What will we be missing?

[warthogmadman987]

So I have really been pumped for Black Shark, and have been reading a lot about it in the developers journal. Then, it struck me, it seems that Ka-50 will be modeled so realistically, that I am beginning to wonder what exactly if anything will be missing from it eh? Anyway, just reading that stuff makes me wanna get DCS even more!

[Shaman]

As far as I may guess you still won't be able to see damage inside cockpit. You know, like shrapnels smashing analog dials, smoke incabin, broken windshield with bullet hits. I wish we had these little details.

 

From flight physics though, I believe we will be missing aerodynamical wake behind diffrent crafts - which needs to be accounted for when you fly in formations.

[Weta43]

From flight physics though, I believe we will be missing aerodynamical wake behind diffrent crafts -

 

Also missing ( I think ...) something else which would effect a lot more than the inclusion of wake effects - gusting wind

 

Gusting wind (not the constant displacement that is modelled in LO/FC) would add greatly to the sense of being immersed in the BS world, and would make things like holding position & landing in a tight spot in a helicopter that much more 'interesting', as well as adding an actual challenge to lining up the landing in any fixed wing aircraft - no more just holding the stick to one side to counter that cross wind, you'd actually have to continually correct as the sideways forces - & lift - rose & fell.

 

Wouldn't you love a bit of windshear with your new DCS sim ?.

 

This could add something for everyone at least twice a flight - more for ground pounders...

 

The video that shows the collective being pulled up looks to have gusting wind (the rotors look to be moving up & down with gusts, & the sound appears to go up & down), but although there was discussion in the LO forum quite early in the piece about this, it's never been mentioned again by the devs or testers ... (though I asked about the video )-:

 

Beautiful flight models, but without gusting winds - Oh well...

 

Maybe it's going to be a surprise (bit torn between raising the subject & possibly spoiling the surprise if it is in, and not raising it & having nothing ever happen about it if no-one nags - seems more important in a High-Fi flight sim than differential toe wheel braking that only gets used when you're already on the ground...) but if not, it would be a very good thing to add at as early a stage as possible to the next module !

[Shaman]

Weta, your post reminds me of something.

 

Flying a helicopter is quite a challenge in mountain area, because of wind currents, turbulent air near cliffs.. etc..etc...

 

Same with flying near big buildings.

 

I think to create real air/fluid physics in-game DCS would need to be compiled for multi-core 64bit CPUs, otherwise I don't see how devs would find any extra resources to calculate all that.

[VMFA117_Poko]

(...)I think to create real air/fluid physics in-game DCS would need to be compiled for multi-core 64bit CPUs, otherwise I don't see how devs would find any extra resources to calculate all that.

Without real air/fluid physics we can not talk about realistic simulation. Aircraft doesn't fly in kind of vacuum (only with preasure levels and simple constant wind if set) but in moving enviroment. But you right - such real-time calculation are only possible on supercomputers.

[AlphaOneSix]

Supercomputers aren't needed, there is a video floating around of this somewhere, I can't remember where it is, though. Maybe someone else will remember, but it was based on a WWI flight sim, if I remember correctly.

[britgliderpilot]

Supercomputers aren't needed, there is a video floating around of this somewhere, I can't remember where it is, though. Maybe someone else will remember, but it was based on a WWI flight sim, if I remember correctly.

 

Knights of the Sky makes an attempt, yep.

 

However . . . try doing that with a coaxial rotor helicopter (or worse, several in close proximity) and I'm not sure it'll work so well.

Will look into the technology again and check it out.

 

 

Features are nice, but in the end none of this stuff affects the meat of the sim - the combat.

The Ka50 and it's systems are beautifully modelled, fun and challenging to learn . . . but the point is to blow stuff up.

 

Where we focus on features like this, what will determine the success of the sim will be stuff like the AI, the capabilities of the new mission editor, and the depth with which the campaigns are built.

And this stuff isn't finished yet. I'm optimistic, though ;)

[Highwayman-Ed]

IMHO a lot of this shouldn't be so strictly simulated as it's impossible to "feel" the forces acting upon the aircraft as you do in real life...

 

Even with Tripple Head to go's you just can't get enough peripheral vision to catch those tiny movements that you instinctively pick up and compensate for in real life, or just feel in your gut, which would make the flight sim too hard.

[Weta43]

1/

Features are nice, but in the end none of this stuff affects the meat of the sim - the combat.

The Ka50 and it's systems are beautifully modelled, fun and challenging to learn . . . but the point is to blow stuff up.

This is a FLIGHT combat sim, where a lot of effort has gone into getting the ADVANCED FLIGHT MODEL to fruition, & then something as basic as getting the wind vaguely realistic is skimmed over. I don't know about where you live, but I live in WINDY Wellington, and watching the pilots wrestle airliners down onto the dinky little runway we have here in a full on Southerly that's gusting & swinging around reminds me just how much the wind modelling in FC falls short of the standard of the AFM for the 2 planes that have it - & how much it would add to the flight part of the sim if it were improved.

 

Also - Isn't that alway's the complaint about Falcon derivatives - that they focus on the beautifuly modelled systems, and ignore the experience of flight that has always been a LO strength ?

 

2/

You're making it way more complicated than needed to acheive a reasonable result.

While full fluid forced computation on a Cray would be nice ( or - there's a name for modelling the forces on particles used in engineering & that knights of the sky vid - anybody know what it is ?) - it's not necessary to do that to get something better than the constant state wind we have at the moment.

All that's needed is for the present modelling of wind speed & direction to be varied over time.

Set a minimum speed, a maximum speed, perhaps a base direction & degrees variability & have the wind vary within these bounds (perhaps against either random or sampled profiles).

It appears all the 'air' in the LO world at a given altitude exerts the same force at any given time, so the same would happen here - everyone would feel the same 'gust' at the same time, but as any 1 player is only in 1 plane at a time, and eveyones reacitons are different - meaning their plane would react differently to the same gust - no one would realy be able to tell that from inside the cockpit (even doing acrobatics ...).

[britgliderpilot]

1/

 

This is a FLIGHT combat sim, where a lot of effort has gone into getting the ADVANCED FLIGHT MODEL to fruition, & then something as basic as getting the wind vaguely realistic is skimmed over. I don't know about where you live, but I live in WINDY Wellington, and watching the pilots wrestle airliners down onto the dinky little runway we have here in a full on Southerly that's gusting & swinging around reminds me just how much the wind modelling in FC falls short of the standard of the AFM for the 2 planes that have it - & how much it would add to the flight part of the sim if it were improved.

 

Also - Isn't that alway's the complaint about Falcon derivatives - that they focus on the beautifuly modelled systems, and ignore the experience of flight that has always been a LO strength ?

 

You make a convincing point ;)

 

You've highlighted the word flight - which is fine, and you're right, it's where ED's products have always excelled.

But there's also the word combat in there.

 

I'm not suggesting that accurately modelled flight dynamics aren't necessary or should be toned down, but if you focus entirely on those then you end up with a great flight simulator with combat tacked on as an afterthought. For something advertised as a combat flight sim, that's usually a poor result.

 

With Black Shark, we've already got far and away the best helicopter flight simulation there's yet been. And as time moves on, flight simulation will only get better.

 

But ED's stuff hasn't always been great for combat . . . and I think it's about time that got it's share of the focus.

 

 

2/

You're making it way more complicated than needed to acheive a reasonable result.

While full fluid forced computation on a Cray would be nice ( or - there's a name for modelling the forces on particles used in engineering & that knights of the sky vid - anybody know what it is ?) - it's not necessary to do that to get something better than the constant state wind we have at the moment.

All that's needed is for the present modelling of wind speed & direction to be varied over time.

Set a minimum speed, a maximum speed, perhaps a base direction & degrees variability & have the wind vary within these bounds (perhaps against either random or sampled profiles).

It appears all the 'air' in the LO world at a given altitude exerts the same force at any given time, so the same would happen here - everyone would feel the same 'gust' at the same time, but as any 1 player is only in 1 plane at a time, and eveyones reacitons are different - meaning their plane would react differently to the same gust - no one would realy be able to tell that from inside the cockpit (even doing acrobatics ...).

 

You mean . . . like the turbulence option in Lomac and FC?

 

A blanket gust model is probably possible, but while providing a more challenging time for the pilot is arguably no more realistic.

 

Accurate atmospheric stuff would be fantastic, but takes real time to develop - some soaring simulators have spent years getting it right.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Even with Tripple Head to go's you just can't get enough peripheral vision to catch those tiny movements that you instinctively pick up and compensate for in real life, or just feel in your gut, which would make the flight sim too hard.

This is convincing me until hardware like g-force simulating pit sets and wide high res VR goggles will be common and avialable for affordable price.

[Shaman]

This is convincing me until hardware like g-force simulating...

 

Simulating G-forces for reasonable price? Already available: http://www.tngames.com/products.php

SDK included. All you need to do is to find 160$, someone who knows both LUA scripts, and know how to use SDK for that vest.

Of course it is for FPS games, but who knows.. maybe one day they'll make vest that will squish the living hell out of you hehehe

[VMFA117_Poko]

I remember. You showed that some time ago. Really nice kit. Unfortunatelly this doesn't affect... I don't know how is it called in english... middle ear (?)

[bogusheadbox]

Back on the wind topic.

 

IL2 has wind gust, they can be quite violant as well. Once instance was that we created a base on the top of a mountain. We set the weather to poor - but not stormy and taxiing out was a definite challenge. I still remember seeing an a-10 that had just lined up on the runway suddenly lift the windward wheel up smashing the other wing into the ground and spinning him round.

 

You really had to be on your toes on that map under the right conditions.

 

Sure the wind is pre-programmed and does not use fuid physics. But il2 is an old game and the gusts certainly feel real and work quite well for scripting

[nemises]

I remember. You showed that some time ago. Really nice kit. Unfortunatelly this doesn't affect... I don't know how is it called in english... middle ear (?)

 

Balance or Orientation..

[britgliderpilot]

Balance or Orientation..

 

Middle ear's close - Inner Ear is the appropriate term.

Difficult to fool, that.

 

Most of the sensation stuff will continue to be bulky and expensive because you've got to actually sit in it to use it. I'm not optimistic about flight sims ever reaching that level of detail.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I saw on YouTube a small moving pit where some guy flew in F4 (can't find it now). But that set is too tight and i didn't like it so much. Something similar is used by BMW Sauber Team for training drivers.

[therion_prime]

I saw on YouTube a small moving pit where some guy flew in F4 (can't find it now). But that set is too tight and i didn't like it so much. Something similar is used by BMW Sauber Team for training drivers.

 

Something like this? http://www.mydreamflyer.com

[VMFA117_Poko]

Something like this? http://www.mydreamflyer.com

Maybe but Im not sure. Is it realistic if Dreamflyer doesn't use powered mechanics?

 

Dreamflyer™ captures the motion based on simple gravitational movements of the chair initiated by the user in response to the views on the screen. By using gravitational force to generate motions, the Dreamflyer™ has eliminated the need for hydraulics and motors, and associated costly maintenance.

 

I understand it like you would simply sitting on a big joystick (it moves when you move a stick?)

[LazerPotatoe]

http://youtube.com/profile?user=tronicgr

[VMFA117_Poko]

This is the one i had in mind :) Imagine how would it feel in chair like this with wide high-res VR gogles. Only problem to switch in a pit (using some kind of glove or something like that?).

[Highwayman-Ed]

hmmm... I refer to the $ for simming post for that! :D

 

On a serious note though, my original point was that we should be able to simulate gusts and downdraughts over ridges, etc with the current level of PC hardware, and this would increase the immersion of DCS.

 

But things like real air/fluid physics is going to far for a PC simulator because of my points about peripheral vision, your inner ear and the inability to react to them in a realistic manner, All of which would make the simulator difficult and frustrating to master in hovered flight rather than challenging.

[EvilBivol-1]

Maybe it's going to be a surprise (bit torn between raising the subject & possibly spoiling the surprise if it is in, and not raising it & having nothing ever happen about it if no-one nags - seems more important in a High-Fi flight sim than differential toe wheel braking that only gets used when you're already on the ground...) but if not, it would be a very good thing to add at as early a stage as possible to the next module !

Sorry Weta, don't think there's any surprise in this regard. I agree though - it would be a very nice feature, especially for a chopper. Maybe in the future...

[Weta43]

Sorry Weta, don't think there's any surprise in this regard. I agree though - it would be a very nice feature, especially for a chopper. Maybe in the future...

 

That's a shame - kept hoping that it might appear :-)

 

You mean . . . like the turbulence option in Lomac and FC?

 

Sort of (unless your intention is to damn the idea with the comparison, in which case - no ! :-)

 

I know what you mean, but the turbulence in LO is so transient that it never actually gets to displace the aircraft from it's flight path, it just 'jiggles' it a bit.

 

Because I'm a lazy beggar, I'll quote myself for the second time in a week: (from 2005 !)

I think the turbulence setting does a reasonable job of the transient buffeting you get, but you can pretty much just brace your hand against it & it nets out to nothing.

 

I was practicing landing the SU25 & SU25T in a stiff crosswind the other night & the wind was really aware that the wind was unnaturally steady.

 

Because the wind is so even once you’re lined up & have the “trick” of it, staying lined up on approach & putting it down isn’t that much harder with than without a wind (it’s the slowing down without shredding the front tire that I find tricky…).

Above 2000m the way it’s modelled is fine, but low down, especially during take off & landing some gross changes would be good.

 

Speaking with the confidence of someone with a complete lack of coding experience I don’t think it would be that hard to implement.

 

Apply the wind speed changes globally – I won’t even know that the other guy’s wind gust hits him exactly as mine does.

(Yes - all the smoke from the stacks would flick around in unison... but a small price to pay.)

 

Have 2 sliders for the wind, a base speed & a peak speed.

 

Either continuously calculate the variation between the two or just have a file with a profile for the variation – made by sticking a wind gauge out the window on a gusty day & recording the values every 0.1sec or 0.25sec for some period of time & converting this to values between 0 (min speed during this time) & 1 (max speed during this time). It doesn’t have to be truly random variation, just have a repeat period long enough to stop the player recognising it easily.

(Values for every 0.25 sec for 10 hours takes up about 400kb as a CSV. 30 min’s worth would probably do it.)

 

Use the profile to create the gusts above the base wind speed, so for 1/10th of a sec & a gust profile I just dreamed up:

 

Profile 0, 0.373, 0.568, 0.909, 0.968, 0.927, 0.414, 0.295, 0.164, 0.073

 

Time 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

(0m/s - 12m/s) 0, 4.476, 6.816, 10.908, 11.616, 11.124, 4.968, 3.54, 1.968, 0.876

(5m/s - 12m/s) 5, 7.611, 8.976, 11.363, 11.776, 11.489, 7.898, 7.065, 6.148, 5.511

(10m/s - 12m/s) 10, 10.746, 11.136, 11.818, 11.936, 11.854, 10.828, 10.59, 10.328, 10.146

(12m/s - 12m/s) 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12,

 

(Don't know how well that table will work here)

Now if you set the two values close together you’d have the wind you have now, but if you set them reasonably far apart you’d actually have to fight that plane in to a landing - & you might even get a few surprises – 5m off the ground & in 0.5sec the wind goes from a 12m/sec headwind to nothing – that would be fun…

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=110618&highlight=turbulence#post110618

[Phantom_Mark]

Like already mentioned, a simple "min - max" and simple radomizer would suffice and be a welcomed start :thumbup: