Jump to content

DCS WWII: Europe 1944


Recommended Posts

Speaking of Il-2: BoS; fortunately RRG have something to aim for and exceed ... Give me that
with AFM ;)

 

777/1C is lucky that Il-2 fans don't know more about WW1 in order to accurately evaluate what they have done with Rise of Flight.:book:

 

I am definitely interested in what RRG will offer. Now where's my Fw 190?

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

777/1C is lucky that Il-2 fans don't know more about WW1 in order to accurately evaluate what they have done with Rise of Flight.:book:

 

I am definitely interested in what RRG will offer. Now where's my Fw 190?

I am too, for sure ... looking forward to AFM, game immersion and hopefully Oculus Rift prepared (but not necessarily).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

777/1C is lucky that Il-2 fans don't know more about WW1 in order to accurately evaluate what they have done with Rise of Flight.:book:

 

Slight thread drift, but is the general (informed) consensus that it's good/bad/ugly accuracy wise?

Per Ardua Ad Aquarium :drink:

Specs: Intel i7-9700K, GTX 2080TI, 32GB DDR4, ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E, Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than accuracy, I want to feel part of the game.

 

Yeah... but then you'll get folks saying that since they feel immersed, the sim/game in question must be "realistic", "accurate", "historical" or whatever because they feel it is, because it immerses them so well...

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... but then you'll get folks saying that since they feel immersed, the sim/game in question must be "realistic", "accurate", "historical" or whatever because they feel it is, because it immerses them so well...
It starts with your imagination. Remember
by
, or the older Amiga and C64 flight sims? Immersion is what makes a game memorable, not accuracy per se.
Edited by Hans-Joachim Marseille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... but then you'll get folks saying that since they feel immersed, the sim/game in question must be "realistic", "accurate", "historical" or whatever because they feel it is, because it immerses them so well...

 

That's very true. Accuracy is as much about the absolute, the measurable and the individual nuances as well as the subjective "convincingness" of the flight model... You can immerse someone in a fantasy world and they will "feel accuracy" as long as they have no basis on which to question it.

 

One of the things War Thunder (to take a good example) does well (imho) is have a model that is relatively fluid, that doesn't feel too much like you flip a hard switch to get from, say, normal flight to a spin departure, it "feels" convincing, and maybe the key flight data (e.g. performance at various altitudes) can be made to match real numbers, so it gets a lot of uninformed accolades about it being a great sim because it is reasonably convincing, there are no obvious jagged edges and it is immersive. One of the biggest giveaway that it's not "accurate", at least not in the sense DCS aims for (and sometimes achieves), is the canned response to departure from controlled flight. Each aircraft may feel different, may even have varying levels of forgivingness, but outside simple well controlled flight, it's all the same basic spin model, a biplane spins very much like a mid war fighter. To give a real world example, I've flown very similar types with wildly varying spin characteristics, one might tuck under on recovery but spins as if it is on rails, another similar type might be nose down at 1/2 a turn, but have it's nose above the horizon at 1 complete turn and nod like a wild horse until recovery.

 

I guess what I'd really like to find out to what extent RoF gets to the real nitpicky bones of accuracy of flight model, and to what extent it is just the same aircraft re-packaged with a few parameter tweaks, because for me the aircraft specific nuances are what turn a procedure trainer *coughFSXcough* into a truely great flight sim.

 

Apologies for the massive thread drift!

 

Cheers,

 

Jamie


Edited by Flying Penguin

Per Ardua Ad Aquarium :drink:

Specs: Intel i7-9700K, GTX 2080TI, 32GB DDR4, ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E, Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rise of Flight ... the spin characteristics are dramatically different for various aircraft. The Camel likes to flat spin, and requires a bizarre and unusual procedure to recover (if I recall aright, it involves hefty back stick at the point at which the revolution is the fastest). The Albatross spins like a doll and recovers just as nicely. The Dr.I spins wildly but recovers easily. And so on. However, the problem is, no one really knows whether it's right or not. Some say the same of WWII sims, but with WWII fighters, much of the hard data is out there, if you look hard enough. With First World War aircraft, it isn't. There's almost no real data out there for them.

 

Beyond this, however, I have a big problem with Rise of Flight; though the general flight physics are great (again, I don't know about the specific aircraft characteristics), the engine & systems management are of Flaming Cliffs level and not DCS level. That is, grossly simplified compared to the real thing, and so the game doesn't teach you anything about how to start up the real aircraft and manage their engines & systems during flight. For this reason, I don't consider Rise of Flight a true flight sim. It's a very good flying game with strong simulator elements, but not really a flight sim. Too many important pieces missing.


Edited by Wags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rise of Flight ... the spin characteristics are dramatically different for various aircraft. The Camel likes to flat spin, and requires a bizarre and unusual procedure to recover (if I recall aright, it involves hefty back stick at the point at which the revolution is the fastest). The Albatross spins like a doll and recovers just as nicely. The Dr.I spins wildly but recovers easily. And so on. However, the problem is, no one really knows whether it's right or not. Some say the same of WWII sims, but with WWII fighters, much of the hard data is out there, if you look hard enough. With First World War aircraft, it isn't. There's almost no real data out there for them.

 

Beyond this, however, I have a big problem with Rise of Flight; though the general flight physics are great (again, I don't know about the specific aircraft characteristics), the engine & systems management are of Flaming Cliffs level and not DCS level. That is, grossly simplified compared to the real thing, and so the game doesn't teach you anything about how to start up the real aircraft and manage their engines & systems during flight. For this reason, I don't consider Rise of Flight a true flight sim. It's a very good flying game with strong simulator elements, but not really a flight sim. Too many important pieces missing.

 

The arguments of simplified avionics and/or engine management or other systems boils down to personal preference. I'm in the minority here; because this is the DCS forum afterall; but personally-- I'd rather have more gameplay elements and graphical immersive elements than sim complexity and depth.

 

Let me put it this way; I would happily sacrifice DCS: A-10s fully simulated systems in exchange for a dynamic campaign, terrain system ala War Thunder and improved rendering solutions (things like IBL Lighting, Cloud formation simulation, realtime raytraced reflections etc.)

 

Not that they're mutually exclusive; but there comes a point where dev time spent simulating something like fluid dynamics in the bends of fuel lines is just gross mismanagement of resources.

 

A perfect balance of depth would suit all fans of flight simulation I believe. That is why I have strong hopes in the new IL-2. They seem to be taking this kind of approach to heart.

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments of simplified avionics and/or engine management or other systems boils down to personal preference.

 

Yes, "arcade versus realistic" is a personal preference, of course. I don't think anyone'll argue with that. Those who sufficiently love real flying prefer the latter, while those who only enjoy some elements of flight will prefer the former. Most people prefer arcade flying games, and a relatively large minority prefers flying games with only some realistic elements. But there are a few (such as myself) who love super-realistic flight simulators; thankfully, E.D. has a bunch of those rare souls on development!

 

there comes a point where dev time spent simulating something like fluid dynamics in the bends of fuel lines is just gross mismanagement of resources. A perfect balance of depth would suit all fans of flight simulation I believe.

 

I couldn't disagree with this more. I've been waiting my entire life for the kind of flight sim that's so hardcore that they simulate fluid physics in the fuel lines. DCS is my standard.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rise of Flight ... the spin characteristics are dramatically different for various aircraft. The Camel likes to flat spin, and requires a bizarre and unusual procedure to recover (if I recall aright, it involves hefty back stick at the point at which the revolution is the fastest). The Albatross spins like a doll and recovers just as nicely. The Dr.I spins wildly but recovers easily. And so on. However, the problem is, no one really knows whether it's right or not. Some say the same of WWII sims, but with WWII fighters, much of the hard data is out there, if you look hard enough. With First World War aircraft, it isn't. There's almost no real data out there for them.

 

Beyond this, however, I have a big problem with Rise of Flight; though the general flight physics are great (again, I don't know about the specific aircraft characteristics), the engine & systems management are of Flaming Cliffs level and not DCS level. That is, grossly simplified compared to the real thing, and so the game doesn't teach you anything about how to start up the real aircraft and manage their engines & systems during flight. For this reason, I don't consider Rise of Flight a true flight sim. It's a very good flying game with strong simulator elements, but not really a flight sim. Too many important pieces missing.

 

S!

In many ways Echo38 makes a pretty good argument here and I am pretty much on his side with everything he says.

However ROF still could be classed as a sim, the fuel mixture is there and as well with the engine cooling for the inline boys. So there is an element of engine management. But is it complete engine No! No magnetos/no prime fuel/ and so on

And from what I can gather this type of engine management will follow through to BOS

Which is cool also not a problem.

The simplified flight sim such as ROF and the soon to be BOS will fine for the masses.

A lot of people will jump into there Yak1 or BF109 and look around and it will be amazing, look out side the aircraft will look beautiful, jump back into the cockpit then move that lever, move this wheel making sure that its just right on the mark were it is supposes to be, now hit “E” and we are away FANTASTIC this sim rocks

And from the masses you will get people like me that get right into the whole engine/start up/shutdown/ blow stuff up thing! And start to look around and find something that will fuel my hunger for that type of emersion.

DCS was that tool and my hunger was satisfied. So I see both style of genre being classed sims, Its just one is far more complex as the other.

And I think as DCS grows and expands, you will see the number swell in DCS as people move over to the high fidelity stuff

Just my 2 cents

p.s Can’t wait, “New wingtip vortices, new touchdown smoke” in 1.2.6

O_Smiladon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that there's something wrong with there being sim-games of the R.o.F./Flaming Cliffs level of "medium-realism." I enjoyed my time with both Lock On: Modern Air Combat and R.o.F.. However, I now can never go back to anything less than DCS: P-51D after trying it. Hence my objection to Cobra's suggestion that the world doesn't need a flight sim of the DCS level of fidelity; comparatively speaking, the world has plenty of medium-fidelity flying games (RoF, FC3, AH2, WWIIO, IL2, etc.), but there's only one DCS, and I treasure it.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed--I didn't mean to imply that there's something wrong with there being sims of the R.o.F./Flaming Cliffs level of "medium-realism." I enjoyed my time with both Lock On: Modern Air Combat and R.o.F.. However, I now can never go back to anything less than DCS: P-51D after trying it. And I must object to any suggestion that the world doesn't need a flight sim of the DCS level of fidelity; comparatively speaking, the world has plenty of medium-fidelity flying games (RoF, FC3, AH2, IL2, etc.), but there's only one DCS.

 

Bang on there Mate,,

 

That is why I am looking forward to the Sept 1st announcement See whats planned by the WW2 boys now on the scene

 

But yeah could not agree with you more :thumbup:

 

O_Smiladon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with this more. I've been waiting my entire life for the kind of flight sim that's so hardcore that they simulate fluid physics in the fuel lines. DCS is my standard.

 

I suppose you want a simulator that uses kinetic theory to model each individual fuel molecule too right? Then you could get into the argument of if you use the billiard ball approximation or more complex intermolecular forces etc.

 

Real life is so complex, that for a given simulation, a line always has to be drawn somewhere. For a kinetic theory model, the system bounds would have to be so microscopic that you would not be able to fit your airplane into it. You could break an aircraft wing down into a billion finite elements for structural/aero simulation and still not have "perfect" simulation, but you would have passed diminishing returns a very long time ago, and it would not be possible to run the game in real time on a regular computer. And that isn't even getting into tracing photons and stuff.

 

In general, engineering uses approximations in system design, because if the difference between your approximation and the exact solution is less than 1%, but the difference in computation time is in orders of magnitude, it is not worth it to waste the resources. You can just throw in a safety factor and call it close enough.

 

And some people wonder why simulators don't have BF4 graphics. A little fakery can go a long way in giving people the impression of realism without much computational power, but it is very easy to eat up a ton of resources quickly trying to make something realistic without getting very far.

 

That said: I do lean on the side towards realism of wanting what is computationally feasible to be simulated.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some people wonder why simulators don't have BF4 graphics.

 

We couldn't have BF4-level graphics even if there were no physics being simulated at all. The major culprit behind the notoriously poor graphics of the flight sim genre is the requisite terrain size & draw distance, not the physics calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We couldn't have BF4-level graphics even if there were no physics being simulated at all. The major culprit behind the notoriously poor graphics of the flight sim genre is the requisite terrain size & draw distance, not the physics calculations.

 

That is completely false.

 

Go ahead and jump into Outerra which is in an early state of development and say that.

 

The issue is not with it being impossible; it's with it being difficult to implement. Paging terrain, memory managment, instancing/impostoring, procedural generation (foilage, vegetation etc) and so on and so on.

 

A lot of the niceness of modern engines is also in lighting code and shaderwork. IBL/Deferred lighting, complex shaders with things like Subsurface-scattering for skin, real-time ambient occlusion, etc.

A layer of "Post-processing", basically.

 

War Thunder would be a great recent example of FS Graphics done right (even though it has major graphical flaws too).


Edited by Cobra847

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you want a simulator that uses kinetic theory to model each individual fuel molecule too right? Then you could get into the argument of if you use the billiard ball approximation or more complex intermolecular forces etc.

 

Real life is so complex, that for a given simulation, a line always has to be drawn somewhere. For a kinetic theory model, the system bounds would have to be so microscopic that you would not be able to fit your airplane into it. You could break an aircraft wing down into a billion finite elements for structural/aero simulation and still not have "perfect" simulation, but you would have passed diminishing returns a very long time ago, and it would not be possible to run the game in real time on a regular computer. And that isn't even getting into tracing photons and stuff.

 

In general, engineering uses approximations in system design, because if the difference between your approximation and the exact solution is less than 1%, but the difference in computation time is in orders of magnitude, it is not worth it to waste the resources. You can just throw in a safety factor and call it close enough.

 

And some people wonder why simulators don't have BF4 graphics. A little fakery can go a long way in giving people the impression of realism without much computational power, but it is very easy to eat up a ton of resources quickly trying to make something realistic without getting very far.

 

That said: I do lean on the side towards realism of wanting what is computationally feasible to be simulated.

 

You hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say, and did so in a much better way!

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead and jump into Outerra which is in an early state of development and say that.

 

From the point of view of a flight simmer, it looks breathtakingly good. However, from the point of a gamer, it looks kinda old. It's similar in look to ArmA, but even ArmA 3 doesn't look nearly as pretty as Call of Battle 6 or whatever the kids are playing these days. Which is understandable, because Arma is going for a macro scale and not a micro scale. But, still, like anything with a large terrain size and a large draw distance, it isn't going to be able to compete in terms of graphics with a game that's showing off things up close.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... there comes a point where dev time spent simulating something like fluid dynamics in the bends of fuel lines is just gross mismanagement of resources.
Exactly ... I can't see how simulating fuel/water/oil hydrodynamics contributes to more accurate flight or engine behaviour when bypassing (clear-air) turbulence altogether (engine air intake).

 

I don't expect RRG Studios will spend that many resources on a single plane, as the DCS: P-51D seems a one-off w.r.t. hydrodynamics modeling (DCS: P-51D was some sort of favor to a big-shot from what I've gathered). Let's see how the Fw 190D weighs up to the P-51D in that respect.

I reckon RRG Studios will more or less focus on (EDGE-based) theater content and less on plane modeling (ED responsibility).

 

My prediction for theater is West-Front 1944/45, for example "Unternehmen Bodenplatte" during Battle of the Bulge. That is where P-51D and FW 190D fit in best.

 


Edited by Hans-Joachim Marseille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is completely false.

 

Go ahead and jump into Outerra which is in an early state of development and say that.

 

The issue is not with it being impossible; it's with it being difficult to implement. Paging terrain, memory managment, instancing/impostoring, procedural generation (foilage, vegetation etc) and so on and so on.

 

Actually you will find that it was impossible, for ED at least, due to memory address space limitations in a 32bit environment.

 

As this becomes obsolete and no longer supported things have a scope to improve, for example one of the big ones, IMO, is the support of clipmapping in EDGE.

 

Nate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous errors that remain in the sim because of poor research methods, and they've never found the time/resources to remedy them. With the scarcity of good data for WW1 you cannot approach it like a WW2 sim and expect a good result. The developers admit that they knew next to nothing about WW1 aviation when they started the project, and it shows.

 

If you like WW1 aviation history, it is rather jarring to see a Sopwith Pup run down all of its contemporary opponents, or to see all Pfalz D.XIIs with a BMW D.IIIa engine... it's a rather long list, actually.

 

The higher quality of WW2 data should hopefully prevent the missteps they made with RoF, but I am still on my guard.

 

That's disappointing.... I'm happy enough with a sim 'to the limits of historical data', but there's no excuse for sloppy research that even a glancee at Wikipedia would fix.

 

But it's free to try so I might see if my croaky old machine can cope.

 

Anyway, thanks and sorry for the thread drift!

Per Ardua Ad Aquarium :drink:

Specs: Intel i7-9700K, GTX 2080TI, 32GB DDR4, ASUS ROG Strix Z390-E, Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, absolutely you should give it a try. From a software/user point of view it is superbly done.

 

Now back to RRG and the announcement that's coming tomorrow?

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now back to RRG and the announcement that's coming tomorrow?

 

I am eagerly awaiting with great anticipation, really looking forward to hearing some details on this deal. Some pretty good times right now for the combat flight sim genre!

Don B

EVGA Z390 Dark MB | i9 9900k CPU @ 5.1 GHz | Gigabyte 4090 OC | 64 GB Corsair Vengeance 3200 MHz CL16 | Corsair H150i Pro Cooler |Virpil CM3 Stick w/ Alpha Prime Grip 200mm ext| Virpil CM3 Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Base w/ Alpha-L Grip| Point Control V2|Varjo Aero|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...