Any thing on A-10C FLIGHT MODEL - E3 impressions

[hannibal]

ok.

have to bring this topic up.

all the tasty previews, clips and screens about A-10C showing at E3,

 

i am wondering.. WHERE ARE DETAILS ON THE FLIGHT MODEL???

 

to this date, i think the Su-25T has the best flight model.. i feel like i am really controlling a plane. i mean when the frogfoot is loaded, i feel its weight..

 

but Su-25T was on lockon flaming cliffs, the sim of medium fidelity..

 

now with the A-10C Warthog, DCS sim of high fidelity, I WOULD LIKE TO hear about any comments on how this puppy flew at E-3, would be great to have a real life pilots who were able to try this sim to give their opinions on how the simulator flies...

 

LET US KNOW!!!

 

i think, next to the MFD+targeting pod functionality, THE FLIGHT MODEL DYNAMICS is what HAS TO stand out for me!! cause, next to shooting, i think just plain flying has to be the thing that appeals most...

[HitchHikingFlatlander]

I agree it is a flight simulator first right? Blowing stuff up aside, I love to just fly around landing and taking off.

[element1108]

Black shark has a better flight model than the SU 25T ;). I'm confident given the flight model standards for the series you will see a fantastic flight model....no doubt the best for a fixed wing aircraft ever seen in a flight sim.

 

It would be nice to hear from any A10C pilots though ;). I'm not sure a cessna 172 pilot would give me much of a basis of comparison ;).

 

Once startup is mastered I'm going to take it through the basic maneuvers...see how she handles a spin, stall etc.

Edited June 23, 2010 by element1108

[HitchHikingFlatlander]

In sims the only time I've spun a hog is when my tail section was shot off!

[element1108]

I'd like to try to avoid that if possible ;)>>>my A-10C will be my baby...I'm going to fly it like I own it. ;)

[Glowing_Amraam]

Well, i'm no real pilot of course, but after all these years playing sims, nothing comes close to the feeling of flying the A-10C. :) IMO of course.

[EtherealN]

I'd like to try to avoid that if possible ;)>>>my A-10C will be my baby...I'm going to fly it like I own it. ;)

 

Spin recovery is a mandatory exercise for almost all aircraft, afaik. Point being - you need to know how to get in and out of spin so that you can avoid entering a spin by accident, and if you do enter a spin by accident - how to quickly get out of it.

 

Spinning is a lot of fun in simulators, but few things can compete with the surging feeling in your gut as your plane dips IRL and the world starts revolving around you. :D

[norm]

Ive done a cuple spins with my instruters in the club 2-33's, and they are no less exciting in real life, man you feel your evebrows climb up you face as the horizon goes where it was never ment to be!

[EtherealN]

as the horizon goes where it was never ment to be!

 

Below is an example of where the horison is meant to be. :P

[element1108]

Spin recovery is a mandatory exercise for almost all aircraft, afaik. Point being - you need to know how to get in and out of spin so that you can avoid entering a spin by accident, and if you do enter a spin by accident - how to quickly get out of it.

 

Spinning is a lot of fun in simulators, but few things can compete with the surging feeling in your gut as your plane dips IRL and the world starts revolving around you. :D

 

spin, stall, short runway takeoff...what are some other basic flight maneuvers one needs to complete during the training phases of the a10 specifically. I want to start from the ground up with this. For example, how many flight hours in the A10 would I need to accumulate in order use weapons. Ground school elements will hopefully be made more comfortable with a hard cover manual ;), or an early PDF release ;).

[CyBerkut]

PDF release... Hmmm... now where is the pickle switch for that again?....

 

Bomb them with documents! Muhahahaha!

[sweinhart3]

Not that one will compare to the other very well but using FC2 A-10A to get some idea of the flight and weapon characteristics in preparation for A-10C was my only reason for purchasing FC2. Unfortunately it is a little buggy, but Id say its probably still the best practice for A-10C that you can get prior to release.

[hassata]

One thing I'm not worried about with this upcoming sim: the flight model.

[Nate--IRL--]

Yep, the FM has been the centrepiece of every ED Sim since Flanker 1.0.

 

Nate

[159th_Viper]

In Yo-Yo we trust :)

[amalahama]

I hope to see this level of detail one day in DCS

 

 

Regards!!

[Feuerfalke]

I hope to see this level of detail one day in DCS

 

 

Regards!!

 

Honestly, I'd like to see this level of detail in the game it was designed for :devil_2:

 

 

Well, anyway, I think that turbulences and propwash/vortex caused by other aircraft is the least I'd worry about in an A-10, as it will rarely fly in close pursuit of an other aircraft.

On the other hand, we have a very deadly vortex ring state in Ka-50, so in theory it probably can be done in one way or the other.

 

So... :dunno:

[cctoide]

I don't know much about the internals of DCS but I wouldn't be surprised if they did some sort of aerodynamic modeling (or "blade element theory" or whatever else) instead of a look-up table like regular flight sims. They did model the rotor blades in several sections for Black Shark, I assume there was a reason for that beyond the damage system.

 

Whether it's possible to put the plane into a realistic spin should be a good indication of how good the FM is, as I've heard desktop flight simulators usually don't do a very good job simulating the edges of the flight envelope.

Edited June 25, 2010 by cctoide

[Succellus]

Sometimes you don tneed to be that deep in calc to be fairly accurate.

Not all strenght that actuate IRL are relevant to the flight model. But i concur we still need much more computer power than we have in our home to have a really good job done for aerobatic flights.

[EtherealN]

You can do aerobatics just fine with your home computer, and be relatively close to the real thing in the observed behaviour.

 

That said, there's no such thing as practicing aerobatics in a simulator and then being "ready" to do them IRL, no matter what kind of processor power you have. The critical thing there isn't really the fidelity of the simulation, the critical thing is the physical seat-stick interface and the forces it experiences (and how it reacts to the stress factors).

 

Nothing in a simulator can adequately prepare you for the first time you perform a Hammerhead, inverted loop, bunt or flatspin. The "real thing" is a lot more fun and you really feel the stress caused by the knowledge that failure to perform the correct exit will mean you end the flight as a parachutist.

 

Incidentally, one of the reasons why you see simulator people perform aerobatic stunts that few (if any) real pilots do in said aircraft isn't necessarily that the simulator is inaccurate enough that it permits something that the real thing cannot do - it's that in both cases the maneuver is highly risky, and a real pilot can die. The simulator pilot at worst feels embarrassed at all the virtual air show spectators seeing him crash. If you can do a maneuver right 95% of the time IRL, you typically won't do it. In a simulator... you probably will. :P

[Avilator]

Below is an example of where the horison is meant to be. :P

You're doing it right!:thumbup::pilotfly:

Whether it's possible to put the plane into a realistic spin should be a good indication of how good the FM is, as I've heard desktop flight simulators usually don't do a very good job simulating the edges of the flight envelope.

 

I'll speak about fixed wings in FSX here, because that is the only other sim I have extensive experience with. Regarding the edges of the envelope, the default aircraft don't have very good FM. Trying to do any aerobatic maneuver other than loops and rolls is an exercise in hilarity as the plane flips and spins around as if physics just disappeared.

However, with some time, effort, and money, very accurate flight dynamics can be had. Examples include add-ons from RealAir, A2A Simulations, PMDG, and LotusSim. There are others as well, but these are the companies I have add-ons from. The RealAir SF260, Beechcraft Duke, and Lotus L-39 can all be spun and slipped realistically. The L-39 can even pull off legit knife edge. So the basic default aircraft are fine in most areas, but suck at the edges of the envelope, but the framework is available to make things very realistic.

[badaboom]

Well, i'm no real pilot of course, but after all these years playing sims, nothing comes close to the feeling of flying the A-10C. :) IMO of course.

 

That's good enough for me!!!!:thumbup:

[sinelnic]

You're doing it right!:thumbup::pilotfly:

 

 

I'll speak about fixed wings in FSX here, because that is the only other sim I have extensive experience with. Regarding the edges of the envelope, the default aircraft don't have very good FM. Trying to do any aerobatic maneuver other than loops and rolls is an exercise in hilarity as the plane flips and spins around as if physics just disappeared.

However, with some time, effort, and money, very accurate flight dynamics can be had. Examples include add-ons from RealAir, A2A Simulations, PMDG, and LotusSim. There are others as well, but these are the companies I have add-ons from. The RealAir SF260, Beechcraft Duke, and Lotus L-39 can all be spun and slipped realistically. The L-39 can even pull off legit knife edge. So the basic default aircraft are fine in most areas, but suck at the edges of the envelope, but the framework is available to make things very realistic.

 

And how would you rate the SU-25T in that regard????

[Avilator]

And how would you rate the SU-25T in that regard????

 

Well, I would rate it if I had flown it, but I don't have FC2. :tomato: Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone!:censored:

[element1108]

Well, I would rate it if I had flown it, but I don't have FC2. :tomato: Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone!:censored:

 

Guys, lets get him!!!!!!! Arrrrrggggggg ;)