Those FDM details UNIQUE to DCS World!!!

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

It was just recently that I noticed yet another detail in DCS's FDM that is simply astonishing. Actually, any flightsim worth that designation should model this, but even those advertised as "ultra realistic" fall short of it...

 

Set a strong wind from 12 o'clock, on the rw, stopped, and move your trims, for instance your aileron trim. You will see your column moving according to what you set. Is this because the sim poorly simulates triming a control surface by moving the corresponding control (yes this sometimes happens in RL, but that's not the case with a p51d...)?

 

Now, set the same situation but with no wind, or very faint wind, and observe that while you can use full aileron trim your control remains still!

 

Why? Exactly, because in DCS the trim tabs actually apply a force on the control surfaces when there is wind flowing over them!

 

Well, like this one, there are a myriad of little details that make this sim UNIQUE!

Edited March 13, 2013 by jcomm

[Smokin Hole]

Why would this not happen on a real Mustang? The controls are not hydraulic. Maybe your point is that the surfaces are too heavy to be moved by the tabs in any wind short of a gail. In that case you may be right. Anyway, that's a good observation.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Why would this not happen on a real Mustang? The controls are not hydraulic. Maybe your point is that the surfaces are too heavy to be moved by the tabs in any wind short of a gail. In that case you may be right. Anyway, that's a good observation.

 

No, it's exactly the opposite I am saying! This SHOULD HAPPEN in the real Mustang and many aircraft without special/hydraulic controls, like modern fighters, airliners, etc... just as it happens in DCS. And, this happens ** ONLY ** in DCS - hence the exclamation! Try to find these and other details in other flight simulators and you'll find out they do no go this far...

 

Each time I fire up DCS World to play for a while with my p51d, and try to learn something with the KA-50, I find new amazing reason to find this simulator to be so good!

Edited March 12, 2013 by jcomm

[Echo38]

DCS is the only P.C. flight simulator (and I use the term loosely to include semi-sim games like Rise of Flight) the developers of which are completely in love with the real aircraft and with flying them. All the other sim-games out there leave lots of stuff out, the "boring stuff" like the engine startup procedures. Only Eagle Dynamics goes all the way. I feel that the other development studios have a relatively shallow interest in flying--they like the glamorous parts but can't be bothered with the more procedural aspects of an aircraft's operation.

 

This was demonstrated recently when 777 Studios announced that their new sim-game would have simplified systems & engine management. They said something along the lines of, "This is an air combat simulation and not a startup procedure simulation." Kinda sad; the 777 team does a fantastic job of flight physics, but they don't seem to desire a complete simulation of the aircraft--to make it as much like operating the real aircraft as possible.

 

Other developers fall farther from the ideal. Of course, I am speaking--throughout this post--of each development studio as a whole, rather than of the individual members of each. I think that some of the R.o.F. team might wish that they could make it full-sim, like DCS, but on the whole, 777 doesn't seem to much care for that. Ah, well--they do exceptionally well what they do: making good flying games with strong simulator elements. But as a flight sim? Only half-sim.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Echo38

[msalama]

"...and not a startup procedure simulation."

 

Which is exactly why I'm going to give it a pass myself, and likewise refrain from buying any RoF stuff anymore. Because hey, as they admit themselves it is what it is...

[joey45]

Well starting a WW1 plane doesn't require alot of switch flicking does it???

[The LT]

Combat simulation, you say? How about you suffer battle damage to several systems and have to use the same "startup procedure simulation" controls to get things under control?

 

There are reasons why those systems are there in the first place, not simulating them is just unacceptable if you are aiming for a true simulation and not a "game".

[The LT]

Well starting a WW1 plane doesn't require alot of switch flicking does it???

 

It requires quite a few other tasks though. Don't think that WW1 type aircraft is simpler than a VW Beetle. They have a lot of quirks. They would also require tremendous effort to do a physics-based airframe model.

[Pman]

Well I for 1 am looking forward to 777's new game, as no one does combat like them. Yes P51 is the single best flight sim going, but its only one plane, and even when Fw190 is out its still very light on content for a combat flight simulator

[msalama]

Well starting a WW1 plane doesn't require alot of switch flicking does it???

 

No, but still more than "press E t0 w1N t3h w4r". And while some folks like it gamey - and nothing wrong with that persay - I personally do not ;)

[Echo38]

Well starting a WW1 plane doesn't require alot of switch flicking does it???

 

Way more than they have modelled. The SPAD XIII has at least three levers that need to be moved in addition to the magneto switches as well as a magneto crank and so on and so forth. They actually show all of these things moving when you start the engine, but you have no control of it. It's unrealistically automated. One keypress makes the virtual pilot do it all for you. : /

 

Their new sim-game is to be WWII--and it's going to be similarly simplified. E to start engine. Again, I have nothing against Rise of Flight or the development team--they have a great deal of talent, and they work hard to make a very good sim-game. I would consider it the most realistic thing on the P.C. with the exception of DCS. But now that I've seen DCS, I can't go back.

 

It had been bothering me, towards the end of my time with R.o.F., that the game wasn't really teaching me how to fully operate the aircraft; it was only teaching me (as much as a P.C. sim can) how to fly it* once someone else had already started it. Which isn't bad, but DCS is what I'm looking for--maximum-realism full-simulation of the aircraft's operation, from the moment I step into the cockpit. (Well, as close to full simulation as we can get on a P.C.)

 

*And even this is limited; for example, the real SPAD XIII had two fuel tanks and a selector switch, whereas the R.o.F. one only has one tank (or automatic selection, which is effectively the same thing for the purposes of the simulation). That could result in an unpleasant surprise if one found himself flying a real SPAD. ; )

Edited March 13, 2013 by Echo38

[Haukka81]

You all forget one thing, DCS graphic engine is bad and very old so it makes bit pain to use those awesome flight models when your fps wont stay better side of 60... Or my shark sinks in ghost forest or enemy picks me up even there 1km deep forest between us...

 

Rise of flight may not be so click button, click switch sim but it really shows how you make nice graphics and flight models..

 

 

-haukka81

[kk0425]

You all forget one thing, DCS graphic engine is bad and very old so it makes bit pain to use those awesome flight models when your fps wont stay better side of 60...

 

It is neither of those. I get great FPS, but this is not relevant to the topic.

 

@OP, I too try to learn something new each time I fly in the A-10C or P-51. The start up procedures are exactly what the other sims lack and really adds that level of immersion. I don't feel it's hard to swing a stick around and push the button a few times to drop a bomb, and DCS goes way beyond that, which is my favorite aspect this sim. At least to me, knowing the proper start up and shut down procedures is just as important as tank busting and shooting down other planes.

[Echo38]

You all forget one thing, DCS graphic engine is bad and very old

 

When the subject of the performance issues arises, you will hear me voice my concerns on the subject. A search of my past posts will show more than a few such occasions. However, this discussion is not about the frame rate & stability & netcode. We are discussing the simulation itself, not the software encompassing it. And the simulation itself is very close to being as accurate as is possible on a P.C., and vastly closer to that ideal than anything else that's ever been made. I suspect--although I hope that I am wrong in this--that it is as close to flying real warbirds as the flight sim world will ever see.

[KLR Rico]

Another FM detail I ran into the other day that made me smile was discovered after a Shilka took out both my ailerons, but somehow left me in an otherwise flyable state, the roll axis on my FFB stick went completely slack. Of course it's exactly what it *should* do, but most sims would miss such a detail. :thumbup:

 

FWIW, I managed to nurse the stang back to a field, but borked the landing... ;)

[WildBillKelsoe]

Only in DCS™

[Smokin Hole]

I think it's unfair to single ED out as the true appreciators of flight. The original developers of Rise of Flight obviously love flying and demonstrated that love in every detail of that sim. I fly complex planes daily. Flying to me is not the hundreds of switch and dial actions I do each flight. Flying is...well...flying.

 

Having said that, I appreciate ED's attention to detail and the intricate systems modeling that comes with the DCS standard. I've come to expect that from them. But I don't need that systems detailing in other simulations in order to personally qualify them as "simulations". In the end, for me, switches matter far less than aerodynamics and environment.

[Scarecrow]

ED are just miles ahead of the competition, nobody will catch them up. I'll take BOS no matter what level of complexity it is, I just love flight. I even played TC Hawx:smilewink:

[Echo38]

I don't need that systems detailing in other simulations in order to personally qualify them as "simulations". In the end, for me, switches matter far less than aerodynamics and environment.

 

I agree that aerodynamics is more essential to the flight sim than systems management, but for a true flight sim, both are necessary. The original purpose of a flight sim was to help teach students how to fly airplanes. (Naturally, sims cannot replace real flight training, but they can augment it.) As a training tool, then, a flight simulator should teach the user--as much as is possible with the medium--every aspect of piloting the aircraft being simulated. Only DCS does this; I think that A-10C users could start up a real A-10 (although I wouldn't recommend trying it unsupervised!). Meanwhile, R.o.F. players have no idea how to start any real Great War airplanes (or even keep the engines properly running during flight), because R.o.F. is more a game than a training tool, and does not teach much about the real aircraft's operation besides stick, rudder, & throttle. Which doesn't make R.o.F. bad--it's a fine game, and I enjoyed it greatly during my time with it. But I'm looking for the most realistic simulation of piloting a warbird that one can get on a P.C., and only DCS offers that.

 

My meter of a flight sim is this: if an experienced sim-pilot could hop into the real airplane without any prior training other than the flight sim, and start it, taxi, take off, and land reasonably well without your instructor assisting more than a tiny bit, then the simulator has done its job. If, on the other hand, he hops into the real airplane and can't figure out how to get it started, and can't figure out how to keep his engine running properly after someone else starts it for him, then there's something wrong with the simulator. A game like that can be considered a flight sim, but, by that reasoning, a person who can fly a real airplane only when someone else starts the engine for him is a pilot.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Echo38

[msalama]

without your instructor assisting more than a tiny bit

 

Careful m8 ;) You just opened an old can of worms, viz. whether it's really possible for an armchair pilot to land a plane IRL they know virtually. Many, many an Internet war has been fought over this already...

 

But what says Smokin' Hole (a.k.a. Eric if memory serves)? Aren't you a RL airliner skipper, so what's your take on this?

[Exorcet]

I also put flight modeling ahead of systems, but I will say that the systems are a big part of the reason why DCS is so good.

 

I can understand why less detailed sims might exist along side high detail sims, I'd love a F-22 sim, but there is no way it will be A-10 level, so I could accept something along the lines of FC3 with AFM. However 777's mindset that a flight sim can't include start up is disturbing. It is very much the wrong way to look at things. You only need to look at DCS to see why: you can start everything yourself, or you can press a button. The choice is yours. 777 won't let you choose.

[msalama]

777 won't let you choose.

 

+1111 and a 1/2

[Smokin Hole]

Ok here is why. For this to work realistically in Rise of Flight (we want real, right?) a mechanic would need to come over, help you into the pit, tell you that the engine is warm and all is in working order. He would then run the prop through after you have ensured that the mags are off. You would then call switch on and he would prop you and quickly get out of the way. At your call the guys holding the tips would let go and you would be off. This would require an ARMA level of personnel modeling and animation. In other words, starting a WWI airplane is something someone ELSE does for you. You just manage mags and mixture. The whole thing is as easy as starting your granddad's old International Harvester truck. But to model it would be a b**ch. I don't need a developer to go through all that to prove his love of flying.

[msalama]

Fair enough mate, good points all.

[Smokin Hole]

Well now I just feel like I was being pushy. Let's just say I love them both and both philosophies work for me. Sorry for coping such a sanctimonious attitude over something so meaningless. Salute!