Ed June 2013 newsletter

[Raven68]

Everyone should just buy the Individuals, so they can put FC and Ubi-Strictions out to Pasture.

 

My thinking also Skates. I already have FC3 and to be honest I dont mind purchasing the extra modules for 1) I want ED to be able to profit and keep going forward with development of other modules. 2) To free myself of the installation of the original lock on CD to re-install FC3 aircraft. 3) To have an extra license for another PC for guest that come over to join me and to promote the series. That's just my way of thinking about it.

[howie87]

I think they should throw in the AFM's for free, for the sake of bettering DCS and lessening fragmentation between the same aircraft.

 

They're planning on releasing a high fidelity DCS F-15 and SU27 anyway eventually, so they'll reap the real rewards there.

 

The way I see it, they're trying to sell an unfinished product in stages right now.

 

Each stage is slightly better than the last but you have to buy the whole thing all over again.

 

If this is the way things are going, I'll wait for the finished version before I cough up again.

[npole]

It isn't that big a deal. SFM aircraft perform very similar to AFM aircraft throughout most of the envelope

 

I do not agree.. but even if I agree, you're telling anyone here then that basically they are wasting their time, because the plane will be very similar to what we have now? To not count the fact that those $19 are paied for what? Cmon'...

 

The reality is that all this thing has been arranged in a amateur way. They should gives those modules to the FC3 owner for free and they should REMOVE the old models from the game.. (they should forget about FC3 and the whole thing) or better: they should forget about this AFM thing and dedicate to the proper "DCS level" aircraft (F18?) and leave this FC3 thing "as is".

 

I already imagine the mission developers being forced to add two types of the same plane because you don't know which plane someone is going to use.. (!) .. this is ridiculous honestly.

[_Dredd]

I'm very sorry but this is just factually false and probably meant for a separate thread discussion...the control laws are the MOST important part of fighter aircraft. The control laws for an SFM are generic and the same across the board (do a simple doublet in a FC3 Mig-29 and a FC3 F-15, you will get essentially the same dynamic response). The control laws are what allows, for exampe, and F-18E to perform outrageous maneuvers with little pilot workload since special inputs are interpreted in a specific way allowing for great advantages in aircraft dynamic response compared to an F-18E with absolutely not FCS law logic and using bare stick to control surface inputs. The work load on the pilot would be greatly increased, in particular for aircraft with very small static margins and very little to no stability.

 

The AFM allows for the very important difference to be implemented...to code up the control laws to allows those advantages to shine. This is what allows the latest and greatest fighter aircraft to maintain control in extremely high angles of attack...the pilot is doing very little but the FCS is going nuts in the background keeping the aircraft in a controlled state.

 

At the end of the day, yes bare airframe performance is the same (max airspeed, max turn rates, climb, all that good stuff) but in the weeds of a dogfight the advanced FCS control laws are what allows latest gen fighters to do amazing feats with little pilot workload...

 

What!?

So you want a aerodynamic FCS model modelled, or aerodynamically matched near the physics of AGL atmospherics to match reality without using a supercomputer in your bedroom. LOL

[GGTharos]

I do not agree.. but even if I agree, you're telling anyone here then that basically they are wasting their time, because the plane will be very similar to what we have now? To not count the fact that those $19 are paied for what? Cmon'...

 

No, what I am telling you is that the AFM does more than the SFM, but basic heart-of-the-envelope performance won't differ much. Feel will, and there will be a huge difference if you go to the edges of the envelope.

 

The reality is that all this thing has been arranged in a amateur way. They should gives those modules to the FC3 owner for free and they should REMOVE the old models from the game.. (they should forget about FC3 and the whole thing) or better: they should forget about this AFM thing and dedicate to the proper "DCS level" aircraft (F18?) and leave this FC3 thing "as is".

 

I already imagine the mission developers being forced to add two types of the same plane because you don't know which plane someone is going to use.. (!) .. this is ridiculous honestly.

 

There will always be something like FC3.

As for having two planes of the same type, we already have A-10As and A-10Cs. And while I might be proven wrong, I really don't believe that the Su27/F15 modules will be limited to strictly adding AFM.

[GGTharos]

The FCS will be modeled to the extent that it can be, and IMHO I believe it will be pretty complete for those aircraft that the control laws can be obtained for.

 

What!?

So you want a aerodynamic FCS model modelled, or aerodynamically matched near the physics of AGL atmospherics to match reality without using a supercomputer in your bedroom. LOL

[_Dredd]

The FCS will be modeled to the extent that it can be, and IMHO I believe it will be pretty complete for those aircraft that the control laws can be obtained for.

 

I'd love to see maximum wingframe-G random failures. :)

Ie, an F15 pilot may get away with <10G pulls for most of his flight time, but those occurrences above 7G would calculate a random failure event probability the next time he exceeded that rate.

Or calc sustained high rate- smooth linear increase, against an aggressive instantaneous max rate.. One after another...

And hence crack it, and snap that wing off, lol, there's a full departure event.

 

Would sure keep pilots on their toes and wits, before going for greyout all the time as much as they could max the jet, or any jet for that matter :music_whistling: :)

Edited June 21, 2013 by _Dredd
Updated descriptions

[Exorcet]

As far as I understand, that's included in AFM. So you won't be able to ignore Over G warnings anymore.

[Eddie]

Yep. Already implemented for the A-10C and P-51D. No reason it wouldn't be for future AFM aircraft.

[GGTharos]

Why? F-15's have pulled upwards of 12g's in combat and training. At least one I know of was permanently deformed and turned into a museum piece, but it did land successfully. The only example of F-15's suffering destruction due to fatigue that I know of involed the longeron problem, and that was one aircraft destroyed in flight and a few grounded after the investigation.

 

There's really no history of F-15's randomly self-destructing, and AFAIK ED is not modeling aging issues ... what does all this have to do with control laws?

[_Dredd]

Why? F-15's have pulled upwards of 12g's in combat and training. At least one I know of was permanently deformed and turned into a museum piece, but it did land successfully. The only example of F-15's suffering destruction due to fatigue that I know of involed the longeron problem, and that was one aircraft destroyed in flight and a few grounded after the investigation.

 

There's really no history of F-15's randomly self-destructing, and AFAIK ED is not modeling aging issues ... what does all this have to do with control laws?

 

Because consistently the max G they rate the jet at in training is 7G yeah ? 9G avg rated; sure you can go for gold, but not every pull all the time. It'd be a random failure event I guess. But he like the A-10 a fast speed pull over G goes 'snap', but would it really unless under duress stress.

 

Yeah sorry not really a control issue, I went off topic somehow there, must be the red. :music_whistling:

Edited June 21, 2013 by _Dredd
Updated

[IIIAVIII]

agree that they didn't promise anything

personally i buy FC3 because they said that they will include AFM for the A10A

apart from the new cockpits of course

now to gain this AFM i have to buy it

 

Officially in russian

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1792783&postcount=247

АФМ для А-10А будет в 1.2.5.

 

AFM for A10A will be in 1.2.5

Edited June 21, 2013 by IIIAVIII

[GGTharos]

People have often 'gone for gold' in the real deal - that would be the 9G rated F-15C (As opposed to the older 7.3 g rated F-15A), and no wings have come off. So my USAF contacts tell me, I don't really know anything myself.

 

Because consistently the max G they rate the jet at in training is 7G yeah ? 9G avg rated; sure you can go for gold, but not every pull all the time. It'd be a random failure event I guess. But he like the A-10 a fast speed pull over G goes 'snap', but would it really unless under duress stress.

 

Yeah sorry not really a control issue, I went off topic somehow there, must be the red. :music_whistling:

[LosT_SouL_VL]

The posts were deleted because they were not factual and it was information that was not provided to either testers or moderators - as such I think you can appreciate that we don't want such statements spreading, especially when we know that a decision has not been made.

 

Your source for such things is Wags. I can appreciate that you can't know what a tester knows or does not know. Generally speaking, for future products and features, your most reliable source will be Wags' updates. Testers don't get told much about future pricing of things, but they are a reasonable source of technical knowledge.

 

If you regret your purchase of FC3 because it was made based on that faulty information, I suggest putting in a ticket for a refund.

 

But why then did some of your inhouse DCS testers make clear comments about something you're saying is clearly above their level of competency and knowledge? Don't you talk against each other?

[Buzpilot]

Ok... 20$ means 48 0.5l cans of beer for me (no BS)... It's a sacrifice... but I am willing to make it.

 

lol, in my country I'm lucky if I get 8.

[GGTharos]

I don't know why they posted what they did, and where they got these ideas. Testers are not a source of pricing information.

 

But why then did some of your inhouse DCS testers make clear comments about something you're saying is clearly above their level of competency and knowledge? Don't you talk against each other?

[Snoopy]

I don't know why they posted what they did, and where they got these ideas. Testers are not a source of pricing information.

 

Or any official announcements/statements on products.

[SkateZilla]

or a significant source of nutritional value, all values reflect daily percentage of a 2000 calorie diet... oh wait a minute, that's my Dr. Pepper Label.

[EtherealN]

or a significant source of nutritional value, all values reflect daily percentage of a 2000 calorie diet... oh wait a minute, that's my Dr. Pepper Label.

 

Truth.

 

Everyone is like me, just skin and bones. Better to feed me than eat me... >.>

 

:D

[LosT_SouL_VL]

Joking and laughing is good for one and all, especially in these worldwide troubled times but as good as it is, it doesn't take away the fact that if inhouse communication is under par than how under par can the communication towards customers be? I don't think that it's irrational to expect swift and right information right of the bat.

[GGTharos]

I agree with your last sentence, and that is why testers are not supposed to be offering information that is not officially posted, and someone broke that rule.

They can interact with the community for the purposes of helping with technical questions, bugs, etc, obviously.

This has nothing to do with 'in house communication', so I'd appreciate if you stopped trying to imply that there's incompetence going on behind the curtains.

 

 

Joking and laughing is good for one and all, especially in these worldwide troubled times but as good as it is, it doesn't take away the fact that if inhouse communication is under par than how under par can the communication towards customers be? I don't think that it's irrational to expect swift and right information right of the bat.

[NineLine]

I made a comment based on my understanding of certain things, which turned out to be wrong. Had nothing to do with ED, and everything to do with my understanding of things. I spoke out of turn and for that I apologize for any confusion it caused. Again, purely my understanding of the new modules was incorrect and wasnt my place to comment.

 

Sorry guys...

 

Joking and laughing is good for one and all, especially in these worldwide troubled times but as good as it is, it doesn't take away the fact that if inhouse communication is under par than how under par can the communication towards customers be? I don't think that it's irrational to expect swift and right information right of the bat.

[luza]

Thanks for the update as always Wags. Really awesome you keep us in the loop! I know a lot of us are really appreciating it around here :D

[Rusty_M]

I'm imagining Wags smacking SiThSpAwN on the back of the head the way Gibbs smacks Di-Nozo - although I don't know what they look like.

[NineLine]

Yeah it was something like that :D

 

I'm imagining Wags smacking SiThSpAwN on the back of the head the way Gibbs smacks Di-Nozo - although I don't know what they look like.