Will you buy FC3

[aaron886]

The SFM is essentially a point force model. You only apply force to a single point.

 

To my knowledge... yes you are right, but this presents no obstruction to a more complete/accurate simulation of flight physics. Most flight simulators work in this way, using simplified equations that use multiple inputs to calculate one vector output for the entire aircraft. While simplified, this can produce a competitive model and can be a very convincing.

 

With all the preferred equations on hand from the AFM code, I don't think it would be desperately difficult to simplify/average their inputs and rewrite SFMs to be somewhat enjoyable to fly. The lack of even the most basic accepted level of flight modeling in a relaxed-realism simulator is just... depressing. Takes all the fun out of flying in Flaming Cliffs 2, which would otherwise still be a very engaging experience.

 

I think some additions would be prudent/necessary, mostly in the region of stability and controllability. Modeling of control surfaces and input scaling instead of assuming them would make a big difference in perceived handling qualities.

 

You can simulate a more realistic stall with A-10C because you can simulate airflow/force application to different parts of the fuselage. Same with Su-25T.

 

It should be pretty obvious that you cannot do the same thing with a point model, so the stall, and stall entry must be scripted.

 

NOPENOPENOPE. :D Think of it this way... one section of the wing from the A-10 would/should count as the entire simulation of lift/induced drag for the airframe. (Two would be even better!) Very few inputs: alpha, beta (if you want to get fancy schmancy,) velocity, air density. Specific to the aircraft, just need an approximation of lifting surface area and table of values for the surface's coefficient of lift. This is no different than the current inputs the SFM uses.

 

I actually (with all respect to the challenges of the profession that I've only barely seen,) think it would not be that difficult to use the code written for AFMs in DCS to create simplified flight models in FC3. The primary difference would be in the format of input data, otherwise I would think the AFM simulation can just take the inputs, do the necessary math, and present the necessary output. With the rest of the environment from DCS already being used (and knowing how the part of the program related to SFMs had to be updated for FC2,) I really cannot imagine it being a big leap.

 

 

At this point, without a major overhaul to flight characteristics (and for that reason only) I wouldn't shell out for FC3.

[Kenan]

..and let's not forget ED folks have families and life to live before implementing all our wet dreams into FC3. Untill they get replaced by robots, we need to tune down on our expectations.. :D

[joey45]

.......

 

I actually (with all respect to the challenges of the profession that I've only barely seen,) think it would not be that difficult to use the code written for AFMs in DCS to create simplified flight models in FC3. The primary difference would be in the format of input data, otherwise I would think the AFM simulation can just take the inputs, do the necessary math, and present the necessary output. With the rest of the environment from DCS already being used (and knowing how the part of the program related to SFMs had to be updated for FC2,) I really cannot imagine it being a big leap.

 

.....

 

So, you know the code the ED/TFC uses then and you are a coder yourself... If it's that easy then why don't you do it..

[GGTharos]

This is no different than the current inputs the SFM uses.

 

... and will result in effectively in performance similar to the SFM. There may be some improvements in AoA representation, weight-on-wings, ground-handling ... Yeah, I get it, maybe that's enough.

 

I really cannot imagine it being a big leap.

The AFM for the Su-25T took a year to create and fine-tune. I would expect a port of the aircraft from SFM to AFM would take at least that long for all involved aircraft. Fine tuning an FM is not a trivial task, but apparently everyone likes to trivialize it.

 

Changing the equations changes the interactions between the data in the table. Adding variables adds data to the table. It gets more and more tedious.

 

Not that I would mind if ED went with this idea though.

Edited April 27, 2012 by GGTharos

[Mustang]

..and let's not forget ED folks have families and life to live before implementing all our wet dreams into FC3. Untill they get replaced by robots, we need to tune down on our expectations.. :D

 

Well said +1

[aaron886]

So, you know the code the ED/TFC uses then and you are a coder yourself... If it's that easy then why don't you do it..

This is the kind of drivel I expected.

 

..and let's not forget ED folks have families and life to live before implementing all our wet dreams into FC3. Untill they get replaced by robots, we need to tune down on our expectations..

This is the response that makes sense. I get that. That's not going to stop me from having expectations of a company that (hopefully) wants me to buy their products.

 

... and will result in effectively in performance similar to the SFM.

I wouldn't say that. It would be enough. You say "performance," but I'm more interested in handling characteristics. In most cases the SFM can already produce acceptable performance figures to get close enough real aircraft for a desktop PC simulator.

 

The AFM for the Su-25T took a year to create and fine-tune.

I believe it.

 

I would expect a port of the aircraft from SFM to AFM would take at least that long for all involved aircraft.

 

I don't buy that, I just don't. For the type of simplified flight models FC3 SHOULD feature, almost all of the necessary data is already in place. I've spent enough time with SFM input data to know that.

[159th_Viper]

I don't buy that, I just don't.…

 

You don't have to - does however not make it any less true.

[EtherealN]

Aaron886, you should note that in the last part of your response to GG, you responded to a point he didn't make. He talked about porting an aircraft from SFM to AFM. You're talking about tweaking SFM. ;)

[GGTharos]

It took a while to tweak the SFM aircraft to work as they should right now. Porting them to even a simplified AFM would take at least that long (what I was saying is that it would take a year for all of them collectively, I don't think it would take a year for each one, since we're not talking about going to the level of the Su-25T AFM which also includes engine modeling and so on and so forth)

 

Porting to AFM would potentially require a change of data. Different equations can require a change in data, and then everything has to be tested again.

 

I don't buy that, I just don't. For the type of simplified flight models FC3 SHOULD feature, almost all of the necessary data is already in place. I've spent enough time with SFM input data to know that.

[SESova]

What error with R 27ET at FC 1.12?

We where able to owerride that missile and hit targets even at 30km distance.In that time,you,ED did clame it is OK.In FC 2.0,thats not possible.Not even its not possible,then its FAR from R27ET missle from FC 1.12.What is the true,the things you said before,or now?

 

A lots of players did fly Russian planes at FC 1.12 becouse R 27ET missile.Now the flyining F 15 becouse AIM 120C.Group of gamers who serching bugs and errors in the games and using them to become aces of the sky.

 

 

I did provide provide proff,the video where I,flying SU 27,needed 5 missiles to destroy F15.One missile has missed non-manuvering F 15:megalol:,pass pretty close.But,game of deaf phones started.

You said,oh thats not terrible,all planes have that problem...Now you say everything is OK.YOU give Me now the proof.Give me the track from server of the 51 sqd. where an F 15 needed 5 AIM-120C missiles,4 hits to destroy an su 27.Than i am going to belive you.You wont to enter on the server,becouse you know what is going to happend.

 

Yea,eny kid can land fighter plane with no problem.Many real fihter pilots play this game and you have to acept thair comments.

 

I know you did spend a LOT of hours on the FC 2.We all see that.Its pretty good game.But,who works,he made mistakes,nothing terible.Humans make mistakes.But,thay have to fix them,specialy if take the money for the product.

There is no much to fix at FC,it would be greate game,soo cant see why not.I am shure it will bring money.Quality always find buyers.

No more posts from me on this subject.My english is not so good and its not so important to force my self to using dictionary....You will do what you attend enyway.

You will see afther relise FC3 what i and hundred the others was talking abouth.

Best wishes.

Edited April 27, 2012 by =SE=Sova

[Pilotasso]

A lots of players did fly Russian planes at FC 1.12 becouse R 27ET missile.Now the flyining F 15 becouse AIM 120C.Group of gamers who serching bugs and errors in the games and using them to become aces of the sky.

 

If anything its much harder to exploit bugs right now, much harder than before. Also you need to define what "errors" is for you, I had people claiming in ignorance that this or that missile was the end of all weapons simply because they failed to understand how they are best employed, speed altitude, radar modes and NEZ.

 

Most people think they are magically hit by AMRAAMS at long range simply because their SARH missiles when fired at the same range usualy miss (alot of warning for evasive action is the answer why).

 

Who are the ace in the sky you claim to be using exploits?

 

 

I did provide provide proff,the video where I,flying SU 27,needed 5 missiles to destroy F15.One missile has missed non-manuvering F 15:megalol:,pass pretty close.But,game of deaf phones started.

 

Your plainly wrong with this one, multiple missiles hit their targets in your video, what you were looking at was an entirely different software problem. The game does not disable combat systems when hit, it simply hides instruments (go blank) but the missiles continue to be able to fire. This affects all aircraft and I have already told you this. :)

 

 

I know you did spend a LOT of hours on the FC 2.We all see that.Its pretty good game.But,who works,he made mistakes,nothing terible.Humans make mistakes.But,thay have to fix them,specialy if take the money for the product.

 

Apparently not enough hours to correctly interpret what you saw, and while Im at it maybe your tactics are in need of an adjustment as well.

[GGTharos]

What error with R 27ET at FC 1.12?

 

The problem with ALL heat-seeking missiles (not just R-27ET) was improper seeker mechanization.

 

We where able to owerride that missile and hit targets even at 30km distance.

 

Which is not realistic. If you launch a heat seeking missile without a lock, it will probably hit nothing but ground. Almost all heat-seeking missiles of that era were lock-before-launch. The R-27ET was specifically more useful in shooting down retreating bombers than fighters AFAIK, since the bombers were very capable of completely wiping out radar attack with their jammers.

 

In that time,you,ED did clame it is OK

 

At what time? Show me - besides which, even so, what's wrong with accomodating new information?

 

A lots of players did fly Russian planes at FC 1.12 becouse R 27ET missile.Now the flyining F 15 becouse AIM 120C.Group of gamers who serching bugs and errors in the games and using them to become aces of the sky.

 

The R-27ET, as by Case's post, has a HIGHER hit rate than AIM-120C. Perhaps it is just their imagination? :D

 

I did provide provide proff,the video where I,flying SU 27,needed 5 missiles to destroy F15.

 

THat's proof of a plane turning 180 in 3 sec?

 

You said,oh thats not terrible,all planes have that problem...Now you say everything is OK.YOU give Me now the proof.Give me the track from server of the 51 sqd. where an F 15 needed 5 AIM-120C missiles,4 hits to destroy an su 27.Than i am going to belive you.You wont to enter on the server,becouse you know what is going to happend.

 

You're right, I'm not going to go into some server and shoot up planes until I manage to reproduce something that I know is already there, affects /all/ planes, especially when high latency is involved, and doesn't happen horribly often. You may want to choose something that's not a fluke to complain about.

 

Yea,eny kid can land fighter plane with no problem.Many real fihter pilots play this game and you have to acept thair comments.

 

You think it's going to be harder to land an AFM plane? It isn't. Same procedure, unless of course all you know how to do is well, wrong.

 

I know you did spend a LOT of hours on the FC 2.We all see that.Its pretty good game.But,who works,he made mistakes,nothing terible.Humans make mistakes.But,thay have to fix them,specialy if take the money for the product.

 

Yeah, show mistakes. You haven't shown any proof of mistakes. Instead, there are PLENTY of examples of single-hit kills as opposed to your once-in-a-blue-moon took 4-5 missiles problem, which, by the way, is a network play issue and not a 'someone made a mistake' issue.

 

You're complaining as if someone gave the F-15 10x the hit points, and that is simply not true. Sorry to say but you're running into problems you do not understand and you're blaming them on the wrong thing.

I find it amusing how you say that I have to accept comments from real pilots, but you can so easily dismiss hours of work by just saying 'people make mistakes'.

 

You will see afther relise FC3 what i and hundred the others was talking abouth.

 

FC3 will be just fine.

[joey45]

This is the kind of drivel I expected.

 

Here to serve :thumbup:

 

Sorry I can't neg rep you back.... I need to spread some love first..;)

[Rikus]

Originally Posted by GGTharos

The AFM for the Su-25T took a year to create and fine-tune.

 

I believe it.

 

Add more programers, and you´ll spend less than a year

 

Greetings

[EtherealN]

You might want to consider this, Rikus:

 

Where the size of the codebase comes in is that whenever you want to change something, you need to deal with a huge amount of code where no single individual can ever know what all of it does. So getting the right man to the right job is important - you can think of it like a major industry; no engineer will be intimately familiar with every step of the process. This also means that if you have a LOT of work to do on one machine, but nothing on the others, you can't just take all the other guys you have and have them help - they'd first have to be trained. (In a sense it can be illustrated with the question: making a woman pregnant means she'll give birth in 9 months, but making 9 women pregnant doesn't mean one of them will give birth every month for 9 months...)

 

We have an expression: the more shefs, the worse the soup. You can't just "throw people" at a problem and expect it to be solved automatically.

[pepin1234]

I am very disappointed to see the direction being taken by ED. A DCS P-51. Why not spend the time to try make a Su-30MK DCS or F-18 DCS. We will see after all that time losed on the P-51:(. what they will bring on the FC3. Just we can say, if the catastrofic idea of the P-51. Because we will decide, if we buy that.:cry:

Edited April 29, 2012 by pepin1234

[EtherealN]

Pepin, you'll find that the answer to your questions are already in the FAQ and the various announcements that are made.

[combatace]

Well yes it takes long to implement AFM, but then everyone knows how long it took to bring A-10C to the stage it is and for what were the early buyers charged for.

[Udat]

Offcourse I'll buy it!

[pepin1234]

I readed already the FAQ and I did not find what u mean EtherealN. I can understand that ED is a little company but Honestly I would like they become bigger, but I find something wrong on all that. If the FC3 bring not a complet avionic for each aircraft, I could understand that.:thumbup:

 

The question to find the realism with FC3 is not only have a complet avionic system. Also a activ infantery, a helicoper/aircraft for trasport, trying find a logic in each battle result . Radio assistance for each group to inform the combat situation.:helpsmilie:

 

Why I have to kill every unit when maybe the cheff of one side can deside the surrender of one defence and that way u safe the life of some solders and that way u try aboid the other side, dont get thats score and at the same times the other side dont lose the time to kill each unit alive wich could become exchange hostages of both sides.:smilewink:

 

Please work on the logics of one battle:smartass:. FC3 must become the epicenter of ED and not trying anymore to brings the wishes of someone with the P-51.

If ED is a little company. What they are doing right now with the P-51 DCS?? And they are not trying to performs or make patches for the FC2. A lot of people are so unhappy seeying how FC2 is getting old and ED spend the time with a P-51 of " The fighter Collections " people:doh:. Please ED if that is what happening in your company I really have to say you should work hard to get a different partner:book:

Edited May 1, 2012 by pepin1234

[Sceptre]

I hope they improve the MiG-29 model.....

[WRAITH]

Whatever the DCS team want to do is fine but needs positive direction as this is a Combat Sim:joystick::pilotfly:, my thoughts will always be to combine LockOn FC2 and 3 efforts with DCS-A10C that will give you more A/C's and add some like F-16's, F-18, Mig-29 and SU-33 with true avionics, realistic FM and with 3D full clickable cockpits and so and more features then get busy with adding Theaters Dynamic War Campaigns like an Afghanistan, Korea, Balkans, Taiwan, Vietnam and Israel Theater and so on.

 

Since these are War Simulators and Air Force Jets we fly making it with true realistic flight model and avionics for real war scene, a good positive direction is whats needed.

 

:smartass: A Study Sim of Aerial Combat:joystick:

 

One awesome product with all treats people post in Forum sure big project but "Rome wasn't built in a Day" right so have teams for each area but working together also.

 

Then you can add all the other fun stuff Aerobaticss, SP, MP as it develops etc

 

Good project implementation no more crappy attempts to Combat Sims but meeting what customers want.

 

A realistic life like experience of Air Force combat then all the fun stuff.

 

Sorry in my view things like the P-51 all that time man hrs spent on that was an example of poor direction thats another title for past war theme which could have come much later.

 

Even thou I love the P-51, its a question of project priorities, Please C'mon!

 

It should be about whats the "Big Idea", then build around that not just whatever comes to your head adding this and that, whats the direction whats the plan?

 

I would prefer to read on that if the Devs would post it instead of a mish mash of threads and ideas.

 

Ideas are great if there is a plan and direction clearly readable and understood by its customers or concerned parties and DCS followers.

 

Well my 2cents ;)

Edited June 9, 2012 by WRAITH

[shagrat]

I am very disappointed to see the direction being taken by ED. A DCS P-51. Why not spend the time to try make a Su-30MK DCS or F-18 DCS. We will see after all that time losed on the P-51:(. what they will bring on the FC3. Just we can say, if the catastrofic idea of the P-51. Because we will decide, if we buy that.:cry:

Did you buy the P-51D? Did yo actually fly it? Do you think Microsoft made a 'catastrophic' decision by producing FS X without asking, especially you if you would like it? Just you don't like a plane does not mean a thing in the big picture.

Go to the P-51D forums, the third party forums with all this 'non' F-18 and 'non' SU-30 planes coming up, and listen to how the customers react to the announcements only!

[WildBillKelsoe]

Have you notice how easy is to land the plane at FC?

Yes I have, and I have to say, you, my friend have pretty neat flying skills. We need to learn from you, master!!..

 

On a more serious note, no it's not. It was my 12th landing in the Su-25 Frogfoot that I better became in sync with the model. And SFM doesn't necessitate being harder or easier a sim is. Like in A-10C, more difficulty, but its that 'feel' you get accustomed to as you become in love and one with your preferred aircraft. And lets not throw eggs at ED. I'm sure they won't venture into anything under their high standards. So, guys, please, chill. We don't want to piss off onkel Wags, or we'll be very sorry. Mark my words. :thumbup:

 

And just so you know, FSX stands in a burrow under a sunken ship compared to the DCS franchise. Not showing off, not showing off...

[Panzertard]

I am very disappointed to see the direction being taken by ED. A DCS P-51. Why not spend the time to try make a Su-30MK DCS or F-18 DCS. We will see after all that time losed on the P-51:(. what they will bring on the FC3. Just we can say, if the catastrofic idea of the P-51. Because we will decide, if we buy that.:cry:

 

And pepin - keep in mind, it's only in your mind it was catastrophic.

It's subject of our own opinions.

For all of us who bought it it's a gem. And we still love the FC series as much as you do.