Useless DCS vs. A2A Thread

[GGTharos]

Somehow I just don't see the difference when it comes to software (no, seriously - a complex jet engine simulation isn't any less complex than the engines you menioned) - though certainly, these are two different sims with different goals (eg, one has wear and tear, the other has guns).

 

Then again, I'm fairly certain that you'll find the differences to be rather small from one to the other.

 

In any case, I would certainly like to hear your expert opinion once you're able to compare both, assuming you do get both.

 

With jet's they sure do, no doubts about that. But the big V12 merlin/allison is A2A's masterpiece atm.

[159th_Viper]

With jet's they sure do, no doubts about that. But the big V12 merlin/allison is A2A's masterpiece atm.

 

How can one even begin to compare the two with absolutely no knowledge of the one and only a rudimentary knowledge of the other?

 

The products, that is :)

[vtsgoose1606687932]

I am just saying here that DCS/ED will have hard time matching/beating Accusims piston engine systems. I am not saying they can't do it. Either way i will wait in silence until i can try out DCS/ED's effort on a realistic P51 creation:joystick:

[Bucic]

What i'd be interested in, how is the flight model of A2A products? Do they model all the prop effects like p-factor, precession, prop wash and also things like adverse yaw?

To a degree. AFAIK they try to implement/mimic these using the FSX FM. To me it performs no better than the Lock On's SFM.

 

Actually these two points are something that A2A coupled with The Accu-sim expansion pack Excel at.A2A have been able to basically remove aspects of FSX(ie FM DM) and plug in their own systems.

Quotation or it didn't happen. It's public that they did it for the engine model and ground handling modeling but apart from that... I'd be happy to learn that they have replaced the whole FM module of the P-47 I've tested.

 

A2A's Accu-Sim is no less than excellent but there's no need to sugarcoat their FM state. No tragedy there but not up to date with the products of the last 5 years or even A2A's very own standalone Battle of Britain 2

Battle of Britain 2 - more than dynamic campaign!

 

One of the guys in the testing team of A2A is a senior pilot that actually flies the P-47, P-51 and others. And he is assuring that to fly the A2A's P-51 is like flying the real thing. That includes the flight model.

That! VV

The only caution I'd make to such statements (and of course, this applies equally to TFC/ED products) is that they depend a lot on the expectations of the pilot. I've seen statements like that about the F-16 in good old Falcon 3, for example. :P And within the expectations a pilot would have of a desktop simulator of the time, it was a true statement since the plane's performance matched the real thing about as well as could be achieved on a 386.

To simplify a pilot is useless for testing Fms unless he had some hours in DCS, FC 2, RoF etc. OR has extremely good grasp of flight dynamics. To see an extreme example see this and read further ;)

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=46060&st=10&p=510392entry510392

 

Mean time between failures, for all components, is already modelled in DCS - however it isn't logged. It did however prove such an unpopular feature that most users lobbied for it to be made optional. I don't know anybody who uses it now.

 

Nate

What feature do you speak of?

Edited January 27, 2012 by Bucic

[cichlidfan]

Mean time between failures, for all components, is already modelled in DCS - however it isn't logged. It did however prove such an unpopular feature that most users lobbied for it to be made optional. I don't know anybody who uses it now.

 

Nate

 

Random failures is not the same thing.;) MTBF would have to be logged in order to have any significance.

[WynnTTr]

Time will tell but it's great that there's a choice.

 

As to any claims about pilots on A2A etc... well if they're on the payroll I'd take whatever endorsement they make with a grain of salt. It's like those late night celeb infomercials - I mean Chuck Norris knows what he's talking about when it comes to the total body gym right?

[EtherealN]

Time will tell but it's great that there's a choice.

 

As to any claims about pilots on A2A etc... well if they're on the payroll I'd take whatever endorsement they make with a grain of salt. It's like those late night celeb infomercials - I mean Chuck Norris knows what he's talking about when it comes to the total body gym right?

 

Well, the guys you have to trust about DCS fidelity are on ED's payroll (mostly), so it applies equally on both sides. :)

 

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what people who have both the A2A Pony and the DCS one think about whatever differences there are. I'm still not sure I'll purchase the A2A one (a bit dodgy economics to purchase it just to give it a test run), so we'll see what those that do say. :)

[WynnTTr]

Well, the guys you have to trust about DCS fidelity are on ED's payroll (mostly), so it applies equally on both sides. :)

 

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what people who have both the A2A Pony and the DCS one think about whatever differences there are. I'm still not sure I'll purchase the A2A one (a bit dodgy economics to purchase it just to give it a test run), so we'll see what those that do say. :)

That's true but isn't there a difference - TFC actually have the aircraft and can directly correlate? I'm not au fait with A2A pilot, does he have the actual aircraft available on call?

There is a subtle difference between an expert that actually has the data and can produce it when necessary than an expert giving an opinion of what is right.

[XarBat]

I would be interested in Accu-sim and the other third party stuff except for one problem: they run on FSX. FSX has the worst controller calibration I have ever encountered, no graphs just a couple sliders and a curve or some uneveness that seems impossible to get rid of. That is unacceptable. I am really hoping A2A and the other third parties convert to DCS. It would be great to have realistic wear and tear + damage + maintenance times and problems + weapons all in the same sims.

[Nate--IRL--]

Random failures is not the same thing.;) MTBF would have to be logged in order to have any significance.

 

Indeed. The principal was MTBF, but there was no mechanism for counting hours... yet.

 

Nate

[AlphaOneSix]

MTBF, alone, is rather meaningless. There must be additional data to back it up (for example, a nice bell curve of failures). I mean, if you have 9 parts that fail after just one hour, but 1 part lasts 1,000 hours, that's an MTBF of 100.9 hours, although 90% of the parts failed after just 1 hour.

 

But anyway, while modelling wear and tear seems interesting to me, I just can't see how it can possibly be done in a way that doesn't, at some point, completely do away with realism. If you fire up your aircraft, and a P-lead on a magneto is broken, the aircraft is grounded. Does that mean you can't play for a few hours while some virtual mechanic fixes the problem?

[Nate--IRL--]

EDIT:- Apologies The below was reply to something on the first page - stupid internet browser......

 

Of all the things that might differentiate A2A and ED's models I don't believe fidelity is one of them.

 

They will both be detailed until it hurts.

 

So if you want to find a difference between the two it will be elsewhere. Let's stop this nonsense argument about fidelity here.

 

Nate

Edited January 28, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

[leafer]

But anyway, while modelling wear and tear seems interesting to me, I just can't see how it can possibly be done in a way that doesn't, at some point, completely do away with realism. If you fire up your aircraft, and a P-lead on a magneto is broken, the aircraft is grounded. Does that mean you can't play for a few hours while some virtual mechanic fixes the problem?

 

I don't get virtual wear and tear either even if they modeled all the things that can go wrong on that particular V12 to excruciating detail. But if you buy DCS P51 and JTAC, you can equip yourself with IR and stuff and call pinpoint strike on your mechanic. Bet ya can't do that in FSX. :D

[AlphaOneSix]

At this point I should mention that I am an FAA certified Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. :)

[SimFreak]

It would be nice to have a post flight report of things you broke :D

[Yo-Yo]

Thats great, now tell me what is with failures caused by improper handling. That is something ED promised us for A-10, but I do not see it modeled, I can fly without pito tube heat; I can fly whole flight on max thrust, and engines doing just fine...

Ok, in A-10 there is a very few limitations, but when you have piston engine there are many more limitations you have to pay attention.

 

 

 

You CAN NOT fly w/o Pito heat when the temperature is good for icing. The effects of static and dynamic pressure orifices clogging are very interesting as in RL. :)

 

I like the way A2A models systems though I do not know exactly how it is done.

But the idea that the plane must be LIVE is very interesting and we have been going this way since Ka-50 was started in development.

Later we plan to add prop, downwash slipstrim, piston engine physics and other technologies used in P-51 development to our site as it was done for Ka-50 and A-10.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Yo-Yo

[Phantom88]

To a degree. AFAIK they try to implement/mimic these using the FSX FM. To me it performs no better than the Lock On's SFM.

 

 

Quotation or it didn't happen. It's public that they did it for the engine model and ground handling modeling but apart from that... I'd be happy to learn that they have replaced the whole FM module of the P-47 I've tested.

 

A2A's Accu-Sim is no less than excellent but there's no need to sugarcoat their FM state. No tragedy there but not up to date with the products of the last 5 years or even A2A's very own standalone Battle of Britain 2

Battle of Britain 2 - more than dynamic campaign!

 

 

That! VV

 

To simplify a pilot is useless for testing Fms unless he had some hours in DCS, FC 2, RoF etc. OR has extremely good grasp of flight dynamics. To see an extreme example see this and read further ;)

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=46060&st=10&p=510392entry510392

 

 

What feature do you speak of?

 

Pay close attention to the Power on stall and Pull while deploying Landing gear.

 

[Bucic]

That's true but isn't there a difference - TFC actually have the aircraft and can directly correlate? I'm not au fait with A2A pilot, does he have the actual aircraft available on call?

Both companies have the same possibilities of access to the actual A/Cs. Ownership has very little to do with the end sim product quality. How helpful mechanics and pilots are is of vital importance here.

 

Pay close attention to the Power on stall and Pull while deploying Landing gear.

 

[YOUTUBE]pCKSxK1nAAU[/YOUT UBE]

Same can be achieved with previous generation FMs. Still the overall feel and behavior will be awkward, especially in out of the ordinary flight regimes.

 

Example: In their P-47 phugoid yaw movements were virtually absent. This simple think makes any other argument pro particular FM invalid.

 

I'm almost sure they do work in the direction of AFM though.

[Yo-Yo]

really interesting, but it doesnt work. Maybe in wet air condition, its damn to hard to obtain these conditions.

 

But, this is not thread about A-10.

 

-5...-10C - does it work?

Edited January 28, 2012 by Yo-Yo

[159th_Viper]

air temperature is not the ultimate factor for icing to occur.

 

Might not be the ultimate, but it's pretty damned essential. Not going to get icing at temperatures above freezing if you discount carburetor icing.

[159th_Viper]

Not going to get icing at freezing temperatures if there is nothing to freeze. :)

 

Obviously - that's like saying a Bear craps in the Woods: We all know that. Point is, notwithstanding your allegation, Structural Icing and it's effects are indeed currently modelled. Apart from testing yourself, there are numerous 'bug-reports' that have been solved by the answer 'Turn on Pitot Heat'.........Just search :)

[159th_Viper]

Its funny how some guys experience problems other guys never happened.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1247012#post1247012

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1186479#post1186479

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1238967#post1238967

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1188791#post1188791

 

 

...So lets back on P-51. Can we expect carburetor icing, detonations in engine, preignition and other similar conditions?

 

Why not? It's early days yet - I'm sure your questions will be answered in due course. Stay tuned.

Edited January 28, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Phantom88]

What A2A Coupled with Accu-sim "IS"

[SimFreak]

No wonder so many people got a panties in a bunch - with so much propaganda, you'll believe North Korea is the best Korea. But A2A guys sure do know how to make nice videos for PR. Is there a one about spinning? Snap stall?

 

Edit

After watching P40 video, it's still has same issue as all FSX sims - no feeling of flight.

Edited January 28, 2012 by SimFreak

[MTFDarkEagle]

After watching P40 video, it's still has same issue as all FSX sims - no feeling of flight.

How can you judge if you have not done it yourself? :disgust: