Useless DCS vs. A2A Thread

[STP Dragon]

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?

 

The flight model of A2A is AWESOME! :thumbup:

Take 30min and watch the videos of the Wings of Power 3 aircrafts!

e.g. the explaination of the different propeller types for the Spitfire. Even the inner side of the propeller can stall if the angle is set to a extreme value.

 

[sobek]

The flight model of A2A is AWESOME! :thumbup:

Take 30min and watch the videos of the Wings of Power 3 aircrafts!

e.g. the explaination of the different propeller types for the Spitfire. Even the inner side of the propeller can stall if the angle is set to a extreme value.

 

I know that vid and that is all nice and dandy, but what i can not see in a video is, for example, did he have to add a lot right rudder to counter precession and p-factor when his tail started to rise on TO. There are some things that are just almost impossible to deduct from a video. :)

[average_pilot]

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.

 

Another point that many people often misses is that A2A is not modeling the systems as a bunch of "if-then" statements, but doing a physics simulation of each system, including the thermodynamics of the engine. Things are not scripted so events can be unpredictable. It's adds a totally new feeling, it puts a soul in FSX's add-on aircrafts that before were no more than beautiful flying models.

 

And then, there is the persistence of the state of the aircraft from flight to flight. I love it. It's like owning you personal aircraft.

 

Still, I'm excited about the idea of a P-51 coming from ED. I hope to buy both and enjoy both of them.

 

And one more thing. Many people who only knows WWII fighters due to simulators like IL-2 will be surprised of how one of those machines can keep a pilot busy just to have it flying properly.

[STP Dragon]

And one more thing. Many people who only knows WWII fighters due to simulators like IL-2 will be surprised of how one of those machines can keep a pilot busy just to have it flying properly.

 

+1 :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

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.

 

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.

 

It will be interesting to see how the two compare though. Might even make me finally install FSX on this machine to try that comparison. :D

[leafer]

No, don't install FSX. Don't go there. :D

[EtherealN]

I know, eats too much time. Last time it ended with a round-the-world flight in a Baron... Lots of island-hopping going on there. :D

[louisv]

I know that vid and that is all nice and dandy, but what i can not see in a video is, for example, did he have to add a lot right rudder to counter precession and p-factor when his tail started to rise on TO. There are some things that are just almost impossible to deduct from a video. :)

 

You know that a pilot would not understand what you are saying...maybe an engineer, and even then...

[louisv]

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.

 

Another point that many people often misses is that A2A is not modeling the systems as a bunch of "if-then" statements, but doing a physics simulation of each system, including the thermodynamics of the engine. Things are not scripted so events can be unpredictable. It's adds a totally new feeling, it puts a soul in FSX's add-on aircrafts that before were no more than beautiful flying models.

 

And then, there is the persistence of the state of the aircraft from flight to flight. I love it. It's like owning you personal aircraft.

 

Still, I'm excited about the idea of a P-51 coming from ED. I hope to buy both and enjoy both of them.

 

And one more thing. Many people who only knows WWII fighters due to simulators like IL-2 will be surprised of how one of those machines can keep a pilot busy just to have it flying properly.

 

Yes !

[leafer]

Okay, you went there... Now go to your room -- and make some DCS: P-51D videos in color!

[Trident]

Another point that many people often misses is that A2A is not modeling the systems as a bunch of "if-then" statements, but doing a physics simulation of each system, including the thermodynamics of the engine. Things are not scripted so events can be unpredictable.

 

And that is different to this:

 

http://www.a-10c.com/en/series/black_shark/?PAGEN_2=2#22731

 

... in what way exactly? Apart from it being a reciprocating engine in A2A's case and (as yet) turbine engines in DCS, obviously ;) IMHO the Accu-Sim level of modelling is only remarkable in that it is a M$FS add-on, where most of the other competitors on that market are bound by the severe limitations of the Microsoft simulation engine.

 

And then, there is the persistence of the state of the aircraft from flight to flight. I love it. It's like owning you personal aircraft.

 

Yes, this is something ED does not currently model AFAIK, but for both A2A and Flying Legends (neither of which simulates a proper, continuous WWII campaign/career) it is little more than a gimmick, frankly. It's certainly nothing that I would miss very much if it was not implemented and it definitely could not override the advantage of working weapons in DCS for me, if I wanted to buy one of the two.

[Frostie]

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.

Not trying to devalue his opinion but I couldn't imagine him saying that 'it doesn't' or 'has a sort of resemblance'.

 

You know - making coffee is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman, its gotta be hot and steamy, you gotta grind your beans till they squeak, and then when your ready thats when you put the milk in. Swiss Tony.:D

[GGTharos]

It isn't that hard, you just have to pay attention :D

 

And one more thing. Many people who only knows WWII fighters due to simulators like IL-2 will be surprised of how one of those machines can keep a pilot busy just to have it flying properly.

[leafer]

Yes !

 

They, A2A, model wear and tear because for sure the engine ain't getting shot at. What a boring world, man, flying around doing airport hop, and the most heroic thing you did with your neutered pony was you landing on wet runway. Ohh, that skidded a little...then you found out fsx engine can't handle skids. Or maybe you want to dogfight a little with a few buddies, and instead of pumping lead you had to go pew, pew you're dead. Then your friend said he jinxed away just in time. "But my spit is on the lcd right where you were..." :D

 

I don't want to knock on A2A because I spend most of my time just flying around, too. But you can't compare features from an add-on developer to a full-blown developer like ED who has a lot more on the plate. Different priority.

[vtsgoose1606687932]

The Accusim engine is one of the best simulations of an aircraft engine,systems,handling around these days. DCS will have a hard time matching this level.

[galagamo]

If ED were to model progressive engine wear as in you find your plane in the same condition you left it in, it wouldnt even be debatable ED hands down.

I mostly like these sims because I'm curious as to how these machines work. A2As planes do a good job at conveying the intricacys of the aircraft they are simulating FM not withstanding. A2A is no slouch, they are definitely on par with ED when it comes to accuracy but they invest more in different aspects of the aircraft they are modeling. ED has guns huge ++

[159th_Viper]

If ED were to model progressive engine wear as in you find your plane in the same condition you left it in....

 

Who fixes the engine wear and tear in the interim? Or are you good for X amount of hours until your engine disintegrates and all that you are left with is the photo-album and a discount voucher for re-purchase of the module?

[Nate--IRL--]

Who fixes the engine wear and tear in the interim? Or are you good for X amount of hours until your engine disintegrates and all that you are left with is the photo-album and a discount voucher for re-purchase of the module?

 

Could you imagine the amount of bug reports this feature would generate on the forums :(

 

Nate

[galagamo]

Who fixes the engine wear and tear in the interim? Or are you good for X amount of hours until your engine disintegrates and all that you are left with is the photo-album and a discount voucher for re-purchase of the module?

 

It's a laundry list of repercussions irl machines wear out with use. The more you know about the machine you are piloting the better you can care for it the longer it stays in the sky, it's a big deal.

Edited January 27, 2012 by galagamo

[159th_Viper]

It's a laundry list of repercussions irl machines wear out with use. The more you know about the machine you are piloting the better you can care for it the longer it stays in the sky, it's a big deal.

 

Of course, it's a very big deal indeed. The question however remains: Who attends to the repair of the wear and tear to the aircraft?

 

You can be damned sure that pilots, especially those who fly old warbirds, are not going to go up in a machine knowing that it is suffering some type of wear and tear that will influence the performance of the aircraft and that is fixable.

 

If they cock it up during flight, then it will be fixed on the ground and you'll have a 'new' plane the next time around - it's sure as raisins are wrinkly that he's not going to climb into the same 'non-repaired' plane again.

[Speed]

It's a laundry list of repercussions irl machines wear out with use. The more you know about the machine you are piloting the better you can care for it the longer it stays in the sky, it's a big deal.

 

I've got a better idea, IMO. Just make it negatively affect your mission score if you treat the aircraft like $%&*. Maybe even have mission editor triggers (if aircraft wear > 15% then etc. etc.) Also to make this feature more relavent, somewhere along the line they need to come up with a better logbook system, one that works in multiplayer too (and perhaps change multiplayer so you just can't jump into and out of a flight whenever you want and as many times as you want. The current system of no rules could still be optionally used with an "unlimited client" type unit, but flying an "unlimited client" would not contribute to your logbook).

Edited January 27, 2012 by Speed

[galagamo]

Of course, it's a very big deal indeed. The question however remains: Who attends to the repair of the wear and tear to the aircraft?

 

You can be damned sure that pilots, especially those who fly old warbirds, are not going to go up in a machine knowing that it is suffering some type of wear and tear that will influence the performance of the aircraft and that is fixable.

 

If they cock it up during flight, then it will be fixed on the ground and you'll have a 'new' plane the next time around - it's sure as raisins are wrinkly that he's not going to climb into the same 'non-repaired' plane again.

So the pilot and crew chief dont powow, no pregame huddle?

As I said wear and tear, not out 'n' out damage. They do not overhaul aircraft after every flight, so every time you climb into the pit you dont know whats going to happen.

I guess its not an important aspect in a warsim, but its a huge deal when operating a piece of metal with a million moving parts, and until its there, it wont be a completely accurate sim. ED has guns huge++

[Nate--IRL--]

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

[GGTharos]

Would that be because DCS doesn't yet model the physics of how engines, avionics, and other doodads work?

 

The Accusim engine is one of the best simulations of an aircraft engine,systems,handling around these days. DCS will have a hard time matching this level.

[vtsgoose1606687932]

Would that be because DCS doesn't yet model the physics of how engines, avionics, and other doodads work?

 

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