Wags update: F-15C: DCS Flaming Cliffs Update

[EtherealN]

what is BFM ?

what does it mean ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers

[NRG-Vampire]

Basic fighter maneuvers

 

:megalol: first i thought (sounds like a new flight model by ED) something like this:

:D ballistic/baneful/baleful/baffling flight model :doh:

[Weta43]

One step closer to DCS pure fighters. Keep it up.

....

Who are u kidding??? Its a long way to tipperary!!!

 

Obviously it is one step closer - there can't be a DCS.Fast_Mover without an AFM that covers supersonic flight regimes.

Soon there'll be one for you to play with !

 

For your own entertainment you could make a list of features/systems that need to be implemented, and tick them off as they appear :)

[EtherealN]

:megalol: first i thought (sounds like a new flight model by ED) something like this:

:D ballistic/baneful/baleful/baffling flight model :doh:

 

It's the Bonkers Flight Model.

 

You invoke it when your opponent gets on your six and you don't understand how that happened.

[kk0425]

Believe it or not but developing an AFM for one fighter helps with all the rest. Once they get a basic framework they can adjust it to fit a different plane with similar performance. There was an interview on the AFM with the developers and if anybody is interested here it is.

 

[uboats]

Why?

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that AFM is somehow more correct in combat performance. This is not necessarily the case; SFM in FC3 conforms very very closely to the available documentation for these aircraft. You should not expect an "AFM" aircraft to have an automatic advantage nor disadvantage in BFM. What AFMs bring to the table is different.

 

It seems that Su27 in FC3 (SFM) still uses scripts to perform maneuver (e.g. cobra).

While I think AFM computes all the maneuver on-the-fly.

And Su27 SFM over-G never breaks the wings. But AFM would. That's the difference.

 

I believe you know that the maneuver of Su27 in FC2 is too outstanding that is far away from the realistic one.

I do not have any extravagant hopes that the maneuver of Su27 is 99% realistic, but should be as more closer as possible.

[EtherealN]

It seems that Su27 in FC3 (SFM) still uses scripts to perform maneuver (e.g. cobra).

 

There is no Cobra script in FC3.

Nor was there in FC2.

Also, as an aside, the "cobra" is worthless is combat. Nor is it unique to the Flanker. Other aircraft, including the double-delta J-35, did them even before the Flanker. The Cobra is only spoken of because it looks cool at airshows.

 

I believe you know that the maneuver of Su27 in FC2 is too outstanding that is far away from the realistic one.

I do not have any extravagant hopes that the maneuver of Su27 is 99% realistic, but should be as more closer as possible.

 

Su-27 performance conforms to official pilot documentation.

How do you mean it is "too outstanding"?

Are you attempting to fight a turning fighter (Su-27) in your energy fighter (F-15) through turning?

 

If so, you deserve to be eaten alive. ;)

[kk0425]

Also, as an aside, the "cobra" is worthless is combat.

 

*Braces for impending doom*

[EtherealN]

*Braces for impending doom*

 

:D

 

Yeah, it's a discussion that comes up every couple months. People having watched too much Top Gun think that slowing yourself down is ever a good idea in BFM... :D

[GeorgeLKMT]

What if SU-27 AFM being able to perform cobra (or other "useless" maneuvers seen on airshows) properly, just like the real life counterpart, is just a proof of well done flight modeling? I feel like bringing up "it's useless in combat" everytime is really not necessary, since he even didn't say anything about combat employment. ;)

[EtherealN]

No, but he brought up "scirpting" for a non-combat maneuver.

 

It doesn't really have any impact on actual combat, nor the question of whether Su-27 performance in FC3 SFM is correct.

 

As an example; making a dynamic model that allows a cobra is "easy" - you can do that any amount of ways. But that doesn't mean that your rates are correct, your transonic behaviour is correct, etcetera etcetera. It means nothing other than that you are able to do a cobra.

 

However, in the context of a dynamic model that gets other performance data right, if it _also_ does the cobra right, then it can serve as an additional verification towards the idea that "yeah, we probably got it right". Most specifically it can be interesting for things like edge-of-envelope, stalls, spins and other forms of departure.

 

But you will note that the person I responded to mentioned the Cobra script at the same time as positing that the Flanker's performance was "too outstanding". Thus why I understood them to be connected in his opinion.

[Teknetinium]

[GeorgeLKMT]

However, in the context of a dynamic model that gets other performance data right, if it _also_ does the cobra right, then it can serve as an additional verification towards the idea that "yeah, we probably got it right".

 

That's what I meant. Real deal does it, AFM does it = people are happy. ;)

[uboats]

There is no Cobra script in FC3.

Nor was there in FC2.

Also, as an aside, the "cobra" is worthless is combat. Nor is it unique to the Flanker. Other aircraft, including the double-delta J-35, did them even before the Flanker. The Cobra is only spoken of because it looks cool at airshows.

There is, you can uncomment it in the input lua file

I did not mention anything about its worths. But just wanna say that AFM dynamic computing gives us more flight conditions on-the-fly than SFM scripts.

 

[quote=Ethereal

Su-27 performance conforms to official pilot documentation.

How do you mean it is "too outstanding"?

Are you attempting to fight a turning fighter (Su-27) in your energy fighter (F-15) through turning?

 

If so, you deserve to be eaten alive. ;)

In the game, sfm makes sure that you can do that. But I hope afm makes it more approaching to the reality.

[EtherealN]

There is, you can uncomment it in the input lua file

I did not mention anything about its worths. But just wanna say that AFM dynamic computing gives us more flight conditions on-the-fly than SFM scripts.

 

That's not a feature. It was uncommented for a reason. :)

You are then using an outdated script, not intended for this this product. Don't judge it by that accident of some coder forgetting to completely remove it. :P

 

In the game, sfm makes sure that you can do that. But I hope afm makes it more approaching to the reality.

 

Can do what, exactly?

 

In my experience, if the Su-27 pilot allows me to work my energy advantage, he is a sitting duck. Similarly, if I allow his temptations to turn with him, he makes me his *****. This is correct. If you could perhaps elucidate on the specific error your have perceived?

[uboats]

That's not a feature. It was uncommented for a reason. :)

You are then using an outdated script, not intended for this this product. Don't judge it by that accident of some coder forgetting to completely remove it. :P

 

 

 

Can do what, exactly?

 

In my experience, if the Su-27 pilot allows me to work my energy advantage, he is a sitting duck. Similarly, if I allow his temptations to turn with him, he makes me his *****. This is correct. If you could perhaps elucidate on the specific error your have perceived?

 

I see.

Well, I think I missed and missunderstood something.:thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Hopefully it won't be too long until it's all rendered moot by the arrival of Su-27 AFM. :)

[uboats]

Hopefully it won't be too long until it's all rendered moot by the arrival of Su-27 AFM. :)

 

BTW you mentioned in the previous post that "You should not expect an "AFM" aircraft to have an automatic advantage nor disadvantage in BFM. What AFMs bring to the table is different"

 

What's the difference? Now I can observe directly in the game is dynamic damage model and taxi.

[EtherealN]

Well, SFM gets general performance right. It gets your speeds, turn rates etcetera. No problem there. In a normal fight, you don't actually need more than that. (Though as a player it might "feel" as a bit like you're flying "on rails" since dynamic effects are missing.)

 

AFM however does a better job at the edges of the envelope; compare for example with stalls; AFM will give more correct stalls, spins and other departures than would the SFM. (But in both cases, if you depart during BFM, you are boned no matter what flight model is used. The opponent has to be a retard* to not kill you from there.)

 

There are some other possible issues in transonic regime and so on, but they are not things that will happen in a "dogfight".

 

The biggest thing with "AFM" is that it's better at handling the minutia of landing, departures, edge-of-envelope etcetera and giving the correct "response". (Those are things where an SFM "table-model" just cannot have the granularity to handle it at the same level of detail.) Another area is damages; things like when parts of your aircraft are shot off; this is very hard for an SFM to predict correctly, but an AFM can do it dynamically. But of course, if you have parts of your plane removed while in a dogfight... you're still probably dead. :P

 

In my opinion, AFM really is best when you do something like having to land a wounded plane. An SFM might not be able to discern the difference correctly, whereas the AFM will calculate your aerodynamics anyway and include the damage and associated loss of lift, increased assymetric drag etcetera etcetera.

 

But as far as being able to rate correctly in a dogfight? That is actually easier to get "right" in an SFM, since then you can practically hardcode it to brute-force it into being right. (That is, to corespond with available documentation; obviously, the documentation might be wrong as well... but them's the breaks, and when working from pilot instruction manuals, test data, etcetera one would assume the documents are indeed right.)

 

*Assuming trained as a real pilot. Simulation spare time pilots are of course a different matter; they might simply not know what to do in the situation, which would not necessarily be a fault in their intellectual faculties but simply a deficiency in the amount of time they have available for practicing, or a deficiency in the tutors they've had available.

Edited October 16, 2013 by EtherealN

[uboats]

Well, SFM gets general performance right. It gets your speeds, turn rates etcetera. No problem there. In a normal fight, you don't actually need more than that. (Though as a player it might "feel" as a bit like you're flying "on rails" since dynamic effects are missing.)

 

AFM however does a better job at the edges of the envelope; compare for example with stalls; AFM will give more correct stalls, spins and other departures than would the SFM. (But in both cases, if you depart during BFM, you are boned no matter what flight model is used. The opponent has to be a retard* to not kill you from there.)

 

There are some other possible issues in transonic regime and so on, but they are not things that will happen in a "dogfight".

 

The biggest thing with "AFM" is that it's better at handling the minutia of landing, departures, edge-of-envelope etcetera and giving the correct "response". (Those are things where an SFM "table-model" just cannot have the granularity to handle it at the same level of detail.) Another area is damages; things like when parts of your aircraft are shot off; this is very hard for an SFM to predict correctly, but an AFM can do it dynamically. But of course, if you have parts of your plane removed while in a dogfight... you're still probably dead. :P

 

In my opinion, AFM really is best when you do something like having to land a wounded plane. An SFM might not be able to discern the difference correctly, whereas the AFM will calculate your aerodynamics anyway and include the damage and associated loss of lift, increased assymetric drag etcetera etcetera.

 

But as far as being able to rate correctly in a dogfight? That is actually easier to get "right" in an SFM, since then you can practically hardcode it to brute-force it into being right. (That is, to corespond with available documentation; obviously, the documentation might be wrong as well... but them's the breaks, and when working from pilot instruction manuals, test data, etcetera one would assume the documents are indeed right.)

 

*Assuming trained as a real pilot. Simulation spare time pilots are of course a different matter; they might simply not know what to do in the situation, which would not necessarily be a fault in their intellectual faculties but simply a deficiency in the amount of time they have available for practicing, or a deficiency in the tutors they've had available.

 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Got you.

 

P.S. hope both 27 and 15C can be released at the same time

[EtherealN]

I should add perhaps: an SFM (understood as a table-based flight model) actually can theoretically have the same fidelity in exptreme flight modes as can an AFM; but in practice this is not practical, since there would have to be hardcoded data entered into the "table" for every single conceivable flight mode, damage etcetera etcetera.

 

Better to have X amount of programmers developing and AFM for a year than to have 10X scripters creating a MASSIVE table for every possible flight regime.

[uboats]

I should add perhaps: an SFM (understood as a table-based flight model) actually can theoretically have the same fidelity in exptreme flight modes as can an AFM; but in practice this is not practical, since there would have to be hardcoded data entered into the "table" for every single conceivable flight mode, damage etcetera etcetera.

 

Better to have X amount of programmers developing and AFM for a year than to have 10X scripters creating a MASSIVE table for every possible flight regime.

 

Thanks for the supplementary.

Hmmm, I was not accurately expressed myself. The "script" I mentioned is the LUT-based FM.

[XtraChrisP]

Hands on Air to Air Refueling!!!

 

Yea or nay?

 

:)

[leafer]

According to one of ED facebook comments, the cobra maneuver is already possible without scripting.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153352942125341&set=pb.441639040340.-2207520000.1381884785.&type=3&theater

 

See Rayvonn Core comment replies.

 

For everyone who missed this little gem of info. :)

[Mainstay]

If the F 15 DCS Flaming Cliffs is now in beta stage as wag post states that means probable release may well be end of December (Christmas) or early new year.

 

Cant wait !! :)

 

Bèta's can take a long long time :smilewink:

 

Nice video wags thanks