03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[SkateZilla]

Interesting to read all the reactions to ED announcing basically that they will drop the FC brand for their midrange aircraft, after the armlong list of rants about having to install the original LOMAC. :huh:

 

i dont get it either, isnt this what alot of people wanted? :joystick:

[NineLine]

i dont get it either, isnt this what alot of people wanted? :joystick:

 

Alot of people want alot of things, and alot of those things are different from what alot of other people want, alot of the times :)

[159th_Viper]

Well I can argue both ways regarding AFM...

 

Your argument neglects to factor in the gains the FC3 owner has over the stand-alone module owner in regards to content, ie if you want to port the AFM over to FC3 then you'd better be prepared to port all the FC3 content minus the relevant flyable to the standalone module. Nonsensical, eh?

 

It's simple: Want it, pay for it.....Nothing's for free.

[SkateZilla]

Your argument neglects to factor in the gains the FC3 owner has over the stand-alone module owner in regards to content, ie if you want to port the AFM over to FC3 then you'd better be prepared to port all the FC3 content minus the relevant flyable to the standalone module. Nonsensical, eh?

 

It's simple: Want it, pay for it.....Nothing's for free.

 

ok I must be more tired than I thought, I'm having a hard time understanding that, a lil.

 

i understand that last line, it's simple, and clear.

 

the rest of it, above it... well, my brain aint working right now....

Edited May 8, 2013 by SkateZilla
spell check

[Lucas_From_Hell]

It's simple: Want it, pay for it.....Nothing's for free.

 

...besides AMRAAMs on your tail. People give those away sooooo easily... :music_whistling:

[NineLine]

Your argument neglects to factor in the gains the FC3 owner has over the stand-alone module owner in regards to content, ie if you want to port the AFM over to FC3 then you'd better be prepared to port all the FC3 content minus the relevant flyable to the standalone module. Nonsensical, eh?

 

It's simple: Want it, pay for it.....Nothing's for free.

 

I would like to see an "upgrade" option for FC3 owners if the standalone are using models and such from the FC3 aircraft... but I wouldnt expect AFM is something to be given away for sure...

[SkateZilla]

I'll purchase F-15C for DCSW, so I'll be getting AFM regardless.

[chromium]

Why would we expect something for free?

 

+1.

 

And we already get many features for free: slimply think about DCS World improvement over time, scripting engine...

[Sanch0]

Matt can you say something about F-16 module? Perhaps there is nothing to say but I'm curious about this module. It's very popular aircraft but from what i know ED is not interested in developing F-16 nor any third party developer.

[Wags]

Matt can you say something about F-16 module? Perhaps there is nothing to say but I'm curious about this module. It's very popular aircraft but from what i know ED is not interested in developing F-16 nor any third party developer.

 

There is nothing to say about the F-16 at this time.

 

Matt

[HiJack]

That’s a great update Matt. What wonders me is that it seems nothing can be reused from other aircrafts to shorten the production of new models, is it so? Do all the switches and buttons really not be reused? And the flight model also, is there no way to start out using an already made flight model to design a new one?

[ericoh]

Does the code of the AFM follow real world physics? i.e. can you input certain values that are based on real world numbers/physics? or is it entirely game based and you try to make it so it "feel" like the real deal? Curious.

 

On a side note, i do not know about the other people, i am very excitet for everything that comes next from ED. :D It certainly does not help if people go crazy, bring on constructive critics.

Edited May 8, 2013 by ericoh

[SkateZilla]

you should edit out your physical condition, it's not needed.

[NineLine]

All that is assuming that all your data comes to you in the exact same way as the previous aircraft, and you have the same amount of data and information. Of course before the data comes in I bet there is a lot of work to acquire the needed data... so its not as easy as punching it into a template I am sure... and with something like the F-18, is there aerodynamic model even the toughest part? I think recreating all those systems and making them all work like they do in RL... yeah... hurts my brain thinking about it :)

 

 

Typically you can use similar architectures. For example one could develop an "Aerodynamics API" that could be object oriented to add aerodynamic components to the aircraft and all you'd have to do down the road is either compile some lookup table data / run CFD or something and boom for the next plane all you'd have to do was properly define the aero components and get your unique aircraft aero data and you already have all the function calls to pull the coefficients, do the force/moment calcs and transformations etc that would be common for all aero models.

 

With this though requires significant early development to get the common models in place and significant foresight to get a proper API going, but once that is done you can start pumping out aero models fairly quickly. The same goes for rotor systems, transmission models, engine models, weight and balance models, etc...

 

I'd be shocked if ED wasn't doing something like that, but I would have hoped that we would have seen another fast mover by now since the A-10C if those common object models were implemented. Of course I can not speaking for ED, but it is what I've seen done...

[sobek]

compile some lookup table data

 

AFAIK EDs models are not LUT based, they cannot be parametrized in the way you think they can.

[ericoh]

you should edit out your physical condition, it's not needed.

 

 

Why so phobic?

[Wags]

That’s a great update Matt. What wonders me is that it seems nothing can be reused from other aircrafts to shorten the production of new models, is it so? Do all the switches and buttons really not be reused? And the flight model also, is there no way to start out using an already made flight model to design a new one?

 

That would be something for our engineers to answer, not me.

[GGTharos]

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).

 

For the F-15, it's a hydraulically operated schedule, so you're not actually disconnected from the control surfaces, unlike an electronic FBW.

 

Same with the flanker; but they may operate different things, and operate them differently.

 

Same with electrical and avionics - modern avionics with multiple operating modes especially may be significantly different from each other and require to have different logic behind them in-game, thus they have to be programmed essentially from scratch in certain context (so between planes, cockpits are different. Sure, there's underlying code for operating switches and buttons, but the logic behind what they do ... well :) )

[SkateZilla]

Why so phobic?

 

im not, just saying, you coulda just said you are excited..

[ericoh]

im not, just saying, you coulda just said you are excited..

 

Fine, changed it.

[sobek]

Does the code of the AFM follow real world physics?

 

The validation of the flight model is, up to a point, done by comparing in sim to RL polar charts.

 

Fine, changed it.

 

Appreciated, we aim to keep this forum rated for all audiences.

Edited May 8, 2013 by sobek

[NineLine]

Fine, changed it.

 

 

But the mental image is now in his head, he will never get it out every time he sees you post something, he will think of that :P

[ericoh]

But the mental image is now in his head, he will never get it out every time he sees you post something, he will think of that :P

 

 

Haha, oww man, i did not intent to leave permanent damage with my posts. lol

[upupandaway]

Lol.

im not, just saying, you coulda just said you are excited..

I definitely am as excited as I was before discovering this neverending, fast growing discussion.

Hornet ftw

[NineLine]

with my posts.

 

No pun intended right? :P