F-14B(?) Upgrade as featured in DCS 2025 video

[draconus]

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Besides, you can set a realistic throw in option if you do have such a throttle.

It still will not match the MIL mark in the cockpit, btw.

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Pipe:

Now whos going to announce the Colonial Viper?

Only the Mk.I, maybe the Mk.II though. The Viper Mk. VII is still very much classified, so it would be unrealistic. Also, allegedly, it's very susceptible to cyberattack, which would cause even more imbalance on servers.

Edited February 18 by Jayhawk1971
Internet lag (Cylon attack?) caused this post to be displayed five times in a row

[RustBelt]

On 2/17/2025 at 5:28 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Yeah, except for all those pages upon pages of detailed technical documentation the teams always collect. I'm sure it's all just to look fancy on the shelves...

HB doesn't do JMSU. ED might have possibly given in to it for the F-35, but HB has its own standards. 

Yea that’s called Kayfabe in Circus and Wrestling. These are not system simulations. They aren’t emulating an actual AWG-9. They’re making a facsimile. Something that acts like one within the capabilities of reverse engineering it from manuals and old hearsay. And within the limits of the game engine it exists in.
 

The piles of documents is part of the “play” of the sim. They try to get close, but it’s still fudged in order to work right. 
 

They (ED) just decided to lighten up on the Kayfabe. To expand their available products. 

Edited February 18 by RustBelt

[RustBelt]

8 hours ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

Only the Mk.I, maybe the Mk.II though. The Viper Mk. VII is still very much classified, so it would be unrealistic. Also, allegedly, it's very susceptible to cyberattack, which would cause even more imbalance on servers.

Zeta Gundam when?

[scommander2]

2 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Zeta Gundam when?

uh? 

[Dragon1-1]

33 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Yea that’s called Kayfabe in Circus and Wrestling. These are not system simulations. They aren’t emulating an actual AWG-9. They’re making a facsimile. Something that acts like one within the capabilities of reverse engineering it from manuals and old hearsay. And within the limits of the game engine it exists in.

Seems like you don't even know what kayfabe is. They're not pretending they're going to get an actual emulation of the radar. What you call "facsimile" (another word you're using incorrectly) is in fact a simulation of one. Which is defined as something that doesn't work exactly like the thing it's simulating, but you can't tell from the cockpit, because the results you get are essentially the same. An emulation would replicate every wire and IC that comprised the AWG-9, and it would chug computer resources for no good reason. It might be more correct in some extreme edge cases, but nothing that would actually come up in normal use.

What we are doing is a simulation of the aircraft and its components. Nobody is pretending otherwise, so there's no kayfabe to speak of. What you don't seem to understand that to simulate the systems, documentation on how they are supposed to work is required. Because how would you know your simulation is good otherwise? An emulation would allow you to reproduce undocumented or even previously unknown behaviors, but for a simulation, most things need to be explicitly programmed in.

Also, just FYI, "old hearsay" is not usually accepted as a source, unless you want to call SME feedback that, in which case they could get offended at a random ignoramus questioning their years of experience. HB had consulted people who actually flew the Tomcat for the USN. Do you want to tell them they all suffered a mass hallucination and don't know what they're talking about?

33 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

They (ED) just decided to lighten up on the Kayfabe. To expand their available products. 

No, ED decided to lower the standards of what, for their purposes, constitutes a sufficiently accurate simulation. And then, as far as we know it's only for the F-35. In any case, it's certainly not a reason for HB to lower their own, higher standard of "sufficiently accurate". In every case, there are compromises to be made, primarily because of the hardware we use to interact with the sim. That does not detract from the quality of the simulation, or from the effort required to achieve that quality.

I suggest you spend some time educating yourself, starting with the meaning of the words you use. You make a lot of bold claims and wave your hands a lot, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence. 

16 hours ago, draconus said:

It still will not match the MIL mark in the cockpit, btw.

File a bug report, then. This would indicate the animation in cockpit is incorrect, and it'll be incorrect for everyone in this case. I don't think the animation being done this way is a design choice.

In fact, the throttles should also move sideways when crossing the AB detent, they should probably take a look at this, too. It's a cosmetic thing, but it'd be nice if they did get it right (plus, clear feedback when exactly you hit the detent helps with calibration).

Edited February 18 by Dragon1-1

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Seems like you don't even know what kayfabe is. They're not pretending they're going to get an actual emulation of the radar. What you call "facsimile" (another word you're using incorrectly) is in fact a simulation of one. Which is defined as something that doesn't work exactly like the thing it's simulating, but you can't tell from the cockpit, because the results you get are essentially the same. An emulation would replicate every wire and IC that comprised the AWG-9, and it would chug computer resources for no good reason. It might be more correct in some extreme edge cases, but nothing that would actually come up in normal use.

What we are doing is a simulation of the aircraft and its components. Nobody is pretending otherwise, so there's no kayfabe to speak of. What you don't seem to understand that to simulate the systems, documentation on how they are supposed to work is required. Because how would you know your simulation is good otherwise? An emulation would allow you to reproduce undocumented or even previously unknown behaviors, but for a simulation, most things need to be explicitly programmed in.

Emulation is a recreation of the hardware with the ability to run the original software.

Simulation is A recreation of a system so it behaves the same as a system. That means it requires a 1:1 interface or a Simulacra of that interface.

Simulacra is the impression of a system that works within the bounds of the larger simulacra environment. Partial task trainers are Simulacra. If you use a mouse to click on visual representations of controls or an HID button box not matched to the control, it’s simulacra. 
same too if you use a look up table and simplified environment modeling it’s a simulacra. Baked in flight models are simulacra not simulation. 
 

CFD is a simulation that builds a Model for use in a Physics informed modeling simulacra environment. 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, just FYI, "old hearsay" is not usually accepted as a source, unless you want to call SME feedback that, in which case they could get offended at a random ignoramus questioning their years of experience. HB had consulted people who actually flew the Tomcat for the USN. Do you want to tell them they all suffered a mass hallucination and don't know what they're talking about?

I an saying it’s old Hearsay. 
High quality, well informed Hearsay, but 20 year old at the newest remembered and restated accounts.
 

In a simulation you wouldn’t need that, because reproducing the systems would give you the actual behavior in a high fidelity simulation environment.
 

This Simulacra is more like a physical story we engage with.  

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, ED decided to lower the standards of what, for their purposes, constitutes a sufficiently accurate simulation. And then, as far as we know it's only for the F-35. In any case, it's certainly not a reason for HB to lower their own, higher standard of "sufficiently accurate". In every case, there are compromises to be made, primarily because of the hardware we use to interact with the sim. That does not detract from the quality of the simulation, or from the effort required to achieve that quality.

And this is where the Kayfabe comes in because this is a ludo-interaction NOT a flight training simulation product. We all “Agree” together for the sake of play that this is a reasonable amount of “correct” for our play purposes. HB tries, but even HB is softening some edges for play effectiveness. As is the total interface as a whole.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I suggest you spend some time educating yourself, starting with the meaning of the words you use. You make a lot of bold claims and wave your hands a lot, but I haven't seen a single shred of evidence. 

I’m not sure what evidence you want that is not already provided by both ED and HB white papers and explanations.

You want to talk Evidence, show ME where ED or HB guarantees ANY specified, quantitative Values of “Realism”, accuracy, or Fidelity. They made and you bought a toy, a story made to interact with something that is an Idea of a thing that was in real life. 
 

It’s Pretend, and so Pretend in play has Kayfabe. 

[draconus]

6 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Simulation is A recreation of a system so it behaves the same as a system. That means it requires a 1:1 interface or a Simulacra of that interface.

Simulacra is the impression of a system that works within the bounds of the larger simulacra environment. Partial task trainers are Simulacra. If you use a mouse to click on visual representations of controls or an HID button box not matched to the control, it’s simulacra. 
same too if you use a look up table and simplified environment modeling it’s a simulacra. Baked in flight models are simulacra not simulation. 

You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact you JMSU.

Flight simulators exist since a long time (80's example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Simulation_(Psion_software)), no matter how good they looked or how deep they went into it or even if they were professional or not. But by all means, if you want higher quality simulation you need more docs, recordings and SMEs.

[draconus]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

File a bug report, then. This would indicate the animation in cockpit is incorrect, and it'll be incorrect for everyone in this case. I don't think the animation being done this way is a design choice.

In fact, the throttles should also move sideways when crossing the AB detent, they should probably take a look at this, too. It's a cosmetic thing, but it'd be nice if they did get it right (plus, clear feedback when exactly you hit the detent helps with calibration).

Oh, yeah, would be nice. The bug was reported looong time ago. Not first and not last, but I bumped this one:

[RustBelt]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact you JMSU.

Flight simulators exist since a long time (80's example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Simulation_(Psion_software)), no matter how good they looked or how deep they went into it or even if they were professional or not. But by all means, if you want higher quality simulation you need more docs, recordings and SMEs.

Dude, that's a home computer game. Don't confuse game genera with technical terms.

[Dragon1-1]

15 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Don't confuse game genera with technical terms.

Says the one who constantly confuses the meaning of every big word he tries to use. Literally nothing you wrote aligns with how those terms are actually used. You're either a non-native speaker butchering the translation, or trying to impose on us the jargon from some obscure sub-sub field of computing theory. You also confuse wrestling jargon. Kayfabe is pretending you're not playing pretend. Nobody here does that. We want to play out fictional scenarios (or just compete) with simulated military hardware. Nobody here, even the cockpit builders, is pretending it's a perfect recreation of real jet, just one that's reasonably close for what we're trying to do.

As for the other terms: 
Emulation is using software to recreate the operating environment (not necessarily down to the hardware level) on which the original programs can run. 

Simulation uses a physics model to approximate the behavior of the real thing. This model is typically "fitted" to reality by making sure it matches the values in the documentation. That's what DCS does. The FM is a bunch of equations that are tweaked until the curves for the virtual aircraft's Ps and Qs match those in the charts for the real aircraft. A properly fitted model can be extrapolated, with lower accuracy, to areas that aren't in the chart. Other systems work more or less the same, while they can have some simplifications for performance reasons, you couldn't tell in the cockpit, because you've only got a few hydraulics gauges, not a realtime readout of the whole system. The key takeaway here is that it's the simulation of the aircraft as a whole, as experienced by the pilot and RIO.

Simulacrum is an imitation, like a historical reenactment. Yes, an FM based fully on lookup tables would qualify more as a simulacrum than simulation, but only AI uses that in DCS. Human-flown aircraft are simulated.

16 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I an saying it’s old Hearsay. 
High quality, well informed Hearsay, but 20 year old at the newest remembered and restated accounts.

Well, you might be surprised to hear, then, that HB is only using SME feedback to confirm the information they get from documentation, as well as tune the general "feeling" of the aircraft, which all that subtle, minor stuff (like the various crocks to keep the ACM panel buttons from falling out) that is not in the docs and is largely subjective, anyway. Nobody remembers enough data to accurately simulate a complex aircraft system, anyway, so while you can tweak things based on SME feedback, you can't rely exclusively on it.

16 hours ago, RustBelt said:

HB tries, but even HB is softening some edges for play effectiveness. As is the total interface as a whole.

HB is not "softening some edges", but compensating for limitations of user hardware. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to take procedures and advice that worked for the real pilots and apply them in DCS. We are not sitting in a real jet and pulling real Gs that can be felt, so compromises need to be made. Even with that, flying the virtual F-14 is actually harder than the real one, because you don't get the same feedback pilots do. 

Seriously, what you're doing is the very definition of JMSU. You seem to be trying to bamboozle people by waving your hands and alluding to some illusory complexity that means nothing that runs on a home PC can have any relation to reality. The truth is, back in the day they used flight training software that was much inferior, both graphically and in terms of fidelity, to DCS, though they'd usually have a cockpit on some kind of motion platform (this is completely out of HB's hands, I might add, but some people build themselves one of those). Nowadays, of course, the professional state of the art had advanced. DCS might be an an entertainment product, but it doesn't mean it can't be accurate, nor does it mean it's not worth trying to make it accurate.

[RustBelt]

Man you REALLY need this to be a “simulation” you got a bet on the line or something?

Call your toy whatever you like i suppose.

It doesn’t mean it can’t be accurate, but it also doesn’t mean it can or will be perfectly accurate, and the makers get to decide how accurate it is. 
 

The pretending it’s accurate is the Kayfabe. I don’t see how you don’t get that? Do you need me to call it the “meta game” or “meta play” for it to reconcile with your needs from this product? 
 

And since you brought up historical reenactment, I mean we going to pretend this is different? Why? Because it’s less exercise? 
 

Unless you’re the Iranian air force, you aren’t using this thing as a training tool. 

Edited February 19 by RustBelt

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, RustBelt said:

It doesn’t mean it can’t be accurate, but it also doesn’t mean it can or will be perfectly accurate, and the makers get to decide how accurate it is. 

I'm glad we finally agree. You just said it can be accurate, and you also said the makers decide how accurate it is. HB seems to have decided they want it to be accurate, hence... it is (or it will be once they finish making it). Your words, not mine.  

I mean, thanks for making my point for me, but I don't think you realized it when you wrote it. I don't get what else you're trying to say, other than you're being condescending, while also showing your exceedingly poor grasp of logic.

2 hours ago, RustBelt said:

The pretending it’s accurate is the Kayfabe. I don’t see how you don’t get that? Do you need me to call it the “meta game” or “meta play” for it to reconcile with your needs from this product? 

You need to stop accusing HB of lying without any proof of them doing so. That's what you're doing, though you obviously don't realize that. You're saying that HB is free to decide whether it's accurate, then next, you're saying we're pretending it's accurate (let's pretend nobody can see that "early access" tag, but that's neither here nor there), despite HB having clearly stated that it really is going to be accurate as possible. So either they are lying, or you aren't thinking logically. I am pretty sure which one it is.

Let's not even get into your flimsy attempt at equivocation, what with treating accuracy as a scale in one sentence ("more accurate", "less accurate"), and as a binary choice in the next ("accurate", "not accurate"). I'd accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but I always try to assume the most charitable explanation, so I'm going to put it up as another lapse in your line of reasoning.

2 hours ago, RustBelt said:

And since you brought up historical reenactment, I mean we going to pretend this is different? Why? Because it’s less exercise? 

My point exactly. It's not different. If you set up and fly historic mission, it's exactly the same principle as a historical reenactment. Tomcat is a piece of history that we're trying to recreate in a simulation, to give people chance of experiencing it in at least some way. For that, it's worthy to strive for maximum accuracy we can get. Nobody is going to show up to a Civil War battle with a WWII Garand and say "but people don't know one old rifle from the other (because I sure don't), so it should get a pass". Yes, they're shooting blanks, but out of period accurate firearms, and that counts.

Oh, and IRIAF doesn't fly Tomcats anymore. Ukrainian pilots seem to have played around with ED's F-16 module while they were still lobbying for the real thing, though. Nothing of that has any bearing on whether this is or isn't a good sim, or whether HB needs documentation to make it as accurate as they decided to make it.

If your point was, as I suspect, "HB decides how accurate the sim will be, so they could decide to lower their standards and make APG-71 without the docs", then we can pretty much surmise that "maybe, but they won't, and we don't want them to" is the answer. The rest of your nonsense is just distraction from the fact that you're arguing otherwise, which is something which the rest of the community doesn't agree with. The only kayfabe here is you trying to pretend, like an oldtimey wrestler, that you're fooling anyone with your rambling.

Edited February 19 by Dragon1-1

[draconus]

15 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Dude, that's a home computer game. Don't confuse game genera with technical terms.

Learning time - it is a video game and flight simulators are just one of subgenres:

Quote

Combat flight simulators are vehicle simulation games, amateur flight simulation computer programs used to simulate military aircraft and their operations. These are distinct from dedicated flight simulators used for professional pilot and military flight training which consist of realistic physical recreations of the actual aircraft cockpit, often with a full-motion platform.

and here's where DCS places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_flight_simulation_game#Study

Don't forget you can use full cockpit replica, VR/projectors, ffb stick, vibrating seat and motion platform for DCS too.

[RustBelt]

it's like neither of you are paying attention and just using high school forensic club rules.....oh yea, internet, I forgot that's all the internet is.

Carry on, have "fun?"

[Dragon1-1]

Fine, I ask one thing of you: don't accuse other people of anything, ever again. It'll be easier that way. We are paying attention, all right, and so far you offered exactly zero support for any of your accusations, instead trying to baffle people with BS, bogus "logic" and JMSU. Not a shred of real evidence, just a lot of handwaving. Quit that, and your condescending tone, and all will be fine.

[RustBelt]

I’ll give you nothing and you can do as you please with that.

[PhantomHans]

About the F-14D and APG-71...

 

I'd love an F-14D.

I'd love to pay for it, I want to encourage HB to make money.

My vote would be to make it as realistic as possible with the information that we have.

Approximate things when it's appropriate, and fall back to modeling it as it is on the F-14B / AWG-9 where and when it's the best you can do.

 

The important thing for me would be to admit when an approximation was made, and to explain how and why.

Its one thing to sell me a simulator and say "all of this is as real as it gets!" when you know it's not, and it's another thing completely to sell it to me and say "This is as close as we can get, and here's why"...

 

Most of what interests me about the 14D is front seat stuff anyway.

[Horns]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:21 AM, PhantomHans said:

About the F-14D and APG-71...

 

I'd love an F-14D.

I'd love to pay for it, I want to encourage HB to make money.

My vote would be to make it as realistic as possible with the information that we have.

Approximate things when it's appropriate, and fall back to modeling it as it is on the F-14B / AWG-9 where and when it's the best you can do.

 

The important thing for me would be to admit when an approximation was made, and to explain how and why.

Its one thing to sell me a simulator and say "all of this is as real as it gets!" when you know it's not, and it's another thing completely to sell it to me and say "This is as close as we can get, and here's why"...

 

Most of what interests me about the 14D is front seat stuff anyway.

Personally, I feel quite different. I'd prefer to stick with "aircraft we can recreate to our usual high degree" rather than "best we can do with what we have", and I'd buy accordingly. That's a choice for each individual though, of course.

[Dragon1-1]

On 2/24/2025 at 7:21 PM, PhantomHans said:

Its one thing to sell me a simulator and say "all of this is as real as it gets!" when you know it's not,

Except "as real as it gets" is actually an appropriate description. The FC3 F-15 is said to be the best F-15 simulation out there, and that's true. Because the last non-ED F-15 sim on the market is Jane's F-15 from 1998. Not a high bar to clear. So it really doesn't get any better.

Of course, HB are aiming higher than that, and I agree, too. I don't want made up systems, I want the real stuff, modeled according to real physics and engineering.

[Kev2go]

On 3/3/2025 at 5:08 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Except "as real as it gets" is actually an appropriate description. The FC3 F-15 is said to be the best F-15 simulation out there, and that's true. Because the last non-ED F-15 sim on the market is Jane's F-15 from 1998. Not a high bar to clear. So it really doesn't get any better.

Of course, HB are aiming higher than that, and I agree, too. I don't want made up systems, I want the real stuff, modeled according to real physics and engineering.

Someone forgot about that 3 letter sim that used to only be f16's  has a full fidelity f15 With datalink since late last year.

Edited May 23 by Kev2go

[Dragon1-1]

I haven't followed that one since their forum became a hideous monstrosity even worse than the current DCS forum (for an Invision-hater like me, that's saying something). It was so unreadable for me that I stopped coming there, so I guess I missed their take on the F-15.

Still, ED's boast was true until a year ago. Funny how they decided to take on the F-15 right about the time it stopped being so.  

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Apart from being off-topic all the way, I flew the other F-15C more than the DCS one. Judging the quality of a piece of software by the state of forum is new to me. I guess no software is any good then.  <- it turns off any -ve by putting this one up, I guess.

I am also on  that  forum and I find it is very helpful. I cannot determine anyone's feeling anyway.

Please stay on topic, and I have spoken.

Edited May 24 by VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants