Bad realism and realism that still needs to be enhanced...!

[MaverickF22]

Hello!

 

 

I've started this thread with the wish of bringing both Lock On and DCS's realism levels, in a matter of speaking, as closer to reality as possible..., and I hope there would be others who have something to say about it too.

 

Bringing ED's products to the top of realism starts here...!

 

Let's hope we can make Lock On and DCS better!;):thumbup:

[Steel Jaw]

LOMAC is aimed at a crowd that likes the level of fidelity right where it is. Don't kid yourself: they don't want to have to learn that much about an aircraft.

[159th_Viper]

You want LockOn with realism enhanced? Welcome to the Digital Combat Simulator.

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/

[MaverickF22]

Thanks for your reply, but I think that even if I wouldn't want to learn that much about an aircraft, thus I persoanlly know enough yet, I'd really appreciate having a better sim!

 

And If you don't mind, i'd like to start with the blackout issue, which has been a long problem since the first Lock On series, and yet, after we've waited for the big change to come in Lock On 2.0..., there's almost no difference at all!

 

I'm sorry if I waste someone's time, as these factors may be more or less known by some..., but let me bring you some details about them...:

 

Notice that everything is about how many G's over a period of time!

 

For the vertical axis G-load:

 

-Instantaneus G factor: 40G(every pilot) for around 0.1 seconds

-Sustained G Factor given in seconds: - Untrained pilot: 5G's fo 10-12 seconds

- Trained pilot: 9G's for 16-30 seconds

-Over 50G's can cause permanent damage or even death, although all these things with sustainable or unsustainable G's have a matter in time..., -HOW MANY G'S, OVER WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME-. For example we can sustain even 100G's on the vertical axis if they last no longer than about 0.05 seconds, and survive with no injuries, but we will blackout and die if we try to sustain even 5G's with a G-suit on, for longer than 2-3 minutes, because the same thing will happen, the brain will finally end up with no blood! It's all a matter of G's/time.

 

For the longitudinal axis G-load(which affect forward accelerating and braking):

- Eyeballs in: 17G (time matters less)

- Eyeballs out: 12G (time matters less)

 

If you don't mind, here are some videos which can prove at what levels would a normal human blackout, no matter at what level of training is he:

 

 

And if these guys were better or less better at sustaining 7-9G's, they were all trained for that!

 

Now this is a guy who had almost no training for sustaining a 9G manoeuvre:

 

 

Although he didn't blackout sooner than 8 seconds -since he reached 9G's until he had it-...!

 

 

The blackout may not be very easy to simulate as it varries from one pilot to another, but even if you'd try to make an average out of the best and worst pilot who can sustain 9G without blacking out, and that's a matter of how long will he be able to sustain, there should still be a way better value than what we see in Lock On...!

 

I mean there's no way that in real life, even an untrained pilot would blackout at 9G's(sustained) in 3 seconds, as it happens in the game, thus, in the game if you hold the pilot at 8G's he can stay there forever even though it simulates that you have no light in the eyes. The worst one blacks out only after 7-8 seconds at 9G in real life, while the best can sustain 9G for more than 30 seconds EVEN WITHOUT LIGHT LOSS, not to tell that this guy was also talking at the same time o.O...! So these are the levels that a real pilot can reach and that's why i'm saying, that they should be seen someway in the game aswell...! Even if pulling too many G's over time might cause permanent damage to your body, you still don't want to be a dead hemoroid while in a scissors...!;)

 

Don't know about DCS, as we don't have a Fighter aircraft to test it there yet, and i think it's just the same one!

 

I really love Lock On and DCS, that's why i'm asking you guys to make an effort and please bring these factors come to REAL life!;)

 

 

 

Thank you ED and to all developers of the team!

 

Best regards,

Mav.

 

P.S. Here are two videos which I hope you'll enjoy.:

 

 

Make this the most realistic air combat simulator that people were ever able to play and you won't regret it when everyone will know what to buy, if they like THE BEST!

 

Cheers!

[EtherealN]

Make this the most realistic air combat simulator that people were ever able to play and you won't regret it when everyone will know what to buy, if they like THE BEST!

 

Already done. Like Viper said: digitalcombatsimulator.com

 

If you want anything more realistic than that, join the air force. (And as far as flight simulation goes, the "real" training sims used by various airforces are often less detailed than DCS, since they learn how to fly with the real thing - the ultra-realistic flight behaviour simulations are really only needed during development of a new or modified airframe.)

 

If what you want is for FC2 to be changed, I don't know how much luck you'll have. ED focus is on DCS, not FC2, for many reasons.

 

Don't know about DCS, as we don't have a Fighter aircraft to test it there yet, and i think it's just the same one!

 

You don't know but you think? ;)

DCS has an A-10C, you can pull G's quite nicely with it.

[MaverickF22]

Missile behaviour!

 

Now a second issue, if I may..., is about the missiles, air to air missiles mostly, cause that's what bothers us the most!

 

Every missile has a propellant and some given factors and limitations, somewhat similar to an aircraft, although their aerodynamics might be more complicated at the speeds and sizes of these missiles..., then they are to a fighter for example!

 

But even simplifying things up might still give us a closer look of how a real missile should actually fly...!

 

Every missile has some given factors within which they operate and the principal ones should be lift, drag and thrust..., the gravitational force could somewhat be negated for the speeds at which they travel, but it's very effective when the missiles fly at low speeds!

 

What i'm trying to say about all of this is that at low speeds the missiles should't be maneuverable almost at all(depending on speed) because they cannot attain enough G's in relation with the angle of attack which provides the lift. Aswell when the AOA of the missile increases, the same way should the DRAG increase corespondingly, same as it happens to an aircraft!

 

The thing that mostly hurts is when you watch the missile fired from an aircraft(the same thing applies for the SAM units), is that it almost instanly reaches top speed after being launched and it starts turning instantly even if the speed at which it was fired is eighter 0 or very low...! That doesn't happen in reality! Every missile should have it's own inertia or at least a closely given one that won't allow it to reach from 0 to terminal velocity in 1-2 seconds and simply freeze at top speed just like slamming into a wall and remain at top speed, but the drag is somewhat simulated well when the missile runs out of propellant and decelerates;).

 

 

Thanks again for reading what i had to say!;)

 

Cheers,

Mav.:thumbup:

[MaverickF22]

Hi there once again!

 

 

I know it has the new A-10C and we all thank you guys for what you've done with it, but still, these G's have to be tested with a fighter!;)

 

I just wonder if DCS will give us the possibility to feel the same thing we felt with the Su-25's, KA-50 and now the brand new A-10C advanced flight models, in the F-15 Eagle or Su-27 Flanker!;)

 

I guess that would blow everyone's mind when they'd start playing DCS with an advanced flight model for Eagle, Flanker, Fulcrum perhaps, as that would've been the meant of the game, but we can just wait and dream for them atm untill we'll have them!:D

 

I'm glad i can talk to you guys about this!:thumbup:

 

 

Thank you and cheers,

Mav.

[GGTharos]

We know that. ED knows that - better yet, they know what and why, and your thread isn't needed for that.

Missiles are subject to enhancement in the future. Not in FC2, AFAIK, or anywhere else.

[MaverickF22]

Ok, there was almost nothing to be found about why do the missiles behave that way and that's the reason why i've started the subject...! We didn't know it would be planned in the future! Sorry about that.

 

I understand it now.

 

Thanks for the reply...!

[EtherealN]

Everything will be improved and updated as and when they become highly relevant. For example, an update to missile physics isn't all that important for DCS:A-10C Warthog - effort is better spent on things like the relevant sensors, MFD modeling, datalinks and so on. When we see a DCS fighter I would expect improvements on areas that have previously been of relatively cursory importance - like radars (neither the Shark nor the Hog carry one so updates there would have been wasted energy so far), missiles and so on.

 

This forum section isn't really meant as a place of pointing out things that you'd like improved. The team has a list of things they want to do that is very long already, and "improved realism" and "more detailed modelling" of pretty much every system is already in there.

 

This section is more about those times when the team can get direct assistance in achieving something like that. For example, sometimes the art people need high-res close-up photos of various airframes, ships, vehicles etcetera to help them (blueprints, even if available, aren't always the best to work from, especially not in the texturing stage). Sometimes hard-to-get documents might be sought after.

 

But things like G tolerance and missile dynamics is usually fairly well covered - ED has access to SME's both in the USAF and RuAF. Why something or other didn't get more exactly modelled in a specific product is usually down to time and money - every feature costs money to develop and delays the product, both of which has to somehow translate into additional money to cover the costs. New missile physics in FC2 would have been possible to do, I expect, but might have delayed release by at least several months and raised the price of the product even more. In this line of business restraint on the feature list is very important - unless the developer wants to go the way of 3D Realms and Duke Nukem Forever.

 

If you have questions about how missiles work in FC2, you are welcome to open a discussion in the Lock On section. There have been threads on the topic, including one started by GG when it was getting set for release (if memory serves). :)

[MaverickF22]

Hi!

 

I've read all that you've said and i'm fairly convinced that you guys deserve all that is good for what you've done with Lock On and DCS!

 

Now I have a better view of all these things and I'd like to Thank You all for the patience of telling me, and to us all, about the hard work that you pay for bringing us a better and better simulator...!

 

It all takes time, and effort, but you guys are the only ones who deserve the best for it!;)

 

 

Thank you Eagle Dynamics and to all beta testers!

 

Lock On/DCS Forever!:thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't really mean to tell you off, we just get asked (or yelled at) about missiles etc a lot. Thanks for discussing it rationally.

 

If you see areas that have not been covered, by all means bring it up. Naturally, no promises :)

[MaverickF22]

I didn't get you wrong...! In fact i've overreacted with the name of the thread (and if possible, may have the name of the thread be changed to just "Realism that needs enhance", instead of what it is?)..., but i just wanted to know what happens with these missiles, G effects, etc.

 

Now i understand that this is a way more lot of work than what i think..., so me and everyone else around gathering all kind of questions, are having again the same, and most solid answer...: You are the ones up for the task!;).

 

 

Thank you very much!

Have a good day and an easy work;)!

 

Cheers!

Edited December 2, 2010 by MaverickF22

[JunMcKill]

Now a second issue, if I may..., is about the missiles, air to air missiles mostly, cause that's what bothers us the most!

 

Every missile has a propellant and some given factors and limitations, somewhat similar to an aircraft, although their aerodynamics might be more complicated at the speeds and sizes of these missiles..., then they are to a fighter for example!

 

But even simplifying things up might still give us a closer look of how a real missile should actually fly...!

 

Every missile has some given factors within which they operate and the principal ones should be lift, drag and thrust..., the gravitational force could somewhat be negated for the speeds at which they travel, but it's very effective when the missiles fly at low speeds!

 

What i'm trying to say about all of this is that at low speeds the missiles should't be maneuverable almost at all(depending on speed) because they cannot attain enough G's in relation with the angle of attack which provides the lift. Aswell when the AOA of the missile increases, the same way should the DRAG increase corespondingly, same as it happens to an aircraft!

 

The thing that mostly hurts is when you watch the missile fired from an aircraft(the same thing applies for the SAM units), is that it almost instanly reaches top speed after being launched and it starts turning instantly even if the speed at which it was fired is eighter 0 or very low...! That doesn't happen in reality! Every missile should have it's own inertia or at least a closely given one that won't allow it to reach from 0 to terminal velocity in 1-2 seconds and simply freeze at top speed just like slamming into a wall and remain at top speed, but the drag is somewhat simulated well when the missile runs out of propellant and decelerates;).

 

 

Thanks again for reading what i had to say!;)

 

Cheers,

Mav.:thumbup:

 

Youre right, another thing with missiles is that the russian missiles warn the enemy from the very time of launching and its not true, russian R-27R and ER uses a inertial and radio guidance of the plane the 70% of fight, activating the radar only about 12 kms of the point the enemy suppose to be. In the case of AIM-120C its emulated ok with the same kind of guidance.

[GGTharos]

Is there a particular reason why you decided to show off pretense of knowledge based on er, nothing? :)

 

The R-27 radar guided series are semi-active missiles. Whether they use INS to get into seeker range doesn't matter: During that entire time the host radar MUST illuminate the target in a manner that will produce a warning.

 

This is what you get the warning from, not the missile - the missile's seeker is passive, just like that of the AIM-7.

 

 

Youre right, another thing with missiles is that the russian missiles warn the enemy from the very time of launching and its not true, russian R-27R and ER uses a inertial and radio guidance of the plane the 70% of fight, activating the radar only about 12 kms of the point the enemy suppose to be. In the case of AIM-120C its emulated ok with the same kind of guidance.

[combatace]

Well for atleast once I want to ask this question. Does the sims FC2 and DCS take into consideration the fuel mass of the missiles and dynamics after they are burnt out, most important fact in my point of view?

 

And don't get me wrong here or maul me but I personally think that DCS is more about how it looks and not about how it cooks.

[GGTharos]

Mass, not AFAIK. Dynamics? Which dynamics?

 

And that's ok, you can think whatever you like. Doesn't make you right. ;)

[combatace]

If you don't consider fuel mass how are you going to model dynamics around the *depleting* and *depleted* fuel.

 

and of course I'm going to think what I like. and you are no one to judge me either.

[GGTharos]

You don't. You can treat the entire projectile as having full mass, or depleted fuel mass at all times. Since autopilot functions and aerodynamic envelopes aren't exactly known for these weapons, I don't see what sort of huge advantage modeling this gives you anyway - at least not within the framework of FC/DCS missiles. When the underlying physics model changes, that might actually become important.

 

If you don't consider fuel mass how are you going to model dynamics around the *depleting* and *depleted* fuel.

[mvsgas]

What benefit do we get from modeling the AGM-65K mass for .001 sec while it has 1/2 fuel weight and then tell the CPU to recalculate every .00001 sec or more so we get a new mass number? Sorry, I don't know the benefits of this nor do I know the CPU power it would take to constantly calculate acceleration and mass that is not publicly known accurately. In my ignorance I would assume the benefit would be minimal.

 

Could you explain why ED should model this?

 

Also, can you honestly tell me where we could get the actual, no internet fluff, fuel mass of any missile? How is this fuel burned in the specific missile? Considering an AGM-65K might have several different version or manufacturers for the engine or the fuel or it might have different types of fuel, etc. Can you specifically tell me what fuel does it carry? What engine? How many types? Thrust of the engine? Burn time? Actual speed?

 

I'm truly asking, not trying to be argumentative nor smarta$$.

[VincentLaw]

The burn of a solid rocket motor is quite complicated. Modeling fuel mass and mass flow rate in general is not too difficult, and already done at least for the A-10C, but turbofans are easier to model. With a rocket, you don't simply have a mass flow rate. You also have a change in mass flow rate over time and a change in thrust over time, which both vary heavily depending upon the design.

 

So while making some guesses and trying to model the flow rate might make it slightly more realistic, its more important in my opinion to make sure the general performance characteristics of the weapons are handled as accurately as possible instead of the exact functions of each component involved.

[combatace]

What benefit do we get from modeling the AGM-65K mass for .001 sec while it has 1/2 fuel weight and then tell the CPU to recalculate every .00001 sec or more so we get a new mass number? Sorry, I don't know the benefits of this nor do I know the CPU power it would take to constantly calculate acceleration and mass that is not publicly known accurately. In my ignorance I would assume the benefit would be minimal.

 

Could you explain why ED should model this?

 

Also, can you honestly tell me where we could get the actual, no internet fluff, fuel mass of any missile? How is this fuel burned in the specific missile? Considering an AGM-65K might have several different version or manufacturers for the engine or the fuel or it might have different types of fuel, etc. Can you specifically tell me what fuel does it carry? What engine? How many types? Thrust of the engine? Burn time? Actual speed?

 

I'm truly asking, not trying to be argumentative nor smarta$$.

 

Why did you take AGM-65 for consideration where obviously that doesn't matter at all, why didn't you consider taking any of the medium range air to air missiles where the fuel mass actually makes a difference.

Ok, depleting fuel is complicated to model atleast depleted can and should be modeled because it makes a lot of difference in missiles performance and another thing that comes to play is change in center of gravity which changes the effectiveness of control surfaces.

 

If these things were to be taken from internet then where will the fidelity come from, I'm not making sims, I'm using them.

 

 

P.S. depleting fuel and the effect of it that is change is CG is a very big factor short range IR missiles, especially considering missiles with thrust vectoring.

Edited August 31, 2011 by combatace

[mvsgas]

Why did you take AGM-65 for consideration where obviously that doesn't matter at all, why didn't you consider taking any of the medium range air to air missiles where the fuel mass actually makes a difference.

Ok, depleting fuel is complicated to model atleast depleted can and should be modeled because it makes a lot of difference in missiles performance and another thing that comes to play is change in center of gravity which changes the effectiveness of control surfaces.

 

If these things were to be taken from internet then where will the fidelity come from, I'm not making sims, I'm using them.

 

 

P.S. depleting fuel and the effect of it that is change is CG is a very big factor short range IR missiles, especially considering missiles with thrust vectoring.

Ok so tell me, where do I get the fuel weight of an AIM-9X, M, L, P, A how about AIM-7 A, B, M or the AIM-120 or the 132? At what rate does it burn? What is the trust? what engine? Type of fuel? How many types of engine? Speed? At what speed does it stall? etc

 

I used the AGM-65, just as an example. If they model one missile accurately, why not all. Or you just want to question a specific missile? If so, you did not specify before and I apologize.

 

PS

If you do not know where to get this info, then how do you know the proper behavior, or the accuracy of it?

Edited August 31, 2011 by mvsgas

[combatace]

Not much but I'll tell you the engines of some missiles but as I said I'm not into making sims I'm into using them so research in those things should be Ed business.

 

 

AIM-120- (Hercules/Aerojet) hydroxyl terminated, polybutadiene propellant

 

AIM-9A/B Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket motor (17.8 kN (4000 lb) thrust for 2.2 s)

 

AIM-9D Hercules/Bermite MK 36 mod8-11

 

AIM-7 A/B/C Aerojet 1.8KS7800 solid rocket

AIM-7 E Rocketdyne MK 38/MK 52 solid rocket

AIM-7 F/M/P Hercules MK 58 dual-thrust solid rocket

 

AGM-65 A/B Thiokol SR109-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket(Thiokol-633)

AGM-65 D/E/F/G Thiokol SR114-TC-1(Thiokol-481)/Aerojet SR115-AJ-1

 

MIM-104 Thiokol TX-486-1

 

P.S. ofcourse internet stuff and ofcourse you will reject it.

[mvsgas]

I have no reason to reject it. My point is, what is there to stop someone ells to find other numbers? Several month ago people complain that the CBU-97 was to powerful, ED change it, and what happen? People complain that was to weak. I worked around AIM-120 and AIM-9 and I do not have the first clue about "realistic behavior" How can I contested because Google said so? Don't get me wrong Google is awesome, but, for the same reason I can't say you are wrong, I can say ED is wrong.

 

I do not know all the facts

 

edit

You say research is ED business, ok, but I'm sure they have research it and that is why the Sim is modeled the way it is. But you are contesting, if I say someone is wrong I try to prove it, or at least explain my point of view. Like original post when he showed what he disagreed with and posted the reason for his disagreement.

Edited August 31, 2011 by mvsgas