Useless DCS vs. A2A Thread

[Phantom88]

SimFreak,Did you actually watch the video I posted?With comments from real pilots who fly both Warbirds and Heavy's they state how realistic A2A's "F-L-I-G-H-T" Model is.

 

I'll just speak for myself and say how much I enjoy A2A products,as I said the One draw back they have is their platform,FSX can be a HUGE resource Hog and Buggy as HELL!

 

I have No Doubt that The DCS Mustang will be highly realistic with Fantastic Flight Dynamics,I'll be first in line to buy it.

[EtherealN]

SimFreak,Did you actually watch the video I posted?With comments from real pilots who fly both Warbirds and Heavy's they state how realistic A2A's "F-L-I-G-H-T" Model is.

 

That's the thing though - this depends on what they expected in the first place. I've seen F-16 pilots say the same about Falcon 3. Not to say they're lying or anything, just that we all need to realize that on the desktop there will always be limitations, and this goes no matter if it's A2A or ED that's making the product.

 

I would, for example, fully expect that in 10 years we'll all be smirking at both the DCS and A2A P-51's for the flight models because we've found yet another thing that the old ones didn't do properly. Our expectations will have changed. And if you bring in someone from outside the simulation world, they might say the same thing about FC2's SFM, because their expectations are based on some version of MSF they tried a couple times in the 90's. :P

 

Until both DCS P-51 and A2A P-51 is out, no-one can compare. (Well, unless there's someone that does testing on both AND operates the real thing. :P )

 

Really, this whole realism discussion between A2A and DCS is moot. The answer will come with time. :)

[aaron886]

I've seen F-16 pilots say the same about Falcon 3. Not to say they're lying or anything, just that we all need to realize that on the desktop there will always be limitations

 

Oh my what a concept. :D (Wise, but no reason to accept second-best of course.)

[ARM505]

Wow. Lots of blatant fanboi-ism in this thread. Time will tell, and anyway, if you're even remotely interested in the Mustang, you'll own both A2A's product, as well as DCS's version of it. It's not like you're buying actual Mustangs each time you buy the software, I'm sure we can all afford both.

 

Based on A2A's past products, the Mustang will be excellent. As their video's clearly show, they have plenty of access to the real thing. All sounds are recorded from the real thing, down to the sounds of the switches clicking (for example, I could go on and on - just watch the clips on their site). The Spitfire and P40 are the only addon aircraft I have for FSX (aside from the PMDG NGX, since that's what I fly IRL and was curious how well they did it - very well, it turns out) The feeling of flight is excellent. Their numbers match the manual very closely. The aircraft feel 'alive' and you have a sense of attachment, and a reason to treat them well. I see a lot of 'It's in FSX, so it's useless' kind of comments here. I wouldn't trust any comment where it's obvious the person has zero experience of the product being mentioned. Why would somebody make the primary point of their argument pure ignorance? Weird....As for 'FSX has no guns' - would you like to have a flight in a P51? Yes? Ok, and if I told you it had no guns? Suddenly you wouldn't be interested at all? Duh. Simply flying a P51 is fun.

 

Bottom line, I'll own both. It's a no brainer. Duh!

[VH-Rock]

I have A2A's current mustang and I am most certainly looking forward to trying out the DCS version upon it's release. DCS has one critical advantage to it that A2A simply can not measure up to: Online play. Now we can have an accurately modeled, High detail P-51 Mustang with great online experiences whether it be Formation Aerobatics which we will be flying with the Virtual Horsemen, Or in Dog Fights against more modern Counter parts. I can't wait to fly a version of "The Final CountDown" although with the rolls of aircraft reversed.

[leafer]

You're forgetting one thing, arm505, this is a combat simulation board not a civil aviation board. It's only natural that the majority of us are fanboi of aircraft capable of delivery pain to the ass. That is why FSX is and will always be useless for me.

 

Eventually, I'll be able to afford a Hummelbird, and I'll enjoy the civil side of aviation then. But there's no eventually for me on the military side of thing.

 

Sure, I can afford both, but I want the option to pull the trigger and pickle bombs and that is precisely why I'm never going to buy anything from A2A or PMDG. No guns, no dice. There's nothing that they offer that I'm interested in. If I simply want to fly around for hours I can do that in any of the DCS series. If I wanted to fly a realistically modeled military helicopter then I'll start BS.

 

Some time next year, I'll be able to play as little virtual soldier in a digital battle field directing Hornets, Hawgs and Stangs to deliver virtual pain to real life men. Sure, ED, please make a badge, I am your official fanboi. :D

Edited January 30, 2012 by leafer

[Topgun505]

I have the P-47 A2A product. While the flight modeling is excellent it did NOT work terribly well with Track IR Pro 5 (was VERY twitchy with it) and there were also a few other aspects which appeared bugged. When I contacted their customer support I got pretty much NO help whatsoever. I would expect that for a $20 piece o crap arcade-like piece of software but NOT for what they are charging. It got to the point that I gave up trying to contact them and stopped trying to fix it myself.

 

If you won't stand behind your product ... what good is it? So I would say DCS will likely win this contest hands down as they DO stand behind their product 100%.

[sinelnic]

I tried A2A's Piper Cub and was nothing but amazed at the thing. It was terrific fun. I have yet to try their more powerful birds, I remember getting bored lifting the Cub up to a safe altitude to practice spin recoveries :)

 

I believe something they do pretty pretty well is creating the sensation of a real thing. Besides the mathematical modelling, which I cannot dispute, they add little sounds, cockpit vibrations and animations that really help to create the feeling of flying a real plane and operating a real engine. That really shows "artisan-ship" in their work, and I love it.

 

Neither in Ka-50 or A-10 I got to feel the same little things (other things were of course fantastic, I am a fanboy). I believe if one thing DCS can improve in, is in that regard, the "physicality" of the cockpit simulation.

[yallu]

A little more about Accusim: http://www.avsim.com/pages/0112/A2A/B377.html (for those interested)

[HydroToad]

That video made me physically ill.

[MTFDarkEagle]

I have the P-47 A2A product. While the flight modeling is excellent it did NOT work terribly well with Track IR Pro 5 (was VERY twitchy with it) and there were also a few other aspects which appeared bugged. When I contacted their customer support I got pretty much NO help whatsoever. I would expect that for a $20 piece o crap arcade-like piece of software but NOT for what they are charging. It got to the point that I gave up trying to contact them and stopped trying to fix it myself.

 

If you won't stand behind your product ... what good is it? So I would say DCS will likely win this contest hands down as they DO stand behind their product 100%.

Don't know what happened, but A2A are regarded as one of the best regarding customer support. You might want to contact them on their forum.

[Cowboy10uk]

Wow. Lots of blatant fanboi-ism in this thread. Time will tell, and anyway, if you're even remotely interested in the Mustang, you'll own both A2A's product, as well as DCS's version of it. It's not like you're buying actual Mustangs each time you buy the software, I'm sure we can all afford both.

 

Based on A2A's past products, the Mustang will be excellent. As their video's clearly show, they have plenty of access to the real thing. All sounds are recorded from the real thing, down to the sounds of the switches clicking (for example, I could go on and on - just watch the clips on their site). The Spitfire and P40 are the only addon aircraft I have for FSX (aside from the PMDG NGX, since that's what I fly IRL and was curious how well they did it - very well, it turns out) The feeling of flight is excellent. Their numbers match the manual very closely. The aircraft feel 'alive' and you have a sense of attachment, and a reason to treat them well. I see a lot of 'It's in FSX, so it's useless' kind of comments here. I wouldn't trust any comment where it's obvious the person has zero experience of the product being mentioned. Why would somebody make the primary point of their argument pure ignorance? Weird....As for 'FSX has no guns' - would you like to have a flight in a P51? Yes? Ok, and if I told you it had no guns? Suddenly you wouldn't be interested at all? Duh. Simply flying a P51 is fun.

 

Bottom line, I'll own both. It's a no brainer. Duh!

 

+1

 

Very well said sir.

 

While I appreciate that Stock FSX isn't the greatest sim out there, the addons from other company's like PMDG and A2A are very good, hate to think of how much money I've spent with each upgrading my FSX.

 

However while A2A products with Accusim are very good, I can't say realistic as I've never flown the aircraft in real life so can't comment there, they are held back with the limitations of FSX, would be very intrested to see if they fly different on Prepare3D, but that's a different thread. :)

 

Again upto now, DCS aircraft again are very good, and I would certainly say they are on a par with each other. Now for the first time, we have 2 stunningly talented aircraft developers making the same aircraft, granted on different platforms, but it will be great to see How both aircraft come out.

 

In such a small genre as flight simming is these days, Both these developers deserve our support, I for one am planning to purchase Both aircraft. Hell and the P51 dosnt really even intrest me ;)

 

Good luck to both, you never know, now both developers have a little competition, it might even raise the stakes higher, and we will get an even better aircraft in the end.

 

Cowboy10uk

[WynnTTr]

... mentioned. Why would somebody make the primary point of their argument pure ignorance? Weird....As for 'FSX has no guns' - would you like to have a flight in a P51? Yes? Ok, and if I told you it had no guns? Suddenly you wouldn't be interested at all? Duh. Simply flying a P51 is fun.

 

Bottom line, I'll own both. It's a no brainer. Duh!

Your point would be valid if there's a real P-51 to go up in but these are games where we have a choice on how to play. Firing the guns in a combat scenario is a big factor and can't be ignored. Ofc I'd love to attempt to fly for real, even a big airliner, but that doesn't mean I want to play at flying one in my gaming time. There's just too many layers of separation between rl and the monitor. :music_whistling:

 

Also have A2A redone the flight code in FSX for their birds? If not then they're still stuck with the FSX flight limitations.

[Alicatt]

I'd love to attempt to fly for real, even a big airliner, but that doesn't mean I want to play at flying one in my gaming time. There's just too many layers of separation between rl and the monitor. :music_whistling:

I was invited to fly a small "airliner" and the most difficult part of it was keeping the three engines in sync, it was the most boring flying I have ever done other than riding in the back with the other passengers. The landing was exciting tho, the BN Trilander had quite a steep final aproach and the pilot wanted to demonstrate to me it's short field performance :shocking:

[Hellfire257]

Any flight-simmer worth his salt should go for quality of the experience rather than the name on the "box".

 

A2A have changed the flight model...substantially. Accusim is a rather like a plugin for FSX. Remember, FSX is part of ESP so it is designed to be able to handle anything if you give it the right tools. The best example of this would have to be LM's Prepar3D.

 

I also don't need to have another FSX install for any A2A products...

[Frostiken]

DCS: P-51 might end up being much more detailed than you think for the simple fact that there's so much less to actually model compared to a modern aircraft...

 

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.

 

Use what, random failures? I use it all the time... heck I think there should be even MORE random failures. The ones we have now are pretty basic. I'd even like a virtual fighter squadron as part of campaigns / dynamic campaigns that tracks your aircraft and determines levels of wear, a basic supply system, and maintenance downtimes, so if you treat all your planes like crap you end up down a few tails as they have their landing gears reattached. It doesn't have to be hyper-realistic where they're removed for months, but as a previous poster said, the 'brand-spanking new jet' every time is a bit boring. The problem with MTBF is that, because it isn't logged, I've yet to see most failures because they don't ever pop up. Unlogged MTBFs means that the 'mean time' has nothing to do with it, you just basically turned it into a %-chance-to-fail-this-sortie. Everything will break eventually, but because it's not logged it means something that has an MTBF of 100 flight hours ends up with a 1% chance of breaking per sortie, which means you may very well never really see it.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Frostiken

[effte]

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.

 

That's the thing though - this depends on what they expected in the first place. I've seen F-16 pilots say the same about Falcon 3. Not to say they're lying or anything, just that we all need to realize that on the desktop there will always be limitations, and this goes no matter if it's A2A or ED that's making the product.

 

Egg-zactly. "This feels right" is nice to hear, but rather worthless unless further quantified. In what ways does it feel right?

 

A more graspable analogy would be cars. Someone has driven a certain type of car for, say, 2000 hours. If you commute a bit, that's a few years driving.

 

A PC simulator of that same type of car is created, perhaps with a slightly different type of engine or a model a few years newer or older.

 

The aforementioned driver is sat down at a computer, with unfamiliar controls, a monitor, perhaps a TrackIR system which he/she is not used to operating and, with the guidance of the design team hanging over his/her shoulder, takes the simulated car for a spin.

 

"Yeah, just like driving the real thing".

 

Now, is that proof that the simulation is perfect... ?

 

This is what is being done and claimed over and over ad nausea in pretty much every flight simulator forum.

 

Coincidentally, that's certainly not the way aircraft are evaluated out in the real world. It is approached in a very methodical manner.

 

I'll quote myself on the matter, in a different thread:

 

Asking MX or pilots is good, providing you ask the right questions. Those of us who have been involved in flight testing know the importance of establishing exactly what the user is evaluating, and the parameters on which to evaluate it. Look up the Cooper-Harper scale for an example. “Does this seem right?” simply does not hack it. You get a reply in the affirmative, but what does it mean? The mode transitions are correct? The symbology is just like the real deal? The graphics are spot on? All of the above? Including or excluding correct mechanization?

 

You need to be very specific, and probably include a quantitative measurement.

 

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?

 

Aircraft -> Repair, and the friendly digital goblins come out with their wrenches. ;)

 

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.

 

Nah, most planes are flying with snags. That's what Minimum Equipment Lists are for. All planes have varying performance to one degree or another. They're all individuals.

 

As e g engines come up to engine overhaul, there's less power out. The engine overhauls are timed in order to make sure that the power loss due to wear isn't above what's operationally acceptable, but that threshold is set depending on many parameters including desired availability, economics and other things which will at times be in conflict with the pilot's natural desire to have a machine which is always top-spec.

 

In fact, machines leaving the factories are not top-spec. They're factory spec. One common method of tuning engines is to simply pull them apart and machine everything to tighter tolerances than the factory tolerances. This is known as blue-printing, and can offer significant gains. Yet, it is not done from the factory. Same thing, a threshold was set where they thought the best compromise between production time, economics, training level of the labour etc was found.

 

E g piston rings wear with every flight hour (or for jets, blade tip clearances increase). We know that this wear reduces performance. This doesn't mean piston rings (or turbine assys/ cowl wear pads/blades etc) will be replaced after every flight - we accept the reduced performance until the engine is up for a level of overhaul including piston ring replacement after n flight hours (unless they fail and are repaired, or degrade at a rate ahead of the anticipated rate to a point where an on-condition overhaul is called for).

 

In combat operations, higher levels of performance decrease will typically be accepted before overhauls or repairs are carried out. The value of keeping the aircraft in the air is simply higher than the value of always having them perform at their best. A sweet spot will have to be found between availability and attrition due to maintenance deficits.

 

The world would be a horrible place without speed tape... :)

 

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).

 

I would in fact consider a high-spec recip more complex to model than a jet engine. There are more things going on. One of my first jobs included designing and implementing a rather accurate simulation of a certain turboprop engine. Throwing the power turbine and propeller on to the gas generator creates a significant increase in complexity. I've also messed with simpler models of Otto cycle engines, and there's nothing simple about them - even prior to throwing in forced induction.

 

Jets are rather simple from a modelling point of view, IMNSHO. The governing equations are more or less trivial. Then it's just a question of getting the flows and accelerations right. Not sure if FADEC helps or not - advantages and disadvantages, but if you have the FADEC code or a good representation of it it should make life a lot easier.

 

(Aaaah, the joys of finding errors in computer-generated 7-or-so-dimensional performance data matrices!)

 

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.

 

For MTBF to be meaningful, an assumption regarding the distribution has to be made. Won't be a bell curve. IIRC, the norm is an essentially constant failure rate, i e the flat part of the bath tub curve... but other distributions can be agreed upon for specific systems.

 

If you are talking about parts in the same engine, the above would render a system MTBF of (1 + 1000) / 2 = 500.5 (summed uptime divided by two failures, as all the nine parts failed simultaneously) rather than 100.9... ;)

 

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

 

Ehm. No. Mission editor - weather settings. 30 seconds and you have them. Not hard at all. All you are saying is that you yourself only fly in essentially clear blue skies (this I suspect applies to 90% of all DCS virtual aviators). Unless you enter visible moisture (clouds), you will not experience pitot (or alpha vane... to revisit an bug thwarted long ago) icing in DCS:A-10C AFAIK.

 

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.

 

Hello Nate, I'm Fred. Nice to meet you.

 

Can we consider you to know me now, or must I make a formal friend request? ;)

 

Cheers,

/Fred (aspiring for the #1 monster poster position)

[159th_Viper]

Aircraft -> Repair, and the friendly digital goblins come out with their wrenches. ;)

 

My point exactly ;)

 

My question thus stands:

 

Progressive Engine wear sans repair = Why? Just because you don't does not mean you can't. You see, I'm a virtual-rich-SIM-bastage: If there's a Gnat on my windshield I replace the cockpit :D

Edited February 14, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Nate--IRL--]

Hello Nate, I'm Fred. Nice to meet you.

 

Can we consider you to know me now, or must I make a formal friend request? ;)

 

Sincere apologies, but you have me at a loss, sorry. I'm not good at puzzles :)

 

Nate

[effte]

Viper,

no good. Virtual rich doesn't do it. You have to be real-rich before I start being nice to you... ;)

 

Kidding aside, the answer to your "why?" is the same as the answer to why most features are included in a simulator: In order to simulate reality in the best manner possible given the constraints of technology and economy.

 

I don't want a virtual aircraft which climbs twice as fast as the real-life version, even though I would indeed want the real-life version to climb twice as fast if I flew it. For the same reason, I want use and abuse to show in the virtual aircraft, even though I certainly would be happier without it if I flew the real thing.

 

You can simulate being a factory test pilot, fly wearing dress shoes and hit 'repair' before every flight. I'll sit here in my oil-covered Irvin suit (took forever to get the oil stains right!) and pretend to be a line pilot, griping no end about the shoddy maintenance to my virtual squad mates as I bunk down in a tent on the lawn afterwards.

 

And I will call you a REMF. Until you prove that you are real-rich, that is... then I will only call you a REMF when you are out of earshot. :D

 

In a world where you don't have a FADEC to keep you from doing something stupid (I wish it was really that easy...), engine wear based on engine (ab)use is also a good indicator of whether you are Doing Things Right. If you get MTBFs (or MTBOs) one third of what the next guy is getting out of his engines, then you can start thinking about how you fly. Another means of taking your simulated flying to a higher level.

 

Cheers,

Fred

Edited February 14, 2012 by effte
Added MTBOs.

[effte]

Sincere apologies, but you have me at a loss, sorry. I'm not good at puzzles :)

 

You said you didn't know anybody who flew with random failures turned on, so I thought I'd introduce myself and get you out of that horrible predicament. :)

[Nate--IRL--]

Apologies again - I need more coffee. :)

 

Nate

[159th_Viper]

Another means of taking your simulated flying to a higher level....

 

OK - let's assume progressive wear. How would one then address the combat-loss of your airframe? Do we assume that your wear-to-date is carried over to the new airframe? The obvious answer is hell-no. Would make no sense, which immediately leads to a disparity in users with airframes in varying stages of performance as a result of progressive wear, or lack thereof. You can appreciate this disparity leading to many a groan, especially in an online, combat environment.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither here nor there: I just enjoy analyzing all the angles :)

[effte]

Viper,

in an online competition environment, it would obviously not be appreciated. However I, and many with me, don't give a rat's ass about becoming virtual aces or reaching the top of a scoreboard on the aerial quake never-ending-furball-between-two-bases dogfight servers but are in it for the experience rather than the competitive side.

 

In an online simulation of a combat environment, quite a few people would appreciate it. Seen the online wars going in RoF and Il-2? With actual attrition rates for planes and sometimes pilots as well, as well as maintenance downtime for combat repair and all the general logistics of an effective war-fighting unit? Great fun.

 

All real-life fleets have grapes, aircraft which perform worse, are failure-prone or, frequently, both. In scenarios such as the above, it would add immensely to the experience of Being There.

 

As for wear carrying over when writing a crate off - of course not. Unless you decide to refly. Oh, and you'd make sure to prang the grapes at every opportunity to avoid being sent up in them anytime soon...

 

Operating as a unit would get more interesting. When #3 is stuck in an airframe which just will not keep up, what do you do? Flight lead decision time - can you slow down and still make the RV, or do you RTB #3 and continue the mission as a three-ship?

 

Pop over to fseconomy.com sometime for a whole new kind of madness in flight simulation, with a significant following. The parallells are obvious. :)

[Eddie]

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.

 

Can you? Really?

 

I'll mention this one to some of our pilots and see what they say in response. :music_whistling:

 

I don't think I've ever seen a single combat aircraft that wasn't carrying a list of ADFs/ADMs/LIMs and other general minor snags. I think you'd be very surprised to discover the faults that our (and everyone else's) aircraft fly with every single day, both in training and in combat.

 

And for the record, I'm 200% in favour of further fault/failure modelling and persistent wear & tear etc. As long as it's done in a realistic way and the air quake, casual, and time limited flyers have the option to switch such things off, they'll have nothing to moan about then (well not as much anyway).