03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[ericoh]

No pun intended right? :P

 

 

Oh god, i had to think for a while for that one.... :lol:

 

P.S.: Thanks sobek for the little insight!

Edited May 8, 2013 by ericoh

[sobek]

To add to their their initial provided example (Wunderluft) uses a very rudimentary LUT for the few coefficients it has

 

Wunderluft is SFM, isn't it? I should have added that i was talking about AFM.

 

Any sources on that? In the industry it is the predominant way to perform real-time aerodynamics for gaming/training simulations.

 

I'm not aware of a dataset for either the Ka-50 or the A-10C to achieve the level of realism that the flightmodels display. Also i remember a comment by Yo-Yo, let me see if i can find it.

Edited May 8, 2013 by sobek

[ericoh]

Any sources on that? In the industry it is the predominant way to perform real-time aerodynamics for gaming/training simulations.

 

To add to their their initial provided example (Wunderluft) uses a very rudimentary LUT for the few coefficients it has

 

 

I am interested in the Wunderluft flightmodel, how far can you get with these few coefficients? Would that be a FC3 level?

[SkateZilla]

I am interested in the Wunderluft flightmodel, how far can you get with these few coefficients? Would that be a FC3 level?

 

That would be a VERY RAW and incomplete FM.

[Snoopy]

It's really not so simple to do AFM. You can have some semblance of API, but typically the various systems only operate in a similar, but not the same way. For example, the F-15 has a fly-by-wire system while the A-10C has a much more primitive version of the same (The F-15's is primitive by what is in an F-16 as well).

 

GG...the F-15C thru E models are not fly by wire my friend. Both the A-10 and the F-15 c thru E are pure cable/pulley with hydraulic actuator flight control systems. Only recently did a true "fly-by-wire" F-15 fly and it's an F-15S (for Saudi).

 

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339926

Edited May 8, 2013 by Snoopy

[Ells228]

Thanks for the latest update and clarification Wags.

[sobek]

Well the datasets would not be transparent to you.

 

What i'm trying to say is, i don't think that ED have wind tunnel data for these airframes. I didn't try to look for LUTs in the files.

[arteedecco]

I'm so disappointed by these news. I know there are many people that have bought everything ED puts out just for the sake of support, or with the case of FC3, because they just wanted something to fiddle with while we wait for DCS-quality products. This has to end!

 

ED is just another company like any other. Even though they are dedicated and are passionate about what they do, they still must adhere to sales figures.

 

Every time you buy a product, you are in fact voting. But if you don't buy a product, you are also voting!

 

I hope that everyone in the future will consider this before buying a ED or 3rd party module. I know many would buy DSC Lite:F-15C just to play around with while they wait for

DCS:F-15, but with the current instability of ED's direction, I would urge everybody to ask themselves: Is this something I really want?

 

After being acquainted with Black shark and the warthog, I for one know I can't go back or down or anything that compromises the fidelity that we have with these products. The alternative for me is to give up simming all together, as there are no competitors out there where I can offer my vote.

 

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy here, and I know it was said DCS-quality was still being worked on, but it's starting to feel like every time DCS: fast mover is the only thing left on the list of things to come, something new and slightly distracting pops up. First CA, then P-51, then FC3 and now this DCS lite stuff. And I fear this will continue because people keep "voting" for these.

 

So if you are like me, and can only continue your simming career with A-10C-level fidelity, please consider holding back your money until a module of said quality is available. This is because we must vote with our money, and we also vote by not buying!

 

Sorry to seem so gloomy, but I can't help it, since I am... :(

+1 Agreed. I am one of those who dropped $$ on FC3 because I wanted to fly something fast and do A2A. The temptation was too great.

 

Bought the P-51D as well... which doesn't make any sense either being that until now there was nothing for it to fight really. I wish ED would have stuck with one genre for a bit and done it wholly before going WWII... mainly just because I am selfish and wish they would put their resources towards other things.

 

Now.. the ray of light here is that 3rd parties can develop modules to DCS level to their heart's content! So I remain hopeful that we will get the AV-8B and Mig-21Bis someday in the near'ish future (2013, at least for the Mig-21).

 

But yeah.. I was discouraged by the news from @Wags. Not the direction I was hoping to hear. I get it though... making a DCS level model for each release is an insane workload. Most SIMs that accurately (to the nth degree like DCS) simulate an aircraft... only ever do one aircraft!

 

DCS World should remain a platform that is developed to make mission building easier / better, make 3rd party dev of realistic aircraft easier / better, etc. Every year they should release a DCS gold standard aircraft module, but IMO... they should knock it off w/ the "lite" and "FC" titles... they are just a distraction and there are other ways to make money that would vector development more in the hardcore sim direction.

 

I know this will be unpopular, but I would even propose a monthly subscription for extra services / standards. Everyone knows that consistent cashflow is critical and would take the edge off the feast / famine model of big releases.

 

IMHO

Edited May 8, 2013 by arteedecco

[KaspeR32]

You won't find LUTs in the files, at least not the public ones, they would be within the compiled flight model DLLs, but I would be shocked for the F-15C for example if they didn't use already readily available aero data from a source such at this:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a288610.pdf

 

There are other sources available but the NASA tech reports server is down :(

 

Plus you don't necessarily have to be Wind Tunnel or CFD aero data, you might end up using it for nominal airfoil tables calculated from something like JavaFoil/XFoil or something, in any event, I can't guarantee that LUTs are used by ED, but I would be really shocked if they did not use them in some fashion.

 

I like this guy, he knows his stuff. Please get a team together and make us a 3rd party hi-fi fast mover? :thumbup:

[joey45]

I like this guy, he knows his stuff. Please get a team together and make us a 3rd party hi-fi fast mover? :thumbup:

 

*cought*F-100D*cough*TeamVRC*cough*

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think CptSmiley and TeamVCR has released all this flight model knowledge in an open source format for all other third parties :) Those are working on DCS fast mover, our machs and Gs are in good hands :D

[Bandit.]

I dont know who is wrong and who is right. however I understood wag's latest comment a bit different.

 

from what I understood they are basically offering us an f15c and su27 that are similar to the fc3 ones with the addition AFM for both.

 

these will be sold independently from fc3. this two modules would be available shortly and wont compromise development of other projects.

 

the funding gained from the sale of this product will help finance the projects that are being worked on.

 

so far so good for me.

my doubt remains in what those other projects are. would we be buying these mid range quality planes to help finance the further development of these same modules??

 

in simpler words, I want a full dcs quality flanker. if you offer me now a mid quality one while we wait for the full dcs one I will gladly buy it. however, I would still fully expect the an a10c quality su27 product further down the line.

 

I would think of it as a prequel. i get a teaser of the su27 while the real deal is being worked on and I would be helping by funding its development.

If this is the plan you can count me in.

[dwpenney]

Matt:

 

You have my support for the DCS and DCSW products. I appreciate the hard work.

[fedor]

How many time i must buy the F15C?...LOMAC,FC2,FC3...and now F15C for DCS. This is very funny.

Edited May 8, 2013 by fedor

[ericoh]

This is my last post in this thread since we've strayed so far off topic...That F-16 code is very very ugly since it was a quick and dirty way of learning the ropes of how DCS is layed out so there are a 1000 things I'm doing differently going forward, but yeah it does give an idea of how it could be done. I'm not very proud of it and it leans heavily on readily available data but since no one else had any working example (except Wunderluft) I'd figure I'd just give it out in hopes that someone else could build upon the stumbling blocks that VRC has run into so far.

 

And to clarify, we haven't obtained 3rd party status :( but I believe it to be in the works but I'm just a code monkey!

 

PS...The F-100 is very fun to fly and looks great thanks to the hard work of the other members.

 

 

OH, you made the F-16? I didnt realize, great job, dont call it dirty. Others will never go that far :D

[NoJoe]

How many time i must buy the F15C?...LOMAC,FC2,FC3...and now F15C for DCS. This is very funny.

 

Well, none. :P Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.

 

--NoJoe

[fedor]

Well, none. :P Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.

 

--NoJoe

 

Yes i know but you understand me.

[NoJoe]

Yes i know but you understand me.

 

I do, I get what you mean. Just poking fun. :)

 

--NoJoe

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well now they're implementing those modules directly into World so you won't have to pay for them - problem solved, buy it only once and it's all yours. I've bought Flanker 2.5, Lock On, Flaming Cliffs and Flaming Cliffs 2 shortly after, but I bought the upgrades because ED made them worth it :)

 

For an analogy of this thread in general, think if USAF asked Fairchild Republic to give them the Precision Engament A-10 upgrade for free because it is unfair that they'd have to pay for a feature which is now a basic modern combat requirement and they've paid for all A-10 upgrades and modifications Fairchild produced - weird isn't it? :P

[TZeer]

Why should I buy win 7, my win 95 works just fine!

 

Why can't I just get the upgrade for free. I already payed for the first version!

 

RABBLE RABBLE

 

Why should I have to pay for my new OS when I already payed for the earlier version?

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

:D

Edited May 9, 2013 by TZeer

[nick10]

Sounds like any new aircraft is a loooong way off.

 

And no mention of new terrain sadly. The current map is really showing its age.

[leafer]

This thread is exactly why, for years, they never feed us news until release is imminent. I do love nuclear winter though. All those years of emptiness. Lock down is coming to town again. :D

[Raven68]

This thread is exactly why, for years, they never feed us news until release is imminent. I do love nuclear winter though. All those years of emptiness. Lock down is coming to town again. :D

 

Agreed! 2 weeks into a good thing with DCS:Fridays and now we stand a chance of losing news again. I really appreciate Matt taking time to come into this heated thread and cooling it down though.

[ericoh]

Agreed! 2 weeks into a good thing with DCS:Fridays and now we stand a chance of losing news again. I really appreciate Matt taking time to come into this heated thread and cooling it down though.

 

 

People just need to learn to read, several people including me explained 10 times what they complaint about was wrong, but nobody seemed to read it....

 

I do not think Wags will stop giving out news. Imagine you are a community manager or simillar at a game like Battlefield 3, this forum doesnt know what hate and complaints are :D

 

Loving the weekly information updates, it makes a huge difference in my oppinion!

[leafer]

I did notice your futile attempt to set right from wrong, but we know negativity is more delicious.