stall buffet sound

[lawinge]

love the stall buffet but can't here any vibration in the p51. would be a great warning when dogfighting. with sound could fly closer to stall on turns or slow flight.

[Echo38]

What do you mean by vibration?

[Ali Fish]

love the stall buffet but can't here any vibration in the p51. would be a great warning when dogfighting. with sound could fly closer to stall on turns or slow flight.

 

:thumbup: a mix of sound and visual would be nice.

[Echo38]

How about they make it sound & look like the real P-51, instead of what sounds & looks good to you? : /

 

Forgive me if I assume wrongly, but it looks here like you guys are asking the developers to arbitrarily add an effect, regardless of whether or not it occurs in the real P-51. For a flying game, that can be okay, but for a simulator, that's unarguably bad.

 

Given that they have access to a real P-51, I would trust the developers to make it as much like the real thing as possible, rather than trying to tell them how to make it when I've never flown the thing myself. I mean, if there were evidence that they're doing something wrong, then by all means present it, but in the absence of this, I feel that we should let them do their job.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Echo38

[Razor5-1]

All aircraft creek and groan to some degree when they stall. So they are correct. I'v never experienced a silent stall... remember the A-10 did not have stall buffet implemented until recently, did not mean it didn't have it in real life

[Ali Fish]

in the absence of being unable to "Feel" somthing, it is necessary to balance other senses to simulate the situation and outcome and provide the feedback one would recieve out with being able to make the user feel the situation at hand.

 

without force feedback we need other sense to play that part. (i dont use forcefeedback) but i did fly cliffs of dover and enjoyed hearing what i should have been feeling. because it would help me understand the limits of the plane without feeling those limits.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ali Fish

[26-J39]

in the absence of being unable to "Feel" somthing, it is necessary to balance other senses to simulate the situation and outcome and provide the feedback one would recieve out with being able to make the user feel the situation at hand.

 

without force feedback we need other sense to play that part. (i dont use forcefeedback) but i did fly cliffs of dover and enjoyed hearing what i should have been feeling. because it would help me understand the limits of the plane without feeling those limits.

 

+1

[Arrowhead]

in the absence of being unable to "Feel" somthing, it is necessary to balance other senses to simulate the situation and outcome and provide the feedback one would recieve out with being able to make the user feel the situation at hand.

 

without force feedback we need other sense to play that part. (i dont use forcefeedback) but i did fly cliffs of dover and enjoyed hearing what i should have been feeling. because it would help me understand the limits of the plane without feeling those limits.

 

Yup, it's called hyper-realism, and is essential for desktop sims IMHO.

[PeterP]

No - please do it with a mod or whatever , but please let my version untouched .

I'm not interested in any kind of additional "Hyper" - my FFB stick is hyper enough.

[cichlidfan]

I would be inclined to agree with PeterP. I understand the point but for those using FFB I think it would make everything seem overdone. Of course, if it was included as an option (You know how much devs like to make things optional ;)) that could be turned off then everyone would be happy.

[Blaze]

Something akin to Accu-Sim's airframe stress, creaks and bump sounds when you're stressing the aircraft or flying right at its limits. :)

[Razor5-1]

I don't think it's a bad thing, that's too realistic for FFB. I'd call it immersion!!

Surely the more realistic the better? We are simmers after all :smilewink:

[Ali Fish]

i agree no FFB changes. but thats excatly the point, the convo shouldnt have got round to changing FFB, naughty peterp lol. ! its about everything we can add to aid the feeling without the touchy feely.

 

lol no simulation smells please. actually someone told me a story of someone who i think made a submarine simulator and yes, hes used diesel to aid one of the common missing senses.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ali Fish

[JimMack]

:thumbup: a mix of sound and visual would be nice.

 

Wait for the final code of DCS:P51D. You will get visual cues, but no sound. The engine drowns out any sound that could be heard.

[PeterP]

Wait for the final code of DCS:P51D. You will get visual cues, but no sound. The engine drowns out any sound that could be heard.

 

Thanks Jim-

and btw: when you can hear a "creek and groan" it will be already too late...:)

 

 

 

Ali,

you should look at this (2:40 !!!)

 

 

 

 

 

lol no simulation smells please. actually someone told me a story of someone who i think made a submarine simulator and yes, hes used diesel to aid one of the common missing senses.

[Ali Fish]

Wait for the final code of DCS:P51D. You will get visual cues, but no sound. The engine drowns out any sound that could be heard.

 

well thats me told. which i kinda feared anyway. but still. nowt wrong with discussing hyper realism as some have coined the phrase. i think it would be yet more immersive considering we can change cockpit volumes.

Thanks Jim-

and btw: when you can hear a "creek and groan" it will be already too late...:)

 

Ali,

you should look at this (2:40 !!!)

 

 

surely not. he should just get a real jet. actually he should get a real sim while hes at it:megalol: i also get the feeling his wife doesnt approve of his hobby. & what a great den for smoking !

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ali Fish

[WildBillKelsoe]

you should look at this (2:40 !!!)

 

 

Sorry, but I can't... Just can't... :thumbup:

[Echo38]

I don't think it's a bad thing, that's too realistic for FFB. I'd call it immersion!!

Surely the more realistic the better? We are simmers after all

 

The point is that it's less realistic to have a sound or visual effect that the real P-51 doesn't, not more realistic. Far from "hyper-realistic," it would be actually "less-than-realistic." A situation in which the virtual P-51 has X and the real P-51 does not have X is, by definition, unrealistic. Deliberately portraying something incorrectly is not a good way to go in a simulator. Making one thing unrealistic to try to make up for another thing being unrealistic does not equate to more realism--two wrongs don't make a right, y'know.

 

So, I maintain that if the real P-51 makes any particular sound while stalling, then our virtual one should as well, and if the real P-51 does not make any particular sound when stalling, then ours should not either. That is how a simulator is--even if it ends up being harder in some areas than the real thing, by nature of the limitations of the hardware. Any P.C. flight sim will be harder than flying the real plane in certain areas, by necessity. (For example, the P.C. monitor's unrealistic limitations on simultaneous high-FoV and high-zoom, and image resolution & color count, and stereoscopic vision, and so on and so forth.)

 

And, sure, I'm in favor of adding an option for a screen shake and/or arbitrary sound, or whatever, for those who want a less-than-realistic aid to compensate for the unrealistic lack of physical feedback, but don't force it on those of us who would rather have as accurate a sim as can be done with the constaints of P.C. hardware. It's like padlock. I don't use it myself (not anymore, that is--used it while learning, years ago), but I don't have any problem with it being in the sim--in fact, I think any sim must have it, because using the hat switch to control your virtual head is much harder than turning & moving your head in a real airplane. But forcing everyone to use padlock would be an appalling solution and a reduction in the fidelity of the sim.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Echo38

[whatever]

Its also less realistic to only see a 80° x 40° (ish) view out of your eyes and to be flying at 10000 feet in your basement :-)

 

There is always a balance to be struck between what you would experience in real plane and what you are capable of experiencing in your basement sitting in front of a PC.

 

Personally I want the option of "less than real" cue IF it provides information that would be available in the actual plane, but isn't clear in the sim.

 

Visual cues are useful up to a point, but no use at all when you are looking in a direction where you can only see the sky and your view is shaking anyway (because of frame rate or freetrack/track-ir weirdness) and you have no reference for the "buffeting" effect.

 

Using sound as a subtle substitute for vibration seems to be a completely fair compromise in this case (optional or not).

 

PS What I REALLY want is a simple cheap device (about the size of a mouse) that can reproduce a limited amount of force feedback wobble, and be zip tied to my chair or joystick mount.

[Razor5-1]

You can get the buttkicker for the vibration of your chair

[Ali Fish]

You can get the buttkicker for the vibration of your chair

 

indeed but we dont have the sound to produce the function we want do we.

 

also by Jim stating the engine noise over powers any other noises, indicates that the noises we may seek for buffeting etc are there. we just cant hear them.

 

so.... the noises are there. Fact. or you want to argue otherwise ? and if it was the case then my p51`s wings should not fall off when exerting to much strain on them !

 

choosing not to hear a facet of the simulation whilst sitting in an armchair is beyond me.

 

i dont mind reasons that are generated from inabilities. "i.e you can not capture these sounds because the engines are too noisy."

 

they are there and they Should be part of the simulation. and thats the last word i can say on it without getting a bit angry at closed minded thinking around here.

 

So, I maintain that if the real P-51 makes any particular sound while stalling, then our virtual one should as well, and if the real P-51 does not make any particular sound when stalling, then ours should not either.

 

your understanding leads you to suggest the p51 has no buffeting sounds which is incorrect and far from the truth or fact.

 

question ! having lost power in my bird at 5000 metres, and gliding down to land am i only going to hear some wind, cant i hear the creaks and groans of the plane when iam flying on the verge of stalling attempting to clear as much distance as possible to get back home. or are we only simulating a flightsim with the engines running ?

 

and in what sim would i enjoy this extra immersive experience more ? open your minds folks and developers. and get them sounds in this sim please. i just want your simulation software to be the best of the best. Thats all. in this area it is not the best from immersions point of view (not mine)

 

how did wind get added when you couldnt possibly hear that over the engine sounds ? what about button clicks in the cockpit ? these examples should say, "yeah why not add buffetting sounds".

 

logic led me down this rant. and BTW, the first 3rd party glider addon (if it were presently feesable) you just deemed implausable. so theres your first restriction on this flightsim. im just trying to highlight that not just with the mustang but with all aircraft, there are an infinite numbers of reasons why you should be giving aircraft these internal sound effects.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Ali Fish

[cichlidfan]

you should look at this (2:40 !!!)

 

Maybe it's just me but how can that thing be sound proof with an open sun-roof in the ceiling. :music_whistling:

[JimMack]

Regarding P51 wing failures see http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/p-51-problems-16995.html

 

I have seen a report from an air accident 2ndWW Australian report (sorry - lost the link) where a P51 pilot was exploring how much G he could pull. The wings came off! Thereafter, pilots were told to keep to published limits! You will find them in the manual in the DOC folder. though you have to work out the limits for yourself, depending on GW.

[Echo38]

Its also less realistic to only see a 80° x 40° (ish) view out of your eyes and to be flying at 10000 feet in your basement There is always a balance to be struck between what you would experience in real plane and what you are capable of experiencing in your basement sitting in front of a PC.

Personally I want the option of "less than real" cue IF it provides information that would be available in the actual plane, but isn't clear in the sim.

 

You're rephrasing what I said and agreeing with me (except for the fact that you would use the "less-than-real" option, whereas I would leave it turned off, because I'd choose in this case "harder than reality," given that "exactly like reality" isn't an option, due to the P.C. monitor). You haven't said anything which disagrees with anything I've said, although you seem to have the tone of disagreement, which I find confusing. ; )

 

your understanding leads you to suggest the p51 has no buffeting sounds

 

Ah, here's the rub--I have made no such suggestion. You're assuming that I've made it, but if you review what I've written, I haven't said (nor've I implied) anything of the sort. I have no idea what the real P-51 sounds & looks like internally while stalling, because I've never stalled a real P-51 (and have only seen one stalling externally on video). The only real aircraft that I've stalled (in the real world) had no sound or sensation which I could describe as vibration, but, of course, that doesn't mean that other aircraft (or even the one I flew, under different conditions) can't have such an effect.

 

My objection is that the O.P. wasn't saying, "Hey, let's make the sim P-51 have the sounds that the real one does while stalling," but rather, essentially, "Hey, let's arbitrarily add a sound." This is my objection--I don't know what the P-51 should sound like, and likely you don't, either, but that's also irrelevant--this fellow, going by his post, wants a sound regardless of whether or not it's in the real P-51. Nowhere in his post did he even claim that the real P-51 has this extra vibration, but simply said he wanted the sim P-51 to have it.

 

So, once more, I do not pretend to know if there's a buffeting or "vibration" sound (which he asked for, specifically additional to the extant buffeting--and whatever he means by "vibration," I don't know, since he didn't clarify when I asked) in the real P-51 while stalling under various conditions, but rather, I merely object to someone asking to add a sound without knowing or caring whether or not the real P-51 has it.

 

Of course, as I stated before, I have no problem with arbitrary & unrealistic sounds/visuals being present as a difficulty aid option, which I can leave off but others who prefer "less-than-realistic" to "harder-than-realistic" (a reasonable preference, though not my own) can turn on. So, again, for clarity: with the exception of an optional difficulty aid, the only good solution for a realistic simulator is for it to look and sound exactly like the real aircraft--whatever that may be. Happily, Eagle Dynamics seems to be in agreement with me on this, going by what I've seen so far. (A rare and wondrous occurrence, for a sim developer to go for absolute max realism instead of the lesser demands of the market!)

 

choosing not to hear a facet of the simulation whilst sitting in an armchair is beyond me.

 

It's about realism and immersion. If a particular sound wouldn't be heard if sitting in a real P-51 (as you yourself have suggested), then I don't want to hear it in my armchair P-51. I want my experience to be as close as possible to flying a real P-51. It's that simple, and that complicated--no more, no less. The only--and I mean only--reasons that I'm not out all day, every day, flying a real WWII fighter are a medical inability and a dearth of funds.

 

Since the limitations of a monitor (as pretty much everyone in this thread, myself included, has already pointed out) and other P.C. hardware are such that, in some cases, things in the sim will be more difficult than reality if less-than-realistic aids are not turned on, some people might reasonably prefer to use these aids to make the difficulty level more like the real deal. However, I myself (and there is no sense of superiority in this preference) prefer to accept the unfortunate harder-than-reality element, in order to maintain as "pure" as possible of a simulation.

 

So, for example, although it is far easier to move & turn one's real head in a real airplane to keep track of targets, than it is to struggle with the keyboard controls to move the virtual head, I would still prefer to refrain from using padlock, and instead I choose the much harder-than-reality option of clumsily, frustratingly controlling my v-head with the keyboard WASD keys (TrackIR is not an option for me, and, even if it were, it's also harder-than-real because of the ratio curve). I do not, however, scorn those who use padlock, and I even allow it on my otherwise-max-difficulty multiplayer server. (Although I might be disallowing it in the future, after I review it and determine how great the advantages are over those who do not use it.)

 

So, one more time, and hopefully the last: I am totally cool with there being an aid in the difficulty options which adds sounds and/or visuals which are not present (and/or not audible) on the real P-51, to give those who choose to use this aid a method to gain the information which one could get by feel (and/or other methods by which one could gain such information in the real P-51 but not in a P.C. sim), as long as I can turn this option off and instead have my sim look & sound & perform exactly like the real P-51 (as close as can be gotten on P.C.). Everyone cool with that?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Echo38

[whatever]

Echo38, you seem to be happy with optional sounds for buffeting/stall warning so I don't disagree with you on that at all :)

 

I disagree in that I'd prefer them to include some well thought out "less real" effects to replace effects we can't actually experience in a simulation.

 

(with the emphasis on "well thought out"; for example I would consider implementing an a10 style "beep beep" stall warning in P-51 a travesty, but including a buffeting sound warning (in the absence of force feedback) a fair compromise.)

 

To the person who mentioned a buttkicker, I think that it only uses sounds, not FFB signals (correct me if I'm wrong?). Something like a buttkicker that used ffb signals would fulfil my requirements (especially if it cost less than £50 and was available in the UK :).