Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
its better then before ...yes....and oh... "i know real pilot" does not work with me :smilewink: ...

 

I can't give you any more details since the IAF and IDF policy on revealing identities of current serving combat pilots, or any other IAF personnel for that matter is strict beyond belief. So you either take my word for it and not ask for more info or call me a liar that tries to prove a point on an internet forum.

 

Either way, that's the data I can give you.

Posted

You know what, I really, literally don't have time to get into an argument with you, so here's the deal:

 

Show/Prove it's wrong, then ED will look at it - with all due respect. Oh and, 'people with gunzo experience in flight sims' doesn't cut it.

 

and you think, its accurate modeled? ...i acutally asked the same thing, but with "what tells us, its right made"

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted (edited)
AS do you think the M-61 has been modeled accuratley?.

 

I like them to be honest, especially in the russian planes. The dispersion in the M-61 seems to accure to much at to close range. I would expect that kind of disperstion at 2500feet+ but ok....

The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly, sometimes more then a aim-9 fusing.....im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.

Edited by A.S

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly...im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.

 

Doesn't that make sense though? Imagine blindfolding yourself and throwing a dart at a modern fighter jet from above, full plane form view. I'd be surprised if it doesn't hit something vital! There's not a lot of wasted space, probably not much redundancy, and there's practically no armor. You're going to hit an engine, fuel, avionics, control surfaces, control mechanisms, or a human pilot.

Posted

The dispersion should be correct - ED has more material on it than I, though, so I don't have anything to show you.

 

As for damage dealt: It is a function of the number of shells that hit your fuselage. I can guarantee you that a good jink and minimal time through the gun-round stream will end without you being destroyed, but in my experience you'll have 10% of rounds hitting most of the time, which should be enough to cause lots of damage.

 

There are details that are not taken into account: For example, you may put 100 rounds into just the last 1m of the wingtip, but it will blow away the entire wing. That is something that currently cannot be fixed, at least for SFM planes.

 

Whether the damage done by an individual shell in FC2 or not is probably not really the question though ... perhaps a better question is 'do the sfm planes have too little structural integrity compared to the real thing' ... which may be a possibility, but we don't exactly have RL versions of the flyable planes to shoot at a whole lot to determine this.

 

I like them to be honest, especially in the russian planes. The dispersion in the M-61 seems to accure to much at to close range. I would expect that kind of disperstion at 2500feet+ but ok....

The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly, sometimes more then a aim-9 fusing.....im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
The dispersion should be correct - ED has more material on it than I, though, so I don't have anything to show you.

 

As for damage dealt: It is a function of the number of shells that hit your fuselage. I can guarantee you that a good jink and minimal time through the gun-round stream will end without you being destroyed, but in my experience you'll have 10% of rounds hitting most of the time, which should be enough to cause lots of damage.

 

There are details that are not taken into account: For example, you may put 100 rounds into just the last 1m of the wingtip, but it will blow away the entire wing. That is something that currently cannot be fixed, at least for SFM planes.

 

Whether the damage done by an individual shell in FC2 or not is probably not really the question though ... perhaps a better question is 'do the sfm planes have too little structural integrity compared to the real thing' ... which may be a possibility, but we don't exactly have RL versions of the flyable planes to shoot at a whole lot to determine this.

I don't have FC2 yet, but looking at videos that I've seen plus the RL videos I can guess that they are very similar. Not 100% realistic, but still shouldn't we be happy that ED at least tried to make it as close as possible. Yes there can be flaws, and yes it does have its positives that make it more reaslistic. And this is from a person looking in from the outside with no experience with FC2.

My Specs:

Win 10 Pro 64bit/ i7 6770K 4.5Ghz/32GB DDR4/ GTX 1070 SC/Samsung SSD

Warthog Stick/TWCS Throttle/TrackIR 5

 

Posted

Here you can find some data on dispersion:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD290637&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

On page 3-1. 4.5 mils seems to be the average, which, if I recall how mils work correctly, would produce almost a 12' (4m) pattern at 2500' or almost 14' (nearly 5m) pattern ... mu understanding is that this is radius, not diameter, but I only had a quick look at the doc and my interpretation might be incorrect.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
I like them to be honest, especially in the russian planes. The dispersion in the M-61 seems to accure to much at to close range. I would expect that kind of disperstion at 2500feet+ but ok....

The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly, sometimes more then a aim-9 fusing.....im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.

 

A.S I cannot comment on the dispersal rates, as for damage a single round can easily destroy an engine considering most of the moving parts and combustion chamber in modern jet engines is made out of Inconel, the cutting tool on a lathe alone can easily destroy Inconel, it's the hardest metal to machine because it's so brittle, one 20mm HE round versus a compressor shaft/combustion chamber is no match trust me. To be fair it sounds like ED has modelled damage pretty darn accurate.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
I like them to be honest, especially in the russian planes. The dispersion in the M-61 seems to accure to much at to close range. I would expect that kind of disperstion at 2500feet+ but ok....

The damage impact instead, is really omg or its the damagemodel on the jets..you decide..i cant tell. A full good deflection hit ok, but in 2.0 a "touch" disables the bandit completly, sometimes more then a aim-9 fusing.....im not sure, if that is really accurate. I have my doubts, but good thing we discuss it.

 

I beg to differ. Taking "realism" out of the equation now since it's irrelevant to the point you brought.

 

I played on a Gunzo server last night. I was flying a blue F-15. Spotted a lone Su-27 up in angels 30. I zoomed and dispatched it pretty quickly indeed. Giving him a squirt and his plane broke up and fell down in parts. Soon after I was low on E and coming out of an immelman, I had another Su-27 parking on my tail. Having almost no energy left I made a run for it and started diving. The Su-27 worked the angels quick and sat on my tail. Out of 4 bursts he shot, 1 landed. I lost all avionics but my plane was intact and I still had full control of the engines. A quick snap view to the back and no smoke confirmed that my plane was going to make it home. The Su-27 that was on my back got killed by my wingman 2 seconds before he landed the 2nd burst which would of probably sent me down in flames.

 

In short, I took around 4-5 30mm shells (Not 20mm mind you which are obviously lower caliber) and I still managed to belly land my plane.

Posted (edited)
You tell me. From what holywood movie is that HUD footage from?

 

While at it:

 

 

Training for high-aspect snapshots.

It was actually a sarcasm towards A.S who referred to Hollywood after you provided a real-life vid.

Edited by Bucic
Posted

Ah, sorry Bucic ... my sarcasm filter was turned off. :)

 

It was actually a sarcasm towards A.S who referred to Hollywood after you provided a real-life vid.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted

one thing im still in learning progress...or should i say remembering progress......"you can NOT argue in this community EVEN if you are right, all it takes is to shoot them down.....and silence is loud"

but its also my fault, im not pm-ing to devs in a nice chat, im arguing with "some" people absolutly pointless and without any meaning for the sim.

And if anyone likes to add his 2 cents even to that post...you can speak with your weapons in a 1v1.

 

Good luck ...and enjoy "your" reality ...till you meet mine ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted (edited)
Here you can find some data on dispersion:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD290637&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

On page 3-1. 4.5 mils seems to be the average, which, if I recall how mils work correctly, would produce almost a 12' (4m) pattern at 2500' or almost 14' (nearly 5m) pattern ... mu understanding is that this is radius, not diameter, but I only had a quick look at the doc and my interpretation might be incorrect.

 

since 1 year you keep quoting real data documents and i dont know what else...revealing alot of "how 2.0 will be once out in HL".

As soon as it came out it took us one round of dogfight to figure that the flaps are totally messed up, then i told yoda, that the thrust and AoA/G limters are definitly screwed or to much in certain regimes getting the answer " you are not used to real data new engines". i kept silent...but as you know aswell..i was right..and the patch is going to fix it.

Sorry GG, the last things i need, is one more GG copy post document, which i have myself.

We saw where your "i read real manuals" brought us.

 

So in respect, plz stop quoting each time in smart fashion my posts. Let the Devs speak for themself. And what is your role in all that btw? Beta tester or PR manager?

Edited by A.S
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
And what is your role in all that btw? Beta tester or PR manager?

 

He is actually my literary agent.

Can we get back to topic and avoid those unhelpful detours?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Posted

Sorry AS, but in respect,

 

the first thing you did was post on the forum how lazy ED was. Following that, there was a whole bunch of 'I did a calculation' and 'how do you calculate twr' BS.

 

That's great, except that calculation was meaningless - you did 'a test', you failed to describe it correctly, and it took a bunch of other people doing actual work to figure out what was going on.

 

This is why, with all due respect, you'll get little respect from me until you can scream less and precise problems more.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Posted
since 1 year you keep qutoing real data documents and i dont know what...revealing alot of "how 2.0 will be once out in HL".

As soon as it came out it took us one round of dogfight to figure that the flaps are totally messed up, then i told yoda, that the thrust and AoA/G limters are definitly screwed or to much in certain regimes getting the answer " you are not used to real data new engines". i kept silent...but as you know aswell..i was right..and the patch is going to fix it.

Sorry GG, the last things i need, is one more GG copy post document.

We saw where your "i read real manuals" brought us.

 

So in respect, plz stop quoting each time in smart fashion my posts. Let the Devs speak for themself. And what is your role in all that btw? Beta tester or PR manager?

 

AS both you and me know this is not what happened.

1. You told me there is something wrong

2. I asked you what

3. you told me "test this this and this"

4. We tested these regiemed together, you and me on ventrilo, and it and it matched real data.

 

Then later on, a different flight model regieme was tested - reported by another user.

(we cannot test for 48 hours straight, we are doing this for free. We are testing this because we want improvements.)

 

All tester groups for all games require straight forward specific reports, with specific

instructions on what part of the game must be tested. We all test our best and I sure

tested the best I ever could do given your description.

 

What was wrong at the end? - Drag was curves were wrong. Nothing about the engines actually.

If somebody says "engines are wrong", we dont automatically fly at 50.000 ft at mach 3.

We must know what conditions the stuff is wrong at. Otherwise there would be only 1 bug

fix for an entire game and 1 gazillion other bugs left behind.

S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'

Posted (edited)

@Yoda:

you wanna argue, that i havent told you in first instance that THRUST is to much..you aksed me: "explain?"...i said..i cant ..i dont know what exactly is wrong (im not the coder) ..but i told you straight forward that thrust is to much in certain regimes. I couldnt express myself in ways which you understand....you undestand numbers..i take the jet ..and tell you straight forward whats messed up.... i fly ...you build!

 

your straight answer was: " probably you are not used to that kind of thrust, no sim has it so right" .. it still rings in my ears, cuz that was the moment i kept silent with a smile. What we tested was the Gs under specific mach speed...i read the values ..you flew them in same time.....this is totally differnt !!!

 

fusion was in coms with us !!!! you wanna ask him?

 

then before that, we told you the we tested the flaps...and first thing you did was..."oh i have to post that in beta-forums" after testing it for yourself.

 

@GG: you cant stop it, can you?

 

@both: yes, you are right, im NOT a tester...you are.... do i have to say more?

Edited by A.S

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

nothing new about fighting over a realism or how game works

 

I know it's not my position to say this.... but think about it

 

if you were never a real pilot. why bother to complain if that is incorrect gun setting in game while you don't know exact what is it is like in real life.

 

I personally trust the ED team/beta test to develop a game as realistic as possible with a good resources and source, it is nearly impossible to make it 100% perfect and accurate to realism.

 

All other software, Game, Business applications, etc, are never 100% perfect, there is always bug or minor errors that can be addressed or not.

Maximus, The only real Maximus in DCS World. :music_whistling:

 

I am not associated to viper 33 | Maximus. he is the imposter.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...