another nail in the coffin of the sim industry

[EtherealN]

Chromewasp, let me give you a hint once again:

 

The graphics in DCS:BS and FC2 are actually pretty lightweight. I'll re-state this: at 1680x1050 I can run 16x AA and AF and still maintain high FPS at high graphics settings.

 

You are most likely completely misunderstanding how the internals of an application like this works. This is not Quake or GTA, this is a simulator. Unless you use something like an Intel GMA 950 or similarly handicapped graphics card, you can completely ignore that component in your computer. The important thing here is your CPU and whether it is able to run Blade Element simulations for the aircraft, plus simulate all systems, plus run AI, plus run ballistics simulations etcetera etcetera. Remember: the simulation works in frames too, and if your CPU can't cut it then it will drag the display down along with it.

 

So, once again as I asked before: what is your system?

[MTFDarkEagle]

it is possible to write a simulator with the same physics and less graphical luxury - by doing so they will massively increase their potential market

 

Sure it is, why would they increase if they go on lower visual quality??

 

this kind of small-scale physics is really not taxing for a pc

Are you serious?

 

I run BS now on a single monitor at 1152x8?? with all settings on LOW

and still at crucial moments it sits at 12 fps

Then get a faster pc dude:doh:

 

Dump the gimmicks - give me the FPS - if I want to look at paintings I will go to art gallery

See above ;)

 

anyway here is a track showing autohover not holding position (gradually creeping forward until i can't release weapons any more)

I haven't had a look at the track, will do when I'm home, but this sounds like a trimming issue.
Edited August 9, 2010 by MTFDarkEagle
typo

[EtherealN]

Watching the track right now, and first of all: stop moving the throttle around. Leave it at auto. It's the collective that you should move in a helicopter equipped with throttle automation.

 

Also, if you tried to enter autohover in there, you did so incorrectly. Start to hover first, then initiate autohover. The autopilot only has 20% authority and if you do not enter a hover properly before initiating the autohover it simply will not have enough control authority to achieve a hover for you.

 

Autohover isn't about entering hover, it's about keeping yourself in a hover once you are already there.

[mvsgas]

5 seconds into it I knew what was wrong. Like EtherealN said, don't move the throttle

Look at your Rotor RPM, barely withing limits. No wonder you where having so many problems

:doh: One a month guys same thing :joystick:

[SonofEil]

Seriously, we still arguing with this guy? We can talk cpu vs. gpu, blade vs. tables, and so forth 'til the sun sets. His mind is, and has been, already made up. Let's post some tutorial links, show him the noob start page...

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39015

...and call this one a wash.

Really, GTA? Everyone here knows that BS's pedigree is Mario Cart.

Come back when you have real, specific questions.

It's been a hoot. Goodnight!

[Groove]

Constructive criticism is welcomed on our forums. Trolling is not.

 

The community is willing to help you with your issues.

 

I give you the benefit of being new on the forums. Any further trolling / flaming won't be tolerated by the mods.

[Distiler]

anyway here is a track showing autohover not holding position (gradually creeping forward until i can't release weapons any more)

 

i hope somebody can show me my mistake(s)

 

You weren't in a steady manual hover before switching autohover. Probably due wind, IAS airspeed (shkval&cockpit indicator) is indicated to be around 0km/h but airspeed relative to the ground (hud) was really like 60-70km/h forward, and that is what matters for auto-hover afaik.

 

BTW, I run the track at constant 45-50fps in a slow computer, intel e5200 (2 core, 2.5Ghz overclocked at 3Ghz, from 2008 ), nvidia 9600 stock clock, 4 GB ddr2 and W7 (more fps than XP). My graphics settings are high-medium, AA@4, AF@8 and texture quality high.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Distiler

[SonofEil]

Constructive criticism is welcomed on our forums. Trolling is not.

 

The community is willing to help you with your issues.

 

I give you the benefit of being new on the forums. Any further trolling / flaming won't be tolerated by the mods.

 

And, thank you!

[EtherealN]

Here's a track of me in the same mission. I didn't really fly all that seriously (you'll see me acting silly with helicopters and stuff, and eventually try to suicide the apparently invulnerable helicopter). The autohover stuff and such is in the beginning of the track though.

AutoHoverAndFratricide.trk

[bumfire]

As I said,

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=955260&postcount=12

[ZaltysZ]

Autohover isn't about entering hover, it's about keeping yourself in a hover once you are already there.

 

It is like parking brake in car. You first need to stop and only then engage it. :smartass:

[Zembla]

(edit) i attached screenshot of one of my games that uses my flight sim engine - on my pc that will run at 240 fps with global scenery and 100 alien AIs plus 1000s of bullets and explosion fragments etc.

on the xbox360 it runs at 110 fps - yes the clouds are cheap - by design - they function as clouds - fly to cloudbase and you will know it! I don't waste time, energy or clock cycles on gimmicks because I realise that FPS is more important - plus this uses no more than 10% of a single core to run

and to help answer a forum question about helicopters i wrote a working but basic helicopter model for this game in 20 minutes and I will bet the BS programmers are much cleverer than me

 

But this is all assuming: for one that GPU's and CPU's have the same architecture. They don't. GPU's do different kinds of calculations, which is why they're much more useful for example for Folding@Home etc kind of apps.

 

Add to this: these physics run at 50Hz, (or a similarly high number). This means every component's status is updated 50 times every second. What this means is that, say you're running 25fps. For every frame refresh, there will have been 2 calculations. You're right in saying that you can write the basic physics for a helicopter in 20 minutes. But these aren't basic physics. This is closer to a continuously calculated finite element model with a load of dynamics thrown in too. This helicopter is not assumed to be one infinitesimally small point with all the mass of the helicopter at its center of gravity. Far from it, this helicopter has been split up into all its important parts, and for a simulation, every part is important.

 

So, yeah, this thing will put a strain on your CPU.

 

If you still don't believe me/us: try this: see if you can't find a computer with a better CPU, with the same graphics card. Then see if you can't find a computer with the same CPU but a better graphics card. Do the empirical test: see which of these two will give you the better framerate improvement. It'll be the one with the better CPU.

 

-Z

[GGTharos]

Let me recap what is happening for you. Read through ENTIRELY before you repond. Better yet, also think about it.

 

1. You don't know anything about the physics written into BS. There is nothing light-weight about them. The helicopter is split into sections to which forces are applied. It is not a matter of applying a single vector to a point body, it is many vectors applied to multiple points, each with different moments due to position away from CG - which, by the way, is also mobile.

 

2. You don't know the first thing about flying helicopters. This much is very obvious. By now you may have gotten a bit of a better hang of it.

 

3. You don't understand how the systems in the Ka-50 work. There is a manual that explains it. Not COMMONS SENSE, the MANUAL. The operating instructions are your bible of flying a particular aircraft, not any manner of common sense you may think should have been applied. This is true of all aircraft.

 

Despite all of this, you continue to argue as you knew what was going on.

In order to save you, and us some time, quit arguing and do as you are told, and soon you will be humming along like a happy little Black Shark pilot blowing up things all over the battlefield, controlling your simulated flying warmachine like a pro.

 

I'll reiterate: What you see in other sims does not count. How you think it should have been done does not count. What you think of the physics also ... does not count. Let it go.

 

Just a suggestion to reduce all-around frustration ;)

 

 

it is possible to write a simulator with the same physics and less graphical luxury - by doing so they will massively increase their potential market

[GGTharos]

You win internets for best analogy ever :D

 

It is like parking brake in car. You first need to stop and only then engage it. :smartass:

[HiJack]

I say we leave him to his "Condor" as this is the best SIM ever :chair:

[Distiler]

I say we leave him to his "Condor" as this is the best SIM ever :chair:

 

Well, in all honesty, Condor is the best sailplane simulator.

[EtherealN]

And used in actual training. I believe it was in the UK that they were able to drastically reduce "real" flight hours yet still achieve the same basic competencies through integrating Condor into the curriculum. Not sure if it went beyond trials though.

[EtherealN]

It is like parking brake in car. You first need to stop and only then engage it. :smartass:

 

Truth. :)

 

Though I don't use the parking break much at all - usually leaving the car in gear is enough. I wonder if that is why I usually ignore the option of using my autohover as well... :D

[HiJack]

Calling this game "another nail in the coffin of the sim industry" is just idiotic.

 

If anything ED have saved the sim games on the PC platform. Otherwise we would all have ended up with nothing but Ubisoft HAWX games.

:thumbup: This is so true

[HiJack]

Well, in all honesty, Condor is the best sailplane simulator.

In all honesty, have you even looked at the graphics?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What a waste of time talking about a subject like this.

[element1108]

Sailplane and helicopter sims are WORLDS apart in terms of physics. The only similarity they share is the foundation of flight.

 

I don't get the author's knocking of "graphical gimmicks" ... although I must say i'm surprised to see someone asking for LESS detail and not more. I'm also surprised to see the arrogance (no offense) of the post style when your lack of understanding of this sim is clearly due to your own shortcomings.

 

I hope you give it a bit more time and actually STUDY what there is to learn. Maybe next time you'll do some of your own research before you're so quick to pass judgement on what is the GREATEST HELICOPTER SIMULATION ON THE COMMERCIAL MARKET.....hands down.

[GhostDog]

Flame bait. :glare:

[HiJack]

I hope you give it a bit more time and actually STUDY what there is to learn. Maybe next time you'll do some of your own research before you're so quick to pass judgement on what is the GREATEST HELICOPTER SIMULATION ON THE COMMERCIAL MARKET.....hands down.

 

WORD!

 

RTFM :vertag:

 

But of course help is awailable on this forum as well. This forum produces a lot of good information to help anyone get started with the DCS BlackShark! Just ask!

 

And if he would like to run the training tracks just keep two versions of BS on the disk! "D:\DCSBS1" and "D:\DCSBS2", and keep a MODed one as well in "D:\DCSBS-MOD"!

 

(HJ)

[ChromeWasp]

thanks for your help - and that track

 

(I don't need red msgs I am not a troll and have not flamed)