another nail in the coffin of the sim industry

[ChromeWasp]

The reason why Condor runs more smoothly is because Condor is... simpler. It's not really that old or anything like that, it's just doing much less. All it has to calculate is a terrain mesh, some trees, and simple physics for a simple airplane - even without an engine

 

Condor is calculating a large scale wind and lift model, convection, ridge lift, wave effects, cloud formation and dissipation

 

Condor has GPS, navigation, flight computer, moving maps, radio

 

Condor supports > 60 way multiplayer (eg. 60 gliders on screen at one time - in same thermal)

 

reliable enough to be used in major online gliding competitions with almost no glitches

 

And runs perfectly well on a Pentium M with Intel graphics

 

I see nothing in BS that requires much cpu and gpu resources except the graphics - in fact the physics belongs in the category that nvidia say "will run slower on a hardware accelerator"

 

does BS use the PhysX on my GPU ?

[ChromeWasp]

ok - I will post my dxdiag if you can explain this line:

 

d3d9d.dll: 9.18.0944.0000 English Final Debug 9/5/2009 02:01:28 3083592 bytes (problem)

[takamba]

ChromeWasp, please...

 

If you dont want to understand why BS needs so much more CPU power then your Condor-Sim, then you should leave the shark pit forever and sit back into the glider pit.

 

Simulating a few tross rods in a glider, is far away of the simulated deepness of the shark.

 

Have you ever read the manual about the simulated systems? I guess no...

 

 

 

Btw, I am very impressed on the patience some members/mods show in this thread. This community is awesome :thumbup:

[metalnwood]

ok - I will post my dxdiag if you can explain this line:

 

d3d9d.dll: 9.18.0944.0000 English Final Debug 9/5/2009 02:01:28 3083592 bytes (problem)

 

I guess these guys should feel honored to be helping you. Anything else they should do before you give them what they need to help you?

[ZaltysZ]

ok - I will post my dxdiag if you can explain this line:

 

d3d9d.dll: 9.18.0944.0000 English Final Debug 9/5/2009 02:01:28 3083592 bytes (problem)

 

Where did you get that line? DxDiag? If so, "English Final Debug"indicates that you are using DirectX for developers (debug version). It is slower than "Final Retail" and might take its part in your low FPS problem.

[bumfire]

Originally Posted by ChromeWasp

to put it to rest - I know somebody who works with "real" apache simulators and someone else who is apache engineer - I will show them this and see what they say - if they tell me attack helicopters handle like paper bags blowing in the wind and their APs have control authority of a budgie I will accept it!

 

 

 

 

 

ChromeWasp, have you ever heard the name Ed Macy before ? He happens to be an RAF WAH64 Pilot, the UK version of the longbow Apache.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_Apache

 

Here is Ed's Twitter page, everybody has a Twitter page nowadays :helpsmilie:

 

 

He has written a couple of books regarding flying and fighting in the WAH64 in Afghanistan.

 

One of them is called Ed Macy Apache, I cant recall what the other is called, so you will have to forgive me, but Apache is a great book which I can fully recommend buying.

 

He is also a member of these forums, he also has DCS Blackshark and he also gave it a GLOWING SEAL OF APPROVAL for its hi fidelity and exacting attention to detail.

 

He even mentioned that the helicopter physics feel right and act like the real thing in regards to the helicopters he flies as he obviously hasnt flew the KA50 IRL.

 

If you search the forum you shall find his posts. He also did a review when DCS BS first came out and he gave it the same glowing recommendation.

 

So, Ed a real Apache Longbow pilot, not to mention the Russian Sniper Pilots whose input was used to make the game and also used to test it afterwards to see if the helo felt correct whilst in flight.

 

Both of those Camps say that this sim really has the fidelity down to a T and, that the Helo flies and feels like the real deal.

 

I would be more inclined to believe him/them, than say for example, yourself.

 

If I just happened to join these forums today and asked a question about how the helo handles etc, and say I got a mixture of answers/replies from the above people I mentioned and also yourself, with your replies coming from several of your posts that you made in this particular thread.

 

After reading and judging each answer/reply carefully, I would be more inclined to believe them than I would you, simply because they are actual Military Helicopter pilots, either working on the actual real ka50, or working on something similar in a different country. Both camps have the knowledge and skills to fly a real helicopter, they also have the same skills when it comes to flying in Military simulators or normal PC sim's like DCS BS whereby they can then judge if DCSBS feels the same as A, the Real helicopter and B, the Real Helicopters Training simulator.

 

So, with everything they have gone through, Military training wise and flight wise, to then say that the sim has it down pat when it comes down to the way the Shark handles in flight, but you dont agree with them for whatever reason, which person do you think that the shit answer comes from ?

Edited August 10, 2010 by bumfire

[ObvilionLost]

to put it to rest - I know somebody who works with "real" apache simulators and someone else who is apache engineer - I will show them this and see what they say - if they tell me attack helicopters handle like paper bags blowing in the wind and their APs have control authority of a budgie I will accept it!

 

Here is DCS review by a real Apache pilot, Ed Macy.

 

http://www.raes.org.uk/cms/uploaded/files/BlackSharkPCReview.pdf

 

Also you cannot really compare it to Apache, since the design is different it has coaxial rotors. In fact Ka-50 should be easier to fly.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ObvilionLost

[bumfire]

Here is DCS review by a real Apache pilot, Ed Macy.

 

http://www.raes.org.uk/cms/uploaded/files/BlackSharkPCReview.pdf

 

Also you cannot really compare it to Apache, since the design is different it has coaxial rotors. In fact Ka-50 should be easier to fly.

 

 

Thanks for posting that OblivionLost :thumbup:

[51GRIZZLY]

First things first. Have you got a joystick?

 

A relevant question Babu :smilewink:

 

Other questions would be:

 

Or is it a HOTAS?

 

Do you have pedals or are you using Stick-Twist or maybe keyboard?

 

What are your hardware specs ... Like CPU, GPU, Ram?

 

Is it a desctop or a laptop?

 

How are your ingame graphics settings.

 

He has illuded answering these important questions so far so my conclusion would be that

 

either he dosen't have a clue or he does not want us to know for what reason ever.

[Sticky]

In America you fly helicopter. In Soviet Russia, helicopter flies YOU!

[Speed]

Oh I can vouch or that if Im still around here. :D

 

I was one of the most out spoken critics of LOMAC in the past and here I am flying FC2 (in addition to OF 4.7) whilst awaiting the new BMS and DCS A10.

 

Yea, but this guy makes you look like a saint. And that's saying something ;)

 

If anything though, this guy's posts are great for a laugh! It's easier to believe he's a troll than that anyone could be as egotistical as this guy!

Edited August 10, 2010 by Speed

[ZaltysZ]

He is just frustrated a little bit. :)

[EtherealN]

Please guys, give the guy a chance to actually be at his computer to respond and answer questions before you start to psychoanalyze him. :P

 

But yeah Chrome, if your CPU is "weedy" then you are very likely looking at a massive CPU bottleneck and that's what's pulling you down. Not the "graphical gimmicks".

 

Also, regarding the modeling in Condor: seriously Chrome, it's not comparative. It has GPS, but it doesn't actually simulate GPS. The so-called GPS just takes your position from the game engine and displays it. That's not simulating GPS - that's taking a coordinate from OwnShip info and displaying it on a device. Similarly, the aerodynamics regarding thermals, ridge, hang, wave, invection etcetera do not compare either. They are good enough for that game's purpose, but they are still relatively lightweight calculations dominated by requirements of computers that are very very old.

 

So let's stop talking about other games and let's start looking at that DxDiag of yours? ;)

 

Oh, and if I may venture a guess: when you say you are a pilot, you mean you fly gliders, right? If that is a fact, please realize that the difference between flying a glider and flying a 10-tonne attack helicopter is massive. It really is only when at speed that skills translate between the two disciplines - when it comes to systems and airmanship the two require different skillsets.

[ycodryn]

lol gliders. In my opinion a helicopter pilot would fly a plane very easy but a plane pilot will be doing in his pants in a helicopter. is a fact: last days i went to fly an ultra light plane, i told the pilot that i have only sim experience the end he gave me 10+ for knowing plane basics and manouvring him. I told him that I really like the helis but I don`t have any in my city to fly with and guess what: he told me that only once he tried to fly a heli and it was the last time because he is afraid and is to hard for him.

[EtherealN]

That varies greatly ycodryn. I know people who went up in choppers with nothing but simulator experience and flew them just fine.

 

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

 

That said: helicopters are more difficult to "fly" than most fixed-wing. This is nothing strange - it's just down to the fact that they fly in several regimes that have different behaviours associated to them.

 

Though if you want to "lol" at gliders I would suggest that you try flying 1000km non-stop without an engine, or ascend to 16000m altitude with no engine. Let's also remember that in landing those things (which is relatively easy, admittedly) you only get one try. No such thing as a "go-around" when you don't have an engine. :)

 

My point being: apples and oranges. There is no gain in making comparisons because the two do not use or require the same skillsets.

[LIONPRIDE]

and condor will run fine at 30 fps on my old pentium m laptop with intel integrated graphics!

 

now *that* is high quality graphics and physics programming

 

i have a feeling the sim is going wrong for me due to lack of horsepower

 

and I am bored of 12 fps and watching helicopters crashing into the ground for no good reason

 

its disappointing - I'm going to do something entertaining instead

 

 

TROLL successful - YOU WIN

 

17-pages of nonsense

 

 

 

 

 

.

[element1108]

Well ChromeWasp, I wish I could say it was nice knowing you for this brief stint, but I'm going to count myself out of this charade because I feel it's gone on long enough. You've been offered loads of help by the very generous members/mods on the forums and you're attitude and lack of chivalry is more than I choose to deal with.

 

I commend those who still have the patience to continue and offer this "avid simmer/pilot/programmer know it all" support.

 

If one person is logical and the other is a fool, you won't make any progress. - stalemate.

[MTFDarkEagle]

I completely agree element.

[Tangolima600]

Lock thread. Kplzthx.

[Avilator]

In America you fly helicopter. In Soviet Russia, helicopter flies YOU!

lol! I was waiting for that to come up!:D

Well ChromeWasp, I wish I could say it was nice knowing you for this brief stint, but I'm going to count myself out of this charade because I feel it's gone on long enough. You've been offered loads of help by the very generous members/mods on the forums and you're attitude and lack of chivalry is more than I choose to deal with.

 

I commend those who still have the patience to continue and offer this "avid simmer/pilot/programmer know it all" support.

 

If one person is logical and the other is a fool, you won't make any progress. - stalemate.

Well said, +1.

[McVittees]

Before BS I'd flown helicopters in Gunship, the Commanche series, EECH, MS simulator (2004 and X) and Armed Assault - all the usual suspects. For me this blew them all away in terms of realism and, for me, fun factor. Try flying a helo in ArmA. It's so unrealistic and the flight model so basic, it is actually harder to fly than BS. Not much fun. This isn't another nail in confin of the flight sim industry, it is the birth of a new life! Live long and prosper ED!

[Zembla]

does BS use the PhysX on my GPU ?

 

Not as far as I know. PhysX is what they use to make ragdoll physics a.o. It's more about explosions than continuously calculated dynamic simulations.

 

ok - I will post my dxdiag if you can explain this line:

 

d3d9d.dll: 9.18.0944.0000 English Final Debug 9/5/2009 02:01:28 3083592 bytes (problem)

 

So, let me get this straight... people need to qualify before you allow them to help you?

 

Let me put it this way: wether or not you can fly your helicopter, or like the product... WE DON'T CARE. It will not affect our fun in any way. We enjoy the product, we enjoy the helicopter. So it's only your own enjoyment that's on the line here.

 

The stance you are taking, the arrogance, the infallible belief that you are the absolute authority on simulations and how a helicopter should fly, make sure your chances of being helped are dwindling.

 

-Z

[Scooternutz]

Wsadfsdf sdhfs fsdhf sdfsjggy sadfsdgf gsdggg sdfkjhhhs sdfsfsdfs!

 

Makes about as much sense as stating that this sim does not have a realistic flight model. I have had an SH-60B and an MH-60R pilot fly this sim and they were blown away.

[sobek]

Now let's give the fella the benefit of the doubt. Be constructive or stop beating the dead horse or you'll only steer the thread into a dead end.

[Nose Nuggets]

Not as far as I know. PhysX is what they use to make ragdoll physics a.o. It's more about explosions than continuously calculated dynamic simulations.

 

You can task the PhysX device for all sorts of things. Ragdoll is one common feature, but it can calculate location for any dynamic world asset, like a box that gets blown into pieces, or a window that shatters, or a crumbling wall; these are all dynamic physics driven events. I watched a tech demo for Mafia II, which is coming out pretty soon (sandbox, GTA style game) and they have the PhysX device driving the protagonists trench coat. looks pretty cool. running around makes it flap in the wind. even nearby explosions toss it around.

 

well, that was longer a than intended description.