Afterburner is insanely loud ... what gives?

[zzzspace]

DCS afterburners are about 15 times louder than necessary? ... and they're also audible forwards in the sdef's sound cone? ... why?

 

Was this some bean-counter, or marketing guru's great contribution to the project, to add to the sonic appeal ... and thus to total sales?

 

"... give it more 'woof' Mr sound dev! ... more WOOF I say!!! ..."

 

Whoever suggested this be done is an audio Philistine.

 

I don't believe for one second the DCS sound devs voluntarily made it sound this way, as I'm sure they didn't. Having the afterburners so loud, even in front of the aircraft's path, means it drowns out every other sound being emitted, and any detailed subtle sound image and atmosphere they've created, is thus totally ruined and wasted.

 

Why would anyone do that?

 

It's not a problem for sound modders, I can totally rearrange the audio to make it work many times better (I already have), but why put out a jet sim to the public in this farcical state of audio debauchery and imbalance?

 

Let the sound devs do their job the way they want to, the results will be much superior and in fact, far more saleable. Marketing gurus stay out of the kitchen.

[Krebs20]

I'm not having this issue with the install. what aircraft is too loud?

And on a side note. I've heard 3 aircraft lite the afterburners in real life. The F15, F16, and F18. The F18 was the only one that didn't make me hold my ears and cry. Its was still really freaking loud?

[EtherealN]

Could I bother you for an example?

 

Easiest would be a track file where you observe this behaviour. :)

[EvilBivol-1]

Hmm, I'm not sure why you would expect to be able to hear anything else when a jet is in afterburner. What could possibly be louder?

 

P.S. If you think something may be off, I'm sure you can find a way to say so without the presumptuously wise commentary on the dev team.

Edited June 12, 2012 by EvilBivol-1

[RustyNuts]

Hell, if you were really outside from the viewpoint of the externals when the afterburner was on the wind noise would be deafening as well so the whole argument is based on a virtual perception of what it "should sound like" if we could be outside flying alongside and have no wind noise either. I'm lost on what other sounds could possibly be heard if this is about sound in externals. Maybe in cockpit? With noise cancelling headset and helmet yeah the afterburners would be a deep rumble and much quieter I'm sure.

[zzzspace]

hmm, this seems to be yet another one of those areas where people have become so accustomed to what's fake and completely unreal that they become desensitised to it.

 

We don't need a track, I'm not experiencing a bug, this is present in all of the DCS versions, not just within DCS:WORLD.

 

When on external views the jets fly along on dry thrust with not that many problems in the sound balance between sounds (other than that the FrontEngines don't work and the AroundEngine is jacked up a bit too much to compensate for that, making the sound piercing and screechy at times).

 

So a jet then engages afterburners, and suddenly, both in front of, and behind the jet, any jet, any mission, any DCS version, there's this absurd roaring, (Doppler-shifted to higher pitch in front of course) that's many times louder than the natural sound from an afterburning fighter is.

 

It's just way out of balance with the rest of the engine sounds the jet is making. I've heard thousands of afterburning jets in real life, as I'm sure you have, and I pay particular attention to the sounds they make, and none of them sound anything like the afterburning cacophony that's occurring in DCS.

 

Afterburners are loud, rumbly and crackly, indeed, they dominate when lit, but many other contributing sounds are still audible as well.

 

It needs a sonic reality-check. and it's dead-easy to do within the .sdef config files in DCS.

 

This is the standard PlaneAfterburner.sdef contents

 

--

wave = "Effects/Aircrafts/Engines/PlaneAfterburner"

inner_radius = 700

outer_radius = 10000

cone_inner_angle = 60

cone_outer_angle = 180

cone_outer_gain = 0.6

direction = {-1, 0, 0}

--

 

Notice the; "cone_outer_gain = 0.6"

 

This means that the gain of the "PlaneAfterburner" file will be fully 60% as loud in front, as it is behind. While the afterburner sound behind is already way too loud, compared even to the BackEngine setting.

 

Now you've seen jets do a straight line high-speed fly over at say 550 to 600 knots right?

 

There's almost no sound heard, except maybe a moan and a ripple, until the jet rushes past you, when you get an almighty roar. Ok?

 

Now look at the top part of the file, it says; "outer_radius = 10000"

 

That's 10,000 meters distance, in every direction, that this Afterburner can be heard. The out come of that setting means that even in front, when that after burner is lit, then 60% of the sound is directed forwards of the jet, out to 10km range, and at any speed below supersonic.

 

Now how does that tally in any way with what you hear at a jet base, or an airshow?

 

It doesn't at all.

 

And that other part above it; "inner_radius = 700"

 

what this does it is sets the sound to 100% out to a radius of 700m, before the amplitude begins to taper off!

That means that (doppler-shifted roar you hear in front) this 60% level that you hear in front is fully at 60% amplitude all the way out to 700 m in front of the jet!

 

Bonkers.

 

Now hit F3 key ... are you viewing from less than 700m from the jet?

 

Yes you are!

 

Are you going to tell me you can't tell the difference between this cacophony and what you'd hear in an air display?

 

What that afterburner config file should look like is something more like this.

 

--

wave = "Effects/Aircrafts/Engines/PlaneAfterburner"

inner_radius = 500

outer_radius = 25000

cone_inner_angle = 90

cone_outer_angle = 120

cone_outer_gain = -1.0

direction = {-1, 0, 0}

--

 

But even then, the afterburner is still going to be way too loud and out of balance behind the jet, to match with the PlaneBackEngine .sdef sound config and .ogg. And then you're then going to hear the front of the jet all of a sudden, and realise it needs properly tuning too.

 

This DCS sound engine is very good, and the .sdef configs are a terrific improvement over what we had before, with actually massive tuneable potential, but you need to allow your sound devs to systematically tune it. It's been built, but it hasn't been tuned. They need to just use some basic logic of what should and shouldn't be heard from each direction, and to balance the amplitudes in a more realistic fashion.

 

It could be made so much better, with minimal time and effort.

 

Seriously, who would leave a graphics engine, or a flight model in an un-tuned and baulked half-finished state?

 

So why does it keep happening to the sound in Lomac, then FC 1 and 2, and now DCS?

 

This sound engine and the stock sounds have the potential to really cook, and it should right out of the box.

[zzzspace]

Hell, if you were really outside from the viewpoint of the externals when the afterburner was on the wind noise would be deafening as well so the whole argument is based on a virtual perception of what it "should sound like"

 

Come off it, it's not based on a "virtual perception" of what it should sound like, at all. I hear fast jets taking off and landing and flying over nearby most days. I know exactly what they should sound like, for real. I heard two fighters taking off as I was writing the reply above this one.

 

Some people can discriminate sound in detail, some are skilled at it, many can't, and a smaller number people have 'tin-ear', and are unable to sense even obvious changes to pitch, harmonics, amplitudes and timbre.

[zzzspace]

Hmm, I'm not sure why you would expect to be able to hear anything else when a jet is in afterburner. What could possibly be louder?

 

P.S. If you think something may be off, I'm sure you can find a way to say so without the presumptuously wise commentary on the dev team.

Completely incorrect, afterburners are loud in predominantly the rear hemisphere of the aircraft, especially when a jet is approaching, particularly if it's a fast mover.

 

The sound coming from the front of the jet is easily and plainly heard, in that case, regardless of afterburners being lit, and that is why I am referring to this.

 

I'm not presumptuously wise, I'm merely correct.

 

And if you read my comment before responding thus, you would realise I said that the sound dev should have been left to do their job, because it seems fairly clear that they were not permitted to complete it as they would have, and someone else has come in and made a right mess of their good work, after the fact.

 

I think the sound engine dev did a great job, it's the configuration of it that's been all messed up.

Edited June 12, 2012 by zzzspace

[26-J39]

zzzspace, I actually agree with alot of your points but be careful with your approach, attacking the dev's is in no ones best interests, especially not yours if you want to be taken seriously.

[Jinja]

zzzspace, I actually agree with alot of your points but be careful with your approach, attacking the dev's is in no ones best interests, especially not yours if you want to be taken seriously.

 

+10

[159th_Viper]

 

I'm not presumptuously wise, I'm merely correct.

 

In that case a friendly bit of advice would be for you to reconsider the tone of your posts prior to hitting the reply tab. Whilst I am sure it is not your intention, your previous offerings, or parts thereof, can be interpreted as being Condascending and Rude and shall for obvious reasons not be tolerated on these boards. Respectfulness, courteousness and civility towards fellow posters and members cost nothing and is the least we expect, especially when addressing issues of contention. It would be appreciated if you would kindly bear the above in mind.

 

Ta

[BlueRidgeDx]

Maybe some day you'll realize that it's as much about the way you present your argument as it is about your argument itself.

 

Until then, I can't be bothered to research or document your perceived issue.

[macedk]

In that case a friendly bit of advice would be for you to reconsider the tone of your posts prior to hitting the reply tab. Whilst I am sure it is not your intention, your previous offerings, or parts thereof, can be interpreted as being Condascending and Rude and shall for obvious reasons not be tolerated on these boards. Respectfulness, courteousness and civility towards fellow posters and members cost nothing and is the least we expect, especially when addressing issues of contention. It would be appreciated if you would kindly bear the above in mind.

 

Ta

Agree 100%

[RustyNuts]

Well you clearly have a deep passion for this topic and this aspect of DCS flight sims and I appreciate your clarification of where you are coming from.

 

Sure, sound quality can always be improved in every sim out there and yes, you have valid points but please don't make the assumption that other users don't know what a real jet sounds like or that devs are being held back from their work by the marketing department.

 

There are more positive ways of providing customer feedback and suggesting improvements and your technical detail is great but the finger pointing and commentary isn't.

[zzzspace]

zzzspace, I actually agree with alot of your points but be careful with your approach, attacking the dev's is in no ones best interests, especially not yours if you want to be taken seriously.

 

 

Ok, you agree, you're more astute and less bamboozled by the pro-camp cheersquad BS than most, apparently.

 

But seriously, show me where your thesis is born-out by evidence that I "attacked a dev" somewhere above.

 

sheesh!

 

Your apology has been pre-accepted.

[159th_Viper]

You'd do well to heed my warning. I'll close this thread now with the comment that your OP has been noted.