As for being "superior" to the F16 or F18 radars IN GAME, its not, its detection range is much shorter and its actually jammable, its TWS can lock only 2 targets, its scan rate is worse etc. It also more trouble finding targets compared to the Viper or F18 IMO. Its DL system is inferior to link 16 as well and link16 isn't even done. The TGP can't lock targets beyond 20nm, you actually have to fiddle with gain to get a decent picture the autofocus sometimes sucks etc. And IMO all of these things are fairly realistic.

 

 

The MAWS I believe is mainly a DCS coding limitation so don't go blame Deka for that. And hopefully with ED adding a similar system to the Ka-50 they will improve these systems overall. Also I haven't seen a ton of data on this specific MAWS but it should be able to detect and track missiles after burnout though its main use is detecting manpads/shorad and fox2's. However it should be able to detect and track AA missiles if they are coming at you from on high, thermal systems have pretty good performance detecting anything against a "sky" background, its when you have ground clutter that it gets to be an issue. So seeing a phoenix falling on your head from space should be well within its Real world capabilities. Plus I think you are also conflating abilities of the RWR and SPJ in there which are combined into a single "picture", if you are seeing a 120 or 54 icon on the HSD that's not the MAWS that's either the RWR or SPJ. MAWS just gives you an <M> warning in the rear arc.

 

So I really reject the comment about superior avionics. They are at best about "par" with the western AC, and with a crappier human interface to boot (tried to rapidly switch from chaff to flares in the jeff "realistically", boy you're in for a treat).

 

And another big part of the problem is you are comparing a plane that's basically "done" and actually more modern by a decade (that matters a lot with avionics) to planes that are a major work in progress, so the Viper and Hornet are only going to get more capable as time goes on while the Jeff is gonna stay static.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Kev2go]

MiG-21Bis just received major change to its flight modeling, again. Now some say it reflects the performance charts better, but it is fairly radical change it received.

 

And it took looking time to get proper weapons system logic in, and SPO-10 to act even semi-correct.

 

If even ED would fix the SPO-15.....

 

 

Its FM "fix" are a resultant something breaking (bug) since 2nd last OB patch.

 

If it was an intended FM change there would notes of it in the changelogs, but there never were.

[CommandT]

Realistic one might be Yak-52

 

Definitely not. I've got some time doing aeros in a Yak-52 so I was quite hopeful when I downloaded the Yak in DCS and found out it's wobbly and not really anything like the real thing.

 

 

I think the F/A-18 flight dynamics apart from extremely high alpha at low speed where you can practically make it hover, are superb. Can't speak from real life but from watching ample videos it looks really similar.

[msalama]

it's wobbly

 

I'd say this is a matter of controller setup. A common garden-variety JS has absolutely nothing to do with a RL control stick or column as it comes to feel, displacement forces, moment arms and such, so you'll need to trick it into thinking that it's actually longer than it is.

Edited May 8, 2020 by msalama

[CommandT]

I'd say this is a matter of controller setup. A common garden-variety JS has absolutely nothing to do with a RL control stick or column as it comes to feel, displacement forces, moment arms and such, so you'll need to trick it into thinking that it's actually longer than it is.

 

No, no. I mean it's wobbly as in it exhibits what seems like Dutch Roll in instances where it would feel rock solid in real life - especially rolling it hard.

 

I use a Warthog stick with a 15cm extension and Thrustmaster Pendular pedals. No they will obviously not replicate reality but it's a decent set up and over the years I've been pretty good at understanding the limitations of PC hardware and where the flight model is just wrong. All I'm saying is - the flight model feels wrong.

 

Also, just like with the Christian Eagle gyroscopic manoeuvres are total nonesense in the game. Though I can appreciate that these are difficult to model in any sim and I've never come across one that does them well. But it doesn't change the fact that snap rolls and tumbles and such are very different in real life. And like I say it "wobbles".

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Probably none of them, as what will kill you is non-adherence to procedures. That said, I'd say the safest you would be if you were expert in DCS would be in real word A-10C.

You would not survive in any helicopter, regardless of sim time, as helicoptering requires actual time in real helicopter. As so much training, is prevention from entering into bad conditions. That is if you were alone . With CFI aboard to keep you out of trouble, no problem.

 

The thing that in real aircraft there is no keyboard to HOTAS to map. You have to use aircraft systems as they were designed. That means actual tactile controls. Emergency procedures often involve pulling and resetting fuses. We don't have that in DCS. So even in tame A-10C on clear standard day, 68C, 29.92 QNH, no winds, an emergency can still kill you.

Those emergencies are practiced in ground cockpit trainer, ground full motion simulator, and in air. Build muscle memory and memory items.

[kariem2k]

If you never drove a car, play the most realistic car simulator game for 100 hours, and then try to drive a manual car and you will be struggling even with the simplest things because you don't have the human-machine interface experience (which what really matters). Flying is a lot more complicated than driving a car! That said, airplanes (especially the modern ones) have far more controls than cars, and knowing how to operate them semi-theoretically will help of course, but IMHO that is only maybe 10% of what it takes to fly a real airplane and controlling your nerves for real stressful situations.

 

To me (and I think many people playing DCS as well), it is great fun to know and experience how these great magnificent machines work and operate, and it really worth it when (even for seconds) the immersion makes you think that you are really flying it. That's, why you see people talking about how each airplane has its own flavor because the most interesting thing to them, is to experience the unique behavior and characteristics, and most importantly (to me) are the ideas behind how this machine operates.

Edited May 8, 2020 by kariem2k

[Harlikwin]

Probably none of them, as what will kill you is non-adherence to procedures. That said, I'd say the safest you would be if you were expert in DCS would be in real word A-10C.

You would not survive in any helicopter, regardless of sim time, as helicoptering requires actual time in real helicopter. As so much training, is prevention from entering into bad conditions. That is if you were alone . With CFI aboard to keep you out of trouble, no problem.

 

The thing that in real aircraft there is no keyboard to HOTAS to map. You have to use aircraft systems as they were designed. That means actual tactile controls. Emergency procedures often involve pulling and resetting fuses. We don't have that in DCS. So even in tame A-10C on clear standard day, 68C, 29.92 QNH, no winds, an emergency can still kill you.

Those emergencies are practiced in ground cockpit trainer, ground full motion simulator, and in air. Build muscle memory and memory items.

 

I don't disagree really, but with VR and point control you can basically map the HOTAS realistically at least for some planes. And then use point control to flip the switches and pull fuses if they are pullable in a given AC.

 

I think aside from the flippy switch problem, the two big things you have to overcome in game sims are: realistic control feel, and actual physical feel feedback i.e. G's, vibration, "tilt". Etc, which isn't coming IMO till we get that matrix jack in the back of skulls, but I do think that sort of thing is very slowly coming.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

To be effective trainer, the VR cockpit has to be tactile. As procedures require that trainee fly the aircraft safely while dealing with emergency. So switches , fuses, have to have a physical feel to them. Same as COD s not going to make you a infantryman.

[dawgie79]

You would not survive in any helicopter, regardless of sim time, as helicoptering requires actual time in real helicopter.

Well, when the zombie-apocalypse hits, I sure as hell gonna try and fly away if I find me a helo. :joystick:

[msalama]

And like I say it "wobbles".

 

Right. Would you consider making a bug report about it perchance?

[wilbur81]

I think the F/A-18 flight dynamics ... are superb. Can't speak from real life but from watching ample videos it looks really similar.

 

Agreed. :thumbup:

[BranchPrediction]

Surprisingly the JF-17 was not mentioned yet. I'd say this is the most realistic module of all the combat jet ones. It is simulating stuff most other modules do not. It has a proper IFF integration, unfortunately limited due to DCS to other JF-17, has fatigue modelled, a ground radar and various forms of pilot caused faults like avionic overheat. It is feature complete by now and has a loadout available which reflects the actual used ones. It is though a very unpopular jet.

 

Talking about all modules I own, I would put the L-39 on the top spot, but that one has a lot less to simulate anyway.

 

The F-14, while great, is still missing quite some functions.

 

im a heli pilot in dcs and since im not all that interested in jets, i didnt buy one in dcs. But ever since JF 17 came out i kinda wanted to get in to jets aswell. Well i didnt, for many reaons like lack of proper controls. Just wanted to say, to me the JF 17 seems the most interresting between the all fixed wings.