Questions regarding the FM

[Spectre11]

What's the point in calling it a study sim if there's no documentation to study and the entire thing is based on SME input :/ a single SME at that. No disrespect intended but even though his credentials are great and these are undoubtedly very passionate devs... Pretty sure if I talk to 10 different pilots I get 10 different opinions aside from the fact that their jet is the best one out there.

 

Weird to me how so many endless discussions are fought on these forums on these kinds of topics, but no worries, if we like the jet it's fine whichever way it's modeled.

 

It's not just one SME, but a couple of them! But I agree thta these circle running discussions are somewhat exhausting and pointless. Instead of being grateful of getting one of the most advanced tactical combat aircraft available today in DCS many are just ehining and complaining about all sorts of things from "how can it be realistic" over "it will spoil multiplayer balance" etc. I think that this is precisely not the kind of discussions and feedback that the developers should receive just for trying to get a modern type of aircraft into one of the best commercial combat flight sims on the market. And yes, DCS is still a game for entertainment purposes, even if it offers a great potential for being used as a cheap training sim for professional purposes. The waste majority of people here have no real world connection to military aviation at all, yet many seem to pretend to "know" and being in the position to "dpeak with authority" on subjects that they often barely understand to a full extend. Whatever I hope the Truegrit team will suceed in their quest to bring the most credible, realistic representation of the Typhoon to DCS World. I have been waiting for this since DID's superb EF2000 and am hopeful that this finally happens a quarter century later.

[gavagai]

The issue is that ED would not make a module with only (a couple) SME as sources. 3rd party devs will, apparently, especially if the module will be a hot seller.

[TLTeo]

All modules in DCS are held to the same standard. If something flies like a UFO, like say, the Mig-19 at release, it gets changed. Simple as.

 

Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be more information on the JF-17, Mirage or Hornet than there is on the Typhoon, yet people are making a fuss only about some of those..

[Xenovia]

All modules in DCS are held to the same standard. If something flies like a UFO, like say, the Mig-19 at release, it gets changed. Simple as.

 

Ultimately, there doesn't seem to be more information on the JF-17, Mirage or Hornet than there is on the Typhoon, yet people are making a fuss only about some of those..

 

Something, something, Typhoon is too new, compared to the other modules in terms of their timeline, etc, etc.

[Terrorban]

Not like we will know how real this team represents the EF to begin with. Only when and if we get our hands on original declassified documents to compare with will we know.

 

Since we will pretty much not have any real data for long time, I am happy enough we have Actual pilot SME trying to give us the experience which they had already experienced themselves.

 

A full functional cockpit is also a major plus. For me, simulation is not all about the flight profile but also system employment.

[Slant]

What's the point in calling it a study sim if there's no documentation to study and the entire thing is based on SME input :/ a single SME at that. No disrespect intended but even though his credentials are great and these are undoubtedly very passionate devs... Pretty sure if I talk to 10 different pilots I get 10 different opinions aside from the fact that their jet is the best one out there.

 

Weird to me how so many endless discussions are fought on these forums on these kinds of topics, but no worries, if we like the jet it's fine whichever way it's modeled.

 

I'm picking this post as a hook into the discussion, so don't feel personally addressed...

 

We know the A-10 does not have the actual RL performance. This has been the case for many years. Still, it's considered the most accurate and detailed module in the game by many. What is this obsession with EM diagrams? They exist, the developer has seen them and has access to them. This module will not have the precise performance that those classified EM diagrams show. But given that they are experienced in the Typhoon, it's not a far fetch that the deviation from the actual EM performance is very intentional and in accordance with restrictions placed upon them by the military.

 

So... my question is... if we can make a reasonable assumption that the model is based on the actual EM diagrams as a starting point (which they will never confirm, because why would they go through the trouble of dealing with the military asking them what the heck they mean with that exactly), why is that not good enough for some here but it's fine for the A-10? Do people actually think the developer sits in his room and throws dart at a chart to figure out the FM? Of course it's going to be based on EM diagrams and his experience. And of course it's going to deviate from those, maybe even substantially, like everything in DCS does for obvious reasons. That should be enough for anyone in this thread.

 

Now... the real trick question is: Can they manage to deviate from the EM performance in a way that it feels "real enough" to us? That is where their experience comes into play and why it's so important to have SMEs.

 

As for the PVP crowd getting their pants in a twist and warming up to the inevitable (and equally stupid) balance discussion... rest assured that performances in the game typically are botched under the actual values. This excludes bugs, obviously, but in an ideal world without bugs (lol), you can be reasonably sure that the numbers are going to be worse than they are IRL.

 

Just my two cents, this is quite a moot discussion. I would worry about this topic when... I don't know, EA suddenly decides to make a module for DCS, but not here and with the credentials of TrueGrit.

 

Having said that, we'll have to see how it works out in the game. They are new to DCS and I am sure they are going to find many surprises trying to imiplement something into this eco system. :)

[Hummingbird]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't make the kinematic performance of the aircraft almost exactly match the real thing, and I don't think Eurofighter GmbH would mind it either, as in this day and age outside analysts can very accurately predict this anyway. (You can be very sure that opposing sides have long since digitally reproduced either sides aircraft and CFD analysed the bejesus out of them) Furthermore the combat performance of modern day fighters is much more closely tied to their weapons & sensor systems, and hence THAT I would certainly expect not to be fully simulated, and for sure undermodelled. But maneuvering/kinematic performance, I don't see a reason it would be problematic for a developer to match this, as any potential enemy would get very little out of it vs what they've already quite accurately predicted.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Hummingbird

[QuiGon]

On the other hand, are we not willing to bring a totally unrealistic representation to the user. That would make us not authentic and be contrary to the whole idea of Eagle Dynamics. That also means that we would rather not introduce a capability and wait a bit longer then try to fake one.

http://www.checksix-fr.com/dcs-module-ef-2000-interview-with-gero-and-tom-from-true-grit-english-version/

[Slant]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't make the kinematic performance of the aircraft almost exactly match the real thing, and I don't think Eurofighter GmbH would mind it either, as in this day and age outside analysts can very accurately predict this anyway. (You can be very sure that opposing sides have long since digitally reproduced either sides aircraft and CFD analysed the bejesus out of them) Furthermore the combat performance of modern day fighters is much more closely tied to their weapons & sensor systems, and hence THAT I would certainly expect not to be fully simulated, and for sure undermodelled. But maneuvering/kinematic performance, I don't see a reason it would be problematic for a developer to match this, as any potential enemy would get very little out of it vs what they've already quite accurately predicted.

 

I'm not an analyst, but it seems to me that you are making some rather big assumptions about how well you can reverse engineer an aircrafts combat performance. Even with perfect photogrammetry and CAD models, there is a lot in the avionics, engineering design decisions and engine design decisions that affect performance, especially near the limits, which is what you'd be interested in as the opposing side. I would not push into that line of reasoning, as it is again not going to lead anywhere. Wait and see is unfortunately the best thing we can do. Let TrueGrit do their work, trust in their integrity and that they understand where we're coming from (which they have demonstrated again and again in their statements).

 

If stuff goes wrong, hey, thankfully it's just code and not an actual multi-million dollar jet, they can always fix it and tweak it. :)

[Hummingbird]

You'd be surprised by how accurately the other side can predict the kinematic performance of an opposing side's airframe design. Infact it's the main reason EM charts are at all publically available for many of the jets now in service, because it's widely known you can't really keep that stuff truly secret - and it has been like this for a while. Besides revealing kinematic performance doesn’t reveal how said airframe was constructed or what materials were used to achieve the listed weight or power figures.

 

As such the type of performance that is truly secret is that of the weapons & sensor systems, and as such we naturally don't have any accurate figures for this in the public, and that goes for a lot of stuff that aint even in service anymore and hasn't been for a while as well - because this is the information the other side can't accurately predict and hence are very keen to acquire.

 

Thus I certainly trust TG are going to be giving us a very accurately flying Eurofighter, as I cannot see any reason for them not to.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Hummingbird

[shagrat]

 

Something, something, Typhoon is too new, compared to the other modules in terms of their timeline, etc, etc.

THIS is the most ridiculous argument ever! The Su-27, F/A-18C or F-16C is far more "too new" compared to a Bf-109 or Spitfire or even an F-86F or MiG-15Bis... Did it matter that despite not "matching" the timeline of respective other planes when they were released? Nope. People were just happy to be able to enjoy them. Same will be true for the Typhoon. Despite a small vocal group of PvP enthusiasts that are to lazy to setup their own servers, confine airframes and weapons in mission building, like most of the more mature groups do.

When the P-51D released it was the only WW II plane, when the F-86F released it was up against a Bf-109 or a MiG-21 etc.

[Slant]

You'd be surprised by how accurately the other side can predict the kinematic performance of an opposing side's airframe design. Infact it's the main reason EM charts are at all publically available for many of the jets now in service, because it's widely known you can't really keep that stuff truly secret - and it has been like this for a while. Besides revealing kinematic performance doesn’t reveal how said airframe was constructed or what materials were used to achieve the listed weight or power figures.

 

As such the type of performance that is truly secret is that of the weapons & sensor systems, and as such we naturally don't have any accurate figures for this in the public, and that goes for a lot of stuff that aint even in service anymore and hasn't been for a while as well - because this is the information the other side can't accurately predict and hence are very keen to acquire.

 

Thus I certainly trust TG are going to be giving us a very accurately flying Eurofighter, as I cannot see any reason for them not to.

 

Not to belabor this point, but there are no EM charts for the Typhoon available. So clearly the manufacturer and the various participating militaries disagree with you. Also, remember that while we have "some" diagrams for the existing airframes in the DCS arsenal, they are just exerpts. We do not - by any stretch of the imagination - have a complete set of EM charts publically available for any of the planes as far as I know. And there are a lot of these sets per airframe.

 

So, whether or not you can see a reason for it, TrueGrit is going to comply with restrictions put upon them, as they have pointed out. Manage your expectations, please. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here and then complain when things don't quite turn out the way we want them to. :)

[Hummingbird]

Not to belabor this point, but there are no EM charts for the Typhoon available. So clearly the manufacturer and the various participating militaries disagree with you. Also, remember that while we have "some" diagrams for the existing airframes in the DCS arsenal, they are just exerpts. We do not - by any stretch of the imagination - have a complete set of EM charts publically available for any of the planes as far as I know. And there are a lot of these sets per airframe.

 

No we very much do have complete sets of EM charts for several of the fighters ingame, many of which are still currently in service (F-16, F-15, F-4 etc.), their entire performance manuals no less. The reason(s) the EF's EM charts aren't available can be many, it's a relatively new airframe for one, and second every nation/company doesn't treat these things the same. However there is little reason to keep the kinematic performance secret for aircraft that have been in service for 20 or more years and are sold internationally, which is why we have so many performance manuals available for aircraft older than that. (F-22 is a special case, being sold to no'one else)