already requested Simulation of aircraft peculiarities

[zerO_crash]

Hi,

 

I'm wondering if it would be possible, to simulate (depending on aircraft) the sensation of individual controls sluggishness? In essence, it is a known fact, that with complex machines (often hand built), there are peculiarities in how each bort operates. Those can be differences in controls (uneven axis on collective/cyclic), where increments are not linear, one might shake more than another under given conditions, differences in neutral trim might occur, etc... This is an interesting spect, because pilots, often, have to get a feel for the aircraft that they are flying in the first stages of the flight (get accustomed to its peculiarities if you will). It gives a logical reason for wanting to do the required procedures associated with the airframe, and also shows, that the world isn't purely black/white. A pilot might have a better or worse airframe to his liking. This would really add another soul to DCS overall, where simply no other simulator models this.

 

A possible way to do it, would be to have e.g. 20-50 different bort-layers, where each one would have their own peculiarities as mentioned above. A pilot, upon entering an airframe, would have a randomly selected layer (one of the reasons to have quite a few layers, is to avoid predictability/monotony), thus allowing for even a more immersive and realistic experience in aircraft simulation. The difference between the layers, could be not only in terms of controls' response and uniformity across their axis of movement, but also in the whole module:

- Nominal engine temperatures (some running colder, some hotter - even individual differences between two engines on one aircraft)

- Temperatures of oil/gearbox/etc...

- Peculiarities regarding e.g. radar altimeters

- HUD refreshrates and color/intensity (we all know they diminish/water down over time)

- Taxi light intensity (search-light, or others)

- Gauges reacting slower/faster to changes in parameters, including different imprecision-level in gauges

- Delay/latency in component-reaction time (faster/slower ABRIS/MFCD, certain systems that might have a digital processor (and corresponding software) associated with them)

- +++

 

 

Just as with any feature, I imagine there to be someone who dislikes it, thus having this as a selectable option (on/off), would likely make it just (at least in early implementation). Possibly, have it in the specific module settings, such that the feature can be tested before eventually wider implementation. 

 

I really hope that this gets looked at, as one of the reasons why simulators often feel isolated in nature, is that everything is ideal/perfect. We all know that IRL, this is not the case, whether it would be a car, ship, train or aircraft. 

Edited April 12 by zerO_crash

[Vakarian]

Quite substantial work required, would make bug reporting an absolute hell but on the other hand it would be really awesome to have this kind of variation. 

This could make all the startup checks relevant as you might jump in the aircraft that has something out of the order and you have to re-slot into another bird.

 

Ofc, to accomodate everyone, this should be optional as not everyone has the will nor time to go through all cold-start nuances, but I really don't see why would someone be against this if it's made as an toggleable option with factory-perfect aircraft set as default.

[Tippis]

Shouldn't be too difficult in principle, but it depends heavily on how well systems degradation (and accompanying effects) is modelled in the specific module. If it's just done on the level of “works / broken” then obviously, there's no shades of gray between that you could randomly dip into. But things like the pre-set engine wear in some of the helo modules shows that part of is can be, and indeed already is, implemented.

There's also the issue of how “client” aircraft differ from “player” aircraft, now how some faults and degradations aren't and wouldn't be available in MP.

For actual uneven axes, that should be utterly trivial but easily also quite infuriating — just add ±small% to each parameter in the axis binds every time you enter a new cockpit. By default, I don't think this would necessarily yield uneven axes other than possibly for custom curves, since you can't shift the centre point to any significant degree. But again, in concept it's there.

[zerO_crash]

22 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

Quite substantial work required, would make bug reporting an absolute hell but on the other hand it would be really awesome to have this kind of variation. 

This could make all the startup checks relevant as you might jump in the aircraft that has something out of the order and you have to re-slot into another bird.

 

Ofc, to accomodate everyone, this should be optional as not everyone has the will nor time to go through all cold-start nuances, but I really don't see why would someone be against this if it's made as an toggleable option with factory-perfect aircraft set as default.

 

I am not going to speculate on the work required. That is really for ED to decide. Ultimately though, I thought through it before, and I don't really see where there would be that much work. Realising that DCS is a ecosystem (especially modules with their system's integration), if you change one parameter, other, will often get affected. With that said;

- For engine/oil/etc... temperatures, I imagine that the engine model could be tweaked for a delicate +-20 (approx.) degrees temperature range, without the need for too much else work. The difference in resulting engine power would vary as well, all according to ED's model. 

- Peculiarities regarding gauges, is really a matter of having them react slow/fast/oscilate. Granted, it has to be solved in a way resembling the quality of the systems themselves, thus, it might be more than just "change the number".

- HUD/taxi-light/search-light/etc... - have a factor for brightness. Assign a random brightness value to the different layers.

- Delay in component reaction-time, much like gauge - assign a slowdown/screen flicker/and more value.

 

The big question is of course, whether ED would have to create completely new functions for these peculiarities, or whether it would demand the creating of new code-strings. Again, ultimately, ED would have to judge whether this is in the vicinity of doable or not. The end game though, would really be a new level of simulation bar none (not even professional ones, as far as I know).

 

As to bug reporting, yes and no. If the function would be implemented by a toggleable function, than most people would know what they activate. On the other hand, I never underestimate sticky fingers and lack of reading capacity. Whilst we already do have a lot double, tripple and quadrupple questions being made on the same topics, the simple solution is - do comment to someone spending time flaming rather than studying manual. There would be some bug reports, no doubt, but I imagine that just as Heatblur's F-14 (mixed cosmetics of the cockpit), after the initial introduction, the community would adapt (those that wish to activate it at first). That's also precisely why I recommend to have it toggleable (individual module settings, not server). There will always be someone who doesn't like it. In this case, all needs are satisfied, and DCS really becomes unique in yet another aspect.

[lmp]

Isn't Heatblur advertising pretty much what you're asking for in the form of their component system? We'll see how that plays out...

Little bits of variability are already sprinkled here or there, though for the most part they are minor enough to be ignored. The MiG-15 rolls in a random direction (randomised at spawn) when you exceed the Mach limit for example. I think the generator voltages are randomised (still "within reason") in the Mi-8 and you should tune them with the potentiometers? I may be wrong, I've never done this and never had problems.

The obvious question is how serious do we want this variability to be? One engine running a little hotter? Needing to wiggle your wings a bit for the gear to lock? Radar out of tune giving you only 80% of the range? Bomb not coming off the rail at the end of a long sortie?

All in all, a very good suggestion but far from trivial.

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, lmp said:

Isn't Heatblur advertising pretty much what you're asking for in the form of their component system? We'll see how that plays out...

Little bits of variability are already sprinkled here or there, though for the most part they are minor enough to be ignored. The MiG-15 rolls in a random direction (randomised at spawn) when you exceed the Mach limit for example. I think the generator voltages are randomised (still "within reason") in the Mi-8 and you should tune them with the potentiometers? I may be wrong, I've never done this and never had problems.

The obvious question is how serious do we want this variability to be? One engine running a little hotter? Needing to wiggle your wings a bit for the gear to lock? Radar out of tune giving you only 80% of the range? Bomb not coming off the rail at the end of a long sortie?

All in all, a very good suggestion but far from trivial.

What Heatblur is making, is somewhat similar. My suggestion expands to non-linear controls, and more. This is a further step in the direction of realism.

 

Some modules have singular aspects concerning this case, however a uniform implementation would be desirable.

 

Realism all the way, but remember also that what I'm talking about, are systems working, albeit with a realistic touch of quirks and individual cases. One engine running hotter is good, however what you mention further, are reasons to abort flight/random system failiure. Indeed, radars would be a good step as well, although it can be as basic of an implementation as different illuminosities of the radar screen or such. The point is, I'm not asking ED to simulate dead pixels on MFDs (yet). Rather something that is much more common, primarily non-linear controls. This is normal for any aircraft, and even FBW doesn't alleviate the peculiarities fully (there will be better and worse actuators, e.g.). That's, what I'm mainly pushing this for, however ofher systems would be great to (precisely like Heatblur is doing, and that's a fantastic new direction to expand in). 

Edited April 12 by zerO_crash

[draconus]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:25 PM, zerO_crash said:

Some modules have singular aspects concerning this case, however a uniform implementation would be desireable.

I don't think you can get it uniformly for all modules. Some are old, non-popular, get no fixes, updates or have still missing whole functionalities like DM. Others are from different developers, coded in different times with different scopes. And in DCS modules are like different games sometimes differing in quality and depth of simulation. There's rarely any common code between them so it'd have to be done one-by-one.

I don't know much in-depth about modules I don't own but HB have done random engine's condition in the F-14 and dynamic cockpit. Much more is coming for F-4E:

Edited April 26 by draconus

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I don't think you can get it uniformly for all modules. Some are old, non-popular, get no fixes, updates or have still missing whole functionalities like DM. Others are from different developers, coded in different times with different scopes. And in DCS modules are like different games sometimes differing in quality and depth of simulation. There's rarely any common code between them so it'd have to be done one-by-one.

I don't know much in-depth about modules I down own but HB have done random engine's condition in the F-14 and dynamic cockpit. Much more is coming for F-4E:

I imagine, that if ED set a standard, then 3rd parties would follow in order not to pose as less capable. As to the modules themselves, well, one has to start somewhere. Overall, in DCS, the quality of the modules does seem to be pretty leveled out. That, taking into considerations time apart and technologies used when they were made.

 

I don't really see anything more than issues/bugs, that might take some time fixing. That said, I'd still claim that members of the forum are often u realistic with regards to implementatio /fix times. Let's not forget how DCS has changed since MiG-21Bis got introduced. Before that, we had FC, Ka-50 and A10C, for years. There were also far less complaints about lack of content/updates. Ultimately, there are only a few select modules (MiG-21Bis, possibly other HB modules), which due to their far-reaching goals, had to find ways to achieve their objectives. That, in often a cluncky way, which then poses issues upon updating major parts of the module. That, however, does not seem to be the case with most modules in DCS, though. Consider BS3, Mi-8MTV2 co-op capability (this is pretty major of an update), SA-342 Gazelle, Mirage 2000C (major updates there over the years, both in terms of visuals, as well as objects and systems), etc... All these modules seem to accept updates, without having to rebuild it from scratch (MiG-21Bis is really an unfortunate example).

 

If to make it simpler, include only the non-linear controls, and much is done already. The reason I'm mentioning a whole line-up of interesting features, is sinply the fact that to make the return on investment for ED/3rd parties better, it should be a component-based system which would allow to include other individual tweaks and functionality in an integrated framework. That way, there might still be differences between what each and every 3rd party includes (the differences haven't been any major so far) in their module, however the framwork/interface/layout is there. 
 

It's be a great step forward.

[Exorcet]

This would be a nice option to have and ties in with another request which is vehicle maintenance levels. Aircraft could be set to be in worse or better condition for a number of reasons from simulating a worn down military, or fluctuating logistic support during a long campaign.

This absolutely needs a disable option, as was already suggested, though as the variability could make bug reporting, testing, and practicing a lot harder.

[zerO_crash]

Absolutely, hence why the option to toggle it on/off would fit well. In a sense, we cannot avoid the backlash from forums, as there are threads popping up every day, which are often repeating what was asked two or three months ago. If a general announcement would be made in a newsletter, and additionally a mention in the manual, then legally, ED would have done more than enough. We cannot avoid those who won't bother to search the forums, before posting themselves. 

 

This would actually go well along with the maintenance system. Not that we know much about it. The non-linear controls though, should be there irresponsive of freshness of a given aircraft, albeit with a additional "slack" adding over time (maintenance status). That would really enhance what we have today in terms of feedback, and actually represent reality very well! Neat stuff!

[lmp]

Something like that would probably have to be introduced gradually, one module at a time. An obvious candidate for me would be the F6F for a number of reasons. Simple, mostly mechanical controls and few systems mean that on one hand, this would be easier to implement and on the other, it would have a bigger impact on the player's experience.  In addition, this feature should not only be tied to a wear and tear/maintenance system, but also to the damage model. The nature of damage WW2 planes receive means that again it would have the biggest impact on the player experience. In a modern jet damage is more often catastrophic straight away.

[zerO_crash]

It would have to be a gradual implementation from pure manpower perspective, that as well as to get feedback. As to the module which should have it first, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to either do one or another. The point is, the differences wouldn't be huge overall, but you would have a fresh thrill and uncertainty whenever you fly an airframe. It would also give a prospect of realism, and just how different one and the same airframe can feel.

 

I recall a former SR-71 pilot mentioning that even among one of the most expensive airframes to take to the sky, there were differences. There were SR-71s that were easier to perform aerial tanking with (trim + throttle setup), and there were ones that you had the feeling of holding back all the time, as they wanted to constantly accelerate. There were more and less liked bort numbers. I have heard/read pilots mention this in many aircraft, chief amongst helicopters, where due to the delicacy of the controls, the differences are more noticeable. The reality is, that whilst you might have time behind the stick of an aircraft type, you are always going to treat the start with a bort as a new one, getting accustomed to how it feels. As mentioned, this goes for all machines made. That is a sensation, which I honestly believe should be in DCS. 

[PhantomHans]

Part of me feels like I should scream and yell and stomp my feet, yell about better uses of development time, or shout you down to try to prioritize what I want instead of what you want...

 

However let me just add this:

I like the suggestion and I wonder if, over the course of a long campaign, this could be used to simulate wear and tear to a squadrons aircraft?  For example if you fly #201 in your first misson, it may have no peculiarities.   If you over-G the airframe a lot, push the engines too hard, and make a very rough landing,  when you fly it again two missions later it may sometimes have a sticky landing gear, need more trim, run a little rough at idle, etc.

[Tippis]

16 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

However let me just add this:

I like the suggestion and I wonder if, over the course of a long campaign, this could be used to simulate wear and tear to a squadrons aircraft?

That would definitely be a neat bonus effect if the damage and system modelling gradually started to allow it. Really, the only thing that stops much of this from happening (almost) tomorrow is the unevenness of the modules and that, on its own, it's perhaps more of a “must do the checklist” novelty. If long-term wear were to be a factor, it would suddenly matter even more and have an additional purpose in terms of slotting into and driving other mechanics.

If it gets enough traction, it might even provide a bit of development feedback push where more players want to see more effort spent on the systems modelling because of how that improves this feature.

[PhantomHans]

59 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That would definitely be a neat bonus effect if the damage and system modelling gradually started to allow it. Really, the only thing that stops much of this from happening (almost) tomorrow is the unevenness of the modules and that, on its own, it's perhaps more of a “must do the checklist” novelty. If long-term wear were to be a factor, it would suddenly matter even more and have an additional purpose in terms of slotting into and driving other mechanics.

If it gets enough traction, it might even provide a bit of development feedback push where more players want to see more effort spent on the systems modelling because of how that improves this feature.

I didn't realize it till just now but this was sort of done already.  "B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth" didn't model individual peculiarities but it did simulate aircraft being damaged after a mission and either needing to be left out of the next mission or repaired using limited time for urgent repair, or otherwise flown damaged.

[Exorcet]

6 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I didn't realize it till just now but this was sort of done already.  "B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth" didn't model individual peculiarities but it did simulate aircraft being damaged after a mission and either needing to be left out of the next mission or repaired using limited time for urgent repair, or otherwise flown damaged.

There have been lots of campaign features present in other sims over the years that could be nice to add to DCS. Jane's USNF had maintenance too. You had a limited number of hours after each mission to spend on repairs, and if you didn't repair wear and tear carried over to the next mission. You also had limited airframes. The F-22 Lightning series had limited weapons and you had to choose your ordinance carefully per mission. Then of course Falcon simulated the entire logistics chain.

DCS does have a pretty cool warehouse system, but it doesn't really tie into gameplay very much or at least I haven't found ways to make it very meaningful outside of removing specific weapons from a mission. I guess it's more of an online feature.

[Tippis]

25 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

DCS does have a pretty cool warehouse system, but it doesn't really tie into gameplay very much or at least I haven't found ways to make it very meaningful outside of removing specific weapons from a mission. I guess it's more of an online feature.

It's always been semi-possible to use it to create a very limited economy in a real-time campaign, where you want to protect incoming transports or replacement planes because they refill the warehouses. With the new scripting tools we got a while back that opened up the option to directly manipulate warehouse stores, it's now possible to do a lot more and a lot easier.

But most of that is a list in an equipment table, and you have to jump through a ton of hoops and poke hole in the scripting security sandbox to make it persistent. But at least you can make it persistent now since you can write exported/saved data back into the warehouse state. And even then, it's still just numbers available. It can be used to represent a long-term logistics state on the map, and fiddling with specific aircraft states would be a huge step forward.

 

Oh right… maybe if I actually finish my thought.

The point is, I could see something similar being done on an airplane level but I'm contemplating whether it's best to let DCS do it itself, or if maybe a different way of going about what the OP is asking for would be to be able to extract damage states and cockpit arguments, but that would in turn require all the arguments to be available for client aircraft. That would be a huge win on its own.

Edited April 12 by Tippis

[NineLine]

This has been requested internally in relation to some of this, some of this might be not so appealing to the masses. Thanks.

[average_pilot]

The discussion has revolved mostly about failures, but I think that what OP is asking is more about the ability to generate unique instances of every aircraft. Randomizing the appropriated parameters every instance generated will have different peculiarities for the good and for the bad. So for example you'd go to your F-18 module and generate 10 unique instances and each one will fly differently in some way. Then when you fly a mission instead of flying the "generic" F-18 you select one of those specific instances.

Further evolution of the uniqueness of each instance due to accumulation of damage, failures and maintenance would be a different feature.

[draconus]

As IRL pilots confirm, there are always some good and bad airframes in the squad, even of the same production series. Ex. one can stay in 95% RPM while others struggle on MIL to keep the same speed or the control responsivness is different...