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

[mvsgas]

Did anyone found fuel weight?

[GGTharos]

I have some figures. I'm just a little amused that people who talk about 'making things more realistic because DCS is about the look and not the cook' don't even have that much :)

[combatace]

I have some figures. I'm just a little amused that people who talk about 'making things more realistic because DCS is about the look and not the cook' don't even have that much :)

 

You think when you order a dish in hotel you know the amount of every ingredient added to it. You only know the taste of it and whether it tastes bad or good.

 

By the way what the difference in missiles FC2 and DCS-A-10C?

 

Realistic dynamics of weapons in a combat sim is called cooking, clickable cockpit is for looks, you can make all those functions work without a clickable cockpit.

[aaron886]

Anyone who says visual aspects don't play into a realistic study sim is just being a crotchety old fart. Visual feedback is one of the most important aspects of flying any aircraft. If all you care about is flipping switches, why not just go enjoy this:

 

http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/

(Shoot me now.)

 

 

What's really the difference, without the visual aspect?

[159th_Viper]

....Realistic dynamics of weapons in a combat sim is called cooking.....

 

And it's being done with every iteration of the SIM. To have regard to but two examples that have to date been given the WAFM treatment:

 

1: AT-16

 

2: CBU-97/105

 

Both examples in keeping with the relevant flyables released, further indicative of the fact that all aspects of the SIM are receiving the necessary attention to accord with the highest possible fidelity within the constraints of the SIM.

 

Now peeps are still complaining about X, conveniently ignoring improvements to Y. Is it because improvements are not being made quick enough to 'pet projects'?

 

Cannot be any other reason because as evident, improvements are being made. So why the complaints?

 

Lack of patience?

 

Please say it's not so............

[EtherealN]

Also, in my opinion, for A2A-weapons specifically there are far more important things to sort out than just burn times and fuels. For one thing, we should be able to guide slammers without them being glorified AIM-7's for most of the flight (datalinked and/or INS with midcourse updates).

 

Of course, several things might be able to do at the same time, and I certainly hope we'll get to see a sort of AFM missile model. But these things take time, and depending on the quality of available information and processing budgets it might be harder than it first seems - the information needs to be verified as accurate, the AFM then needs to be made such that it's product behaviour corresponds with reality. And convincing air forces to put that kind of thing available in a globally available consumer product... ... That's going to be tough. So there are questions about whether it's actually worth it - the end result might end up being fancy and costing a lot of processing, but with no way to verify that the end result holds true to reality.

[combatace]

No, I'm not lacking patience at all there. I say so because the weapons configuration in DCS-A10C is same as FC2.

 

@arron886: You should mind you language there because I too can use the kind of language you used but I'm not ready to put down myself that much. And yes looks does matter to certain extent or else I might not be wasting time building models for the same SIM.

Edited August 31, 2011 by combatace

[159th_Viper]

No, I'm not lacking patience at all there. I say so because the weapons configuration in DCS-A10C is same as FC2......

 

You must not generalise..........To do so undermines your credibility ;)

 

For the purposes of this discussion I will assume that you're referring specifically to Air to Air missiles yeah? Well it should be obvious to all that the said missiles will still be the same from FC2 to DCS as one constant remains: AI and the SFM and attendant simple weapons modelling of said Air to Air missiles.

 

Fast-Forward to DCS: Kamov: DCS Fidelity Flight model with attendant WAFM. Forward yet again to A-10C: DCS Fidelity Flight model with attendant WAFM.........

 

Noticing a trend yet?

 

Fast-Forward to the future yet undetermined: DCS: Fast-Jet. Surely it's not unreasonable to assume that as before, attendant ordinance (read Air to Air missiles) will also be subject to WAFM?

 

Yet you want it now as it relates to the AI and it's attendant SAFM? With due respect, both unreasonable and impatient.

[combatace]

No No No, you are getting me wrong here. See the present condition of missiles in DCS-A10C is SFM, as you said, same as FC2. Thats means there is no difference, the thing is A-10c is out since long and I know ED's programmers are working on it but its the direction of it is what I'm talking about. You see A-10c is all about A-10C and graphics, yes there are a lots of tweaks here and there that makes a difference that not good but great. What I'm talking is about dynamics of missiles not being addressed in a *Combat SIM*.

What I deduce from your post is that DCS- fighter will come with AFM for missiles too, great. But won't that mean that patching again the back links. what I wanted to say by 'looks and not cooks' is that there was a loads and loads of work done for looks but the dynamics (except A-10C) are still at SFM level.

[GGTharos]

How are the ME advancements about graphics?

How's the development of the AFM about graphics?

How's the development of dynamic weather about graphics?

How's the development of the various weapons used by the A-10C about graphics?

Even the development of the IIR graphics isn't ... exactly about graphics.

What about the new refueling capabilities? Those don't seem to be about graphics.

How about the new HOTAS setup? Not graphics.

How about work on the radios? Not graphics.

Hey, check out that buddy-lasing thing, too.

What about the data-link?

Navigation systems, too.

How about 'AFM' for various bombs and rockets - though that work started with black shark (this should give you an idea of how time consuming it is, given that any guidance on those weapons is reasonably simple).

 

 

We're not getting you wrong. We're seeing exactly what you're doing: You're picking one piece of the sim and using it to accuse the devs of doing something that isn't happening.

Edited August 31, 2011 by GGTharos

[159th_Viper]

No No No, you are getting me wrong here....

 

Nope - I know exactly where you're coming from.

 

 

What I'm talking is about dynamics of missiles not being addressed in a *Combat SIM*.....

 

Well then tell me how Air to Air missiles relate to the A-10C and the Kamov? And 'patching FC2' argument is nonsensical in the context of this particular discussion. As I said - you have FC2 and attendant missile dynamic fidelity on par with FC2 fidelity itself. Whether said fidelity is acceptable for FC2 itself is a subject for another discussion that has been beaten to death already.

 

Want Advanced Missile Dynamics for the DCS series? Wait for DCS: Fighter.

[EtherealN]

Combat,

 

Weapons are updated as they associate with the products. Example in point: Vikhr and Skhval in FC1 vs Vikhr and Skchval in DCS:BS.

 

That simple. ;)

 

Anything else would be a waste of time and unecessarily delay product releases.

[GGTharos]

Your sig wins the internets ;)

[combatace]

Nope - I know exactly where you're coming from.

 

 

 

 

Well then tell me how Air to Air missiles relate to the A-10C and the Kamov? And 'patching FC2' argument is nonsensical in the context of this particular discussion. As I said - you have FC2 and attendant missile dynamic fidelity on par with FC2 fidelity itself. Whether said fidelity is acceptable for FC2 itself is a subject for another discussion that has been beaten to death already.

 

Want Advanced Missile Dynamics for the DCS series? Wait for DCS: Fighter.

 

Lets wait and see then, I will resurrect the same thread if that does not happen.

 

@ GG- You are soo mis-informed about the realism. You say in a FPS game you give a bad gun and nice scope and browbeat that its realism, I'm so not buying that.

 

By the that this is my last post on this thread because as I said earlier, I'm gonna wait and see.

Edited August 31, 2011 by combatace

[mvsgas]

Did...did anyone find the fuel weight? Cause how can we judge the info to be true if we don't know? how can I calculate "π" if I do not know the value of "π"

[YorZor]

a-1 jet fuel is 7 pounds per USG

 

And A-1 is similar to the US air force JP-8 jet fuel I believe.

[mvsgas]

Just to clarify

If I tell you the F100-PW-220 engine has 13 stages of compression, how do you know if the information is true unless you can verify from a reliable source? Just because I got the info does not mean you do?

[mvsgas]

a-1 jet fuel is 7 pounds per USG

 

And A-1 is similar to the US air force JP-8 jet fuel I believe.

 

Yes, thank you. JP-8 NATO designation should be F-34. A-1 is lighter. I'm talking about missile solid fuel.

 

To find A-1 characteristics, go to Google and type: A-1 fuel MSDS. MSDS stands for material safety data sheet. I miss spell this too. :D and is an abbreviation, :D wow

Edited August 31, 2011 by mvsgas

[GGTharos]

What's funny is that you have absolutely no idea how wrong you are about my own information (or lack thereof) ... not to mention a very, very poor analogy :)

 

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think would happen if the fuel mass were known? How would that change your game?

 

@ GG- You are soo mis-informed about the realism. You say in a FPS game you give a bad gun and nice scope and browbeat that its realism, I'm so not buying that.

Edited August 31, 2011 by GGTharos

[YorZor]

Yes, thank you. JP-8 NATO designation should be F-34. A-1 is lighter. I'm talking about missile solid fuel.

 

To find A-1 characteristics, go to Google and type: A-1 fuel MSDS. MSDS stands for material safety data sheet. I miss spell this too. :D and is an abbreviation, :D wow

 

Oh didn't ready the topic... Kinda stupidly assumed that it was about jet fuel hehe.

I'll go sit in my corner again now :music_whistling:

[Cali]

Grabs popcorn and watches the show...

[mvsgas]

Wow, this just dawn on me. I'm slipping on my old age.

This is a great trolling maneuver and we all fell for it. My hat is off to you, I’m normally better at avoiding trolling like this.

[AeroOrange]

Grabs popcorn and watches the show...

 

 

Hey that's my seat - I was just getting a refill. :beer: Another Duff for you Homer?

[VincentLaw]

As long as we are on the topic of fuel...

 

Does anyone know if fuel mass or fuel sloshing is modeled for surface vehicles in DCS? This would affect the performance of vehicles as well as the buoyancy of boats and ships. I've never actually tried to run out of fuel while driving the UAZ, but I assume it is possible.

 

I feel these things are of critical importance for the realism of DCS:UAZ.

[Cali]

As long as we are on the topic of fuel...

 

Does anyone know if fuel mass or fuel sloshing is modeled for surface vehicles in DCS? This would affect the performance of vehicles as well as the buoyancy of boats and ships. I've never actually tried to run out of fuel while driving the UAZ, but I assume it is possible.

 

I feel these things are of critical importance for the realism of DCS:UAZ.

 

I highly doubt it.