about the Strike Eagle...

Mugatu · February 27, 2009

So the missile models will be accurate? :P

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. ED WILL NOT implement a Tiger or a modern jet unless they have a military contract to do so.

With that contract come the data. And that's all there is to it.

GGTharos · February 27, 2009

Classified :P

Sharkster64 · February 28, 2009

I have to agree with sticking to real rather than guess work. Alot of what attracts me to this game is the fact that it is as close to being real as it can get. To know that we are flying an aircraft that is totally modelled on a real aircraft almost sends shivers down my spine. It gives you a sense that you are doing everything that a real pilot has to deal with (the same pilot workload). I dont think the learning curve would be as fun if you knew that you were learning a fictional aircraft system. Don't get me wrong though, I've played almost every sim out there from Janes Longbow and up, and I had fun playing those games too, (for a short while). I have never been as addicted to a flight sim ever until now. The realism is definitely what did it for me, and I think that any true simmer would have to agree.

glottis · February 28, 2009

...Alot of what attracts me to this game is the fact that it is as close to being real as it can get...

I know what you mean, but if you really think about it it's kind of meaningless. Unless you are a (or know a) real KA-50 pilot, you're just taking ED's word for it that it's realistic, surely?

GGTharos · February 28, 2009

ED took care to ask the Ka-50 pilots their opinion. During beta testing I recall at least one time when the FM was adjusted based on their recommendations.

But yeah, in the end you're taking ED's word for it ;)

Sharkster64 · February 28, 2009

I know what you mean, but if you really think about it it's kind of meaningless. Unless you are a (or know a) real KA-50 pilot, you're just taking ED's word for it that it's realistic, surely?

You got that right, or I want my money back! ;)

glottis · February 28, 2009

ED took care to ask the Ka-50 pilots their opinion. During beta testing I recall at least one time when the FM was adjusted based on their recommendations.

But yeah, in the end you're taking ED's word for it ;)

Oh yeah, I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't realistic of course. I was just philosophising (aka talking rubbish) about the mind of the flight simmer... ;)

GGTharos · February 28, 2009

Being a flight simmer, I can tell you there's nothing but rubbish and wishful thinking in my mind ;)

mikoyan · February 28, 2009

I rather have a high fidelity su-27, mig-29 and f-15c than a guess work su-35, mig-35, f-15e. I wish that ED could model some french jets for the DCS since there are no flight sims about the french fighters, well except from falcon, but still it is not a fully developed work like the ka-50.

Don't get me wrong falconers, I think that falcon 4 and its iterations are great efforts! that help sustain the Sim community

Flyby · February 28, 2009

At least some of those discussions HAVE given us an RWR. The Rant Warning Receiver. :D

I like that!:D:D

Otherwise I bow to the wisdom of DCS, and the views expressed here about keeping it real as it can get.

PEACE!

Flyby out

Rhen · February 28, 2009

You guys must think that a military simulator is "sierra hotel" & can give you the absolute feel of flying the real thing. That's where you'd be wrong.

There are many types of military simulators. Most are just great looking "pits" with all the switches, and that's about it.

Most trainers are merely mockups that allow you to learn the flow of switchology so you'll master the various checklists and learn what to do, where to flick that switch, and when.

There's the part task trainer - used to get good at flicking switches

There's the weapons system trainer - basically how to flick switches in combat - also useful in practicing emergencies, aircraft handling, and tactics.

There's the full-motion trainer - most are becoming a sim on a stick, that allow you to feel some semblance of G and a vestibular sense of flight.

However, most of these sims don't really model a high-fidelity world. For example, there's no jetwash when you fly behind another aircraft. There's no bow wave interaction between aircraft in formation. No engine "thump" when someone in front of you hits the afterburner, no real meterological phenomena, with the exception of turbulence, some clouds - but mostly "ceilings" - broken, overcast, obscured cloud layers. All stuff to practice instrument flying. No birds to hit, except a fake wingman/vehicle that encroaches upon the runway to make you go around, or hits you/you hit so you can practice a controllability check. There's no damage modeling, with the exception of the systems in your aircraft malfunctioning. You take a missile, you're dead like MSFS.

We have the real thing to practice in, when it comes to "high fidelity." You guys, OTOH, don't. When a sim models wake turbulence effects as well as systems, weapons, flight models, etc. then a sim will be a full-fledged model of what it's like to be a fighter pilot. But will you really want to fly in a sim that requires you to learn all the systems, how to deal with the malfunctions, how to deal with meteorological phenomena, how to fly appropriately in a tactical situation, how to deal with ATC without getting yourself, your flight, or others violated (no, it's not what you're thinking - it's a pilot thing :smilewink: ).

Flying at the level of a military aviator - in a so-called "high-fidelity" environment - takes time and effort that most people aren't willing to invest. Do you really want to brief for an hour before you go fly? Spend hours studying technical orders, regulations/instructions, SOPs, intel reports, scholarly works from weapons school instructors, you get the idea.

Maybe you do.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Rhen

Sharkster64 · February 28, 2009

You guys must think that a military simulator is "sierra hotel" & can give you the absolute feel of flying the real thing. That's where you'd be wrong.

There are many types of military simulators. Most are just great looking "pits" with all the switches, and that's about it.

Most trainers are merely mockups that allow you to learn the flow of switchology so you'll master the various checklists and learn what to do, where to flick that switch, and when.

There's the part task trainer - used to get good at flicking switches

There's the weapons system trainer - basically how to flick switches in combat - also useful in practicing emergencies, aircraft handling, and tactics.

There's the full-motion trainer - most are becoming a sim on a stick, that allow you to feel some semblance of G and a vestibular sense of flight.

However, most of these sims don't really model a high-fidelity world. For example, there's no jetwash when you fly behind another aircraft. There's no bow wave interaction between aircraft in formation. No engine "thump" when someone in front of you hits the afterburner, no real meterological phenomena, with the exception of turbulence, some clouds - but mostly "ceilings" - broken, overcast, obscured cloud layers. All stuff to practice instrument flying. No birds to hit, except a fake wingman/vehicle that encroaches upon the runway to make you go around, or hits you/you hit so you can practice a controllability check. There's no damage modeling, with the exception of the systems in your aircraft malfunctioning. You take a missile, you're dead like MSFS.

We have the real thing to practice in, when it comes to "high fidelity." You guys, OTOH, don't. When a sim models wake turbulence effects as well as systems, weapons, flight models, etc. then a sim will be a full-fledged model of what it's like to be a fighter pilot. But will you really want to fly in a sim that requires you to learn all the systems, how to deal with the malfunctions, how to deal with meteorological phenomena, how to fly appropriately in a tactical situation, how to deal with ATC without getting yourself, your flight, or others violated (no, it's not what you're thinking - it's a pilot thing :smilewink: ).

Flying at the level of a military aviator - in a so-called "high-fidelity" environment - takes time and effort that most people aren't willing to invest. Do you really want to brief for an hour before you go fly? Spend hours studying technical orders, regulations/instructions, SOPs, intel reports, scholarly works from weapons school instructors, you get the idea.

Maybe you do.

I think you are missing the point. I, and I'm sure everyone here, understands that there is a whole lot more to strapping a helicopter to the seat of your pants. That is why we all fly simulators on computers. But it is nice to avoid all the other stuff that you said and just strap on the helicopter and go flying in our virtual world imagining that we were in your position after all that other rigamarole. Don't ruin our fantasies by telling us all, that this simulation is all fake and has no realism to it whatsoever. Some of us are unable to partake in that adventure due to sight restrictions or other reasons. That is why we have our virtual world that we would all like to be as real as possible.

Rhen · February 28, 2009

Actually, you're missing my point :smilewink:. My point is that modeling reality - as real as it can get - blah, blah, blah, is a double-edged sword. The enjoyment I get out of flying these "games" is the ability to go up, duke it out, and not have to worry about the "true realities" of an aerial combat engagement. I don't want to worry about flicking switches, or violating training rules (TRs), or hitting/killing someone. I'm more interested in the esoteric aspects of airborne tactical engagements.

You guys, OTOH, are looking to make it closer to reality. Make the switch work, even if it just inflates the non-existent g-suit, or turns up the heat in the pit, or detects cracks in the rotor blades. Getting mired in the nitty-gritty of flight/systems, etc will either enhance your enjoyment of the game/sim/program - whatever, or beat it like a jockey on a slow horse.

For example, in the F-15, do you really care if the RWR on light is steady or blinking, or what you have to do if you get either indication? Or would you rather go out and fly and fight and not consult with your MESL list (minimum essential systems list - minimum equipment required to fly a particular mission), run a checklist, abort the flight, consult the SOF, and have an ineffective sortie?

There's a definite line between one man's/woman's enjoyment of this genre of simulation or complete lack of fun trying to find the fun in managing all the systems, regulations, rules, instructions... the list goes on and gets longer. What I'm saying is that you don't have to necessarily model everything about an aircraft, all the way to the old urine stains on the seat cushion, or the smell of jet fuel and sweat - to have fun, and learn/experience what it's like to be a combat pilot.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Rhen

EtherealN · February 28, 2009

Good points Rhen, but I would think that DCS has managed to find a good balance there in that it does allow you to skip those bits that you don't want to be forced to worry about. There might be a few occassions where more detail in the difficulty/realism settings could be warranted, but the scalability that we have is comparatively massive anyhow.

As for myself, yeah, I would care about whether the light is steady or blinking. :P And I would love missions that are tight enough that you would have to make choices such as aborting the mission. (In fact, things like that was my most major objection to the LOMAC campagins - you absolutely had to ace every mission to continue, but we all know no-one aces every mission... :P )

Dark-Light · February 28, 2009

Rhen, what you describe is pretty much EXACTLY what simmers want - bar maybe the lists etc. We are fascinated by what real pilots have to go through, the procedures they must adhere to, and - of course - flashing lights lol. I am an avid gamer, and love to get straight into combat or whatever, but there are some itches just not scratched by the minimal input shallowness in 99% of titles. Thats what I like about BS - its not afraid to contain all the bells and whistles of heli combat in a market currently ruled by instant gratification.

Flyby · February 28, 2009

and don't forget about artistic license!:megalol: I'm just pulling your leg(s) guys. Rhen makes excellent points, but we are talking about a computerized simulation, and with Black Shark the combat simulation has taken a nice step forward in that field of representation (from what I've read - I don't have it yet). That's why everyone raves about it. No, it's not close to the real world, but no desktop pc can accurately represent the real world. That's where the term "suspension of disbelief" applies. It's a big thing among simmers. We all respect our real life military pilots. Just remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ;)

Flyby out!

PS don't make me go "wise man" on your asses too often. It messes with my sense of humor!:pilotfly:

Edited February 28, 2009 by Flyby

Sharkster64 · February 28, 2009

Actually, you're missing my point :smilewink:. My point is that modeling reality - as real as it can get - blah, blah, blah, is a double-edged sword. The enjoyment I get out of flying these "games" is the ability to go up, duke it out, and not have to worry about the "true realities" of an aerial combat engagement. I don't want to worry about flicking switches, or violating training rules (TRs), or hitting/killing someone. I'm more interested in the esoteric aspects of airborne tactical engagements.

You guys, OTOH, are looking to make it closer to reality. Make the switch work, even if it just inflates the non-existent g-suit, or turns up the heat in the pit, or detects cracks in the rotor blades. Getting mired in the nitty-gritty of flight/systems, etc will either enhance your enjoyment of the game/sim/program - whatever, or beat it like a jockey on a slow horse.

For example, in the F-15, do you really care if the RWR on light is steady or blinking, or what you have to do if you get either indication? Or would you rather go out and fly and fight and not consult with your MESL list (minimum essential systems list - minimum equipment required to fly a particular mission), run a checklist, abort the flight, consult the SOF, and have an ineffective sortie?

There's a definite line between one man's/woman's enjoyment of this genre of simulation or complete lack of fun trying to find the fun in managing all the systems, regulations, rules, instructions... the list goes on and gets longer. What I'm saying is that you don't have to necessarily model everything about an aircraft, all the way to the old urine stains on the seat cushion, or the smell of jet fuel and sweat - to have fun, and learn/experience what it's like to be a combat pilot.

I think that the majority of us don't care about the unimportant switches that inflate the g-suit, or the urine stains on the seat, ROFL.:megalol: You forgot the puke stains. Some of the people on here however do.:megalol:

But I think that the majority of us, myself included just want a realistic flight model and all the systems needed to perform a mission to somewhat represent what it would feel like to have a large portion, if not all, of the pilot workload. We obviously cant get it all onto a computer, but if we can get a large portion of it on the computer, than I am as happy as %*&$#%! can be.

What aircraft have you flown Rhen out of curiosity. I have a brother in the Canadian airforce who has flown CF-18s and he loves his job.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Sharkster64

SUBS17 · February 28, 2009

FighterOps is going to have an F-15E so there is info out there if someone looks around on the net. I think an F-15E would suit DCS if it were done properly even a payware/freeware addon would be cool.:thumbup:

GGTharos · February 28, 2009

All F-15E manuals have export restrictions at minimum and many are classified. What info on the net? ;)

FighterOps is going to have an F-15E so there is info out there if someone looks around on the net.

Flyby · February 28, 2009

my official stance

The Strike Eagle would be a very interesting bird for a two-seater multiplayer-capable aircraft. I thought of it wishfully but the Tornado will do. Any such two-seat deep penetration strike plane will do. There is a Russian equivalent from Sukhoi, though I forget the series number. I'd fly that plane with another breather on board. It's the mission, and the type of plane (two-seat deep strike) that intrigues me. So, sorry for the fuss about the "E". DCS, give me something that you have info on!:D

Flyby out

159th_Viper · February 28, 2009

.....So, sorry for the fuss about the "E". DCS, give me something that you have info on!:D
Flyby out

How about a Cessna, a coupla Flashbangs, Smokers and a crate of Grenades? One Breather flies whilst the other hangs out of the window lobbing, alternating as the Grenade-Elbow plays up!

:D

CE_Mikemonster · February 28, 2009

Check the www.freefalcon.com/forum site if you want a F15-E and want the dynamic battlefield experience without necessarilly having every single switch modelled. I have no idea if it's modelled to the same level as some of the other planes, but you stand a very good chance.

I'm not trying to advertise, i'm just surprised it doesn't seem to have been mentioned (pardon me if it has! =S ).

.. as the grenade-elbow plays up ..

LMAO

GGTharos · February 28, 2009

No, you don't ... ;)

but you stand a very good chance.

SUBS17 · March 1, 2009

All F-15E manuals have export restrictions at minimum and many are classified. What info on the net? ;)

Try their forums:thumbup:

EtherealN · March 1, 2009

Considering the aforementioned restrictions and security classifications of said documentation, is there a way to reliably verify what people on a gaming forum (even if they are skilled and enthusiastic with some connections) have correct information?

Will an F-15E pilot be at liberty to answer questions seeking verification of whether an implementation of the system in a simulator is correct and if not how to fix it?

Sign In

about the Strike Eagle...

Recommended Posts

Mugatu

GGTharos

Sharkster64

glottis

GGTharos

Sharkster64

glottis

GGTharos

mikoyan

Flyby

Rhen

Sharkster64

Rhen

EtherealN

Dark-Light

Flyby

Sharkster64

SUBS17

GGTharos

Flyby

159th_Viper

CE_Mikemonster

GGTharos

SUBS17

EtherealN

Recently Browsing 0 members