DCS vs Other Sims, what makes the difference FM wise?

So having watched some videos on how ED makes FM's, it my current understanding that the difference bettween DCS PFM or AFM and every other sim under the sun: Il2, Aces High, etc. Is that instead of using a set of 12 or so parameters for a FM and some equations to model performance, DCS instead models each separate control surface, widget, propeller radio mast, etc, and then simply dumps them into the engine and watches to see what happens. I probably oversimplified that quite a bit but it was meant to be a generalization.

My understanding of how DCS works is probably incorrect on some level, but what is for certain is that however it is done, it makes gargantuan difference in aircraft performance vs other sims. Although unfinished, the F-15 PFM or AFM or whatever, is for all intensive purposes a completely different plane than the SFM one. If fly's completely different. It is faster than the SFM plane by a fair margin at certain altitudes. It appears to retain E better. And its performance above 30,000ft may as well be in a different universe than the SFM aircraft. So why aren't scripts and a few equations enough to make a accurate FM? Take DCS: P-51 for example. It performs nothing like the Mustang in other sims. Hell, there are tactics that work in DCS that don't work in other sims at all. Curious if anyone can answer this question for me.

So having watched some videos on how ED makes FM's, it my current understanding that the difference bettween DCS PFM or AFM and every other sim under the sun: Il2, Aces High, etc. Is that instead of using a set of 12 or so parameters for a FM and some equations to model performance, DCS instead models each separate control surface, widget, propeller radio mast, etc, and then simply dumps them into the engine and watches to see what happens. I probably oversimplified that quite a bit but it was meant to be a generalization.

My understanding of how DCS works is probably incorrect on some level, but what is for certain is that however it is done, it makes gargantuan difference in aircraft performance vs other sims. Although unfinished, the F-15 PFM or AFM or whatever, is for all intensive purposes a completely different plane than the SFM one. If fly's completely different. It is faster than the SFM plane by a fair margin at certain altitudes. It appears to retain E better. And its performance above 30,000ft may as well be in a different universe than the SFM aircraft. So why aren't scripts and a few equations enough to make a accurate FM? Take DCS: P-51 for example. It performs nothing like the Mustang in other sims. Hell, there are tactics that work in DCS that don't work in other sims at all. Curious if anyone can answer this question for me.

As far as I understand it, it is the way as you described it - just much more complicated. :o)

The AFM/PFM takes every parameter into account that has some influence on the behaviour of the a/c. These parameters cover of course the control surfaces, engines, etc. and much more one probably would not think about in the first place. These parameters are then not just a bunch of values that are applied to one or two functions that give the flight characteristics as output. Instead, each of these parameters influence the others in obvious and not so obvious ways. So the FM is a set, a system of equations and formulas that cover even side effects one could not forsee when looking at them independently. That is where the main effords go into: the research of these formulas, the test and comparisation with available documentation.

Yeah, it IS rocket science. I wouldn't even be too surprised if the FMs ED produces are "better" (more complete? with better overall coverage?) than those used by RL aircraft manufacturer. Those simulate their planes during development as well - and perhaps even more accurate (hey, lives depend on that!). BUT they probably only simulate things with a certain focus, whereas ED always simulates always the whole aircraft.

In short, a the FMs that we enjoy in DCS are more detailed and closer to the real thing. That's why it may differ when compared to other sims. And that is where ED spends so much time in because that is their niche in the sim market while other sims have different priorities ...

edit:

I think, other sims just do what you said: just throw some scripts together to get their flavour of a SFM and then tune it a bit until it "feels right". Maybe some put some more efford into it ... and get something like a "SFM+", I dunno ... :o)

PFM's:

• Use a wider array of wind tunnel tests CFD methods for aerodynamics parameters calculations.

• A higher level of aircraft construction details for forces calculations. For example: our landing gear model includes individual kinematics of retracting/extending is used to calculate its movement, servo-piston forces, etc. In such cases, we truly use real lengths, arms, etc. This also includes such items as a realistic simulation of airflow along the airframe due to the propeller or helicopter rotor thrust.

• Realistic simulation of Flight Control, CAS and Autopilot systems.

• Realistic simulation of Hydraulics, Fuel, Electrical, Engine and other systems influence flight characteristics.

• Unprecedented access to test data packs.

Basically every control/lifting surface is modelled according to real world data as far as lift and drag coefficients go. Then all the real world limits are imposed on that surface (max/min extension/retraction rates etc depending on hydraulic/electrical power available). On top of this, the engine model is working out how much thrust it can produce at a given air speed/altitude/temperature from real world data for each power setting. Then there are the automated control and autopilot systems which are modelled along with their authority limits and electrical/hydraulic availability. All this information is constantly being calculated in real time from complex algorithms.

I'm sure there is a lot more than this going on behind the scenes as well, such as fuel/weight/balance and critical angle of attack calculations and all this data is tweaked slightly by the team in certain areas to perform more like the real aircraft based on feedback from real life pilots.

That is why aircraft in DCS fly more like real aircraft than in any other simulation you will probably ever fly.

Well I can tell you there is a major difference in realism between the SFM and AFM/PMF. I would mostly attribute the low quality of the SFM in DCS to age though. It is passable in the conditions encountered in normal flight, but when you start pushing the flight envelope, going to high angles of attack or sideslip, that is when you get the really jarring effects with simple flight models in any sim.

In FSX Acceleration for example, it is possible to circle strafe in the F/A-18 with your nose continuously pointed at the ground. That doesn't make any sense at all. In War Thunder, the flat spin stalls are scripted, which can result in weird sideways flat spins followed by a warp to horizontal, forcing you to crash even when you should have recovered. I have been trying to make a low speed STOL SFM for DCS, but when you get outside the normal operating conditions of a typical fighter/attacker, some really bad things can start to happen, so I have been considering just going straight to an EFM.

The main thing about an AFM/PFM is that things happen a certain way because they were simulated to happen that way, not because someone programmed the aircraft to carry out a certain special effect like a cobra or a flat spin. Those things should happen because the aerodynamics simulation resulted in them happening, not because of some special trigger. It gives it a more natural feeling.

Thanks for the info guys. Got some follow up questions.

Why is the access to the test data packs unprecedented?

This next question isn't directly related to one of the answers but I thought I'd ask it anyhow. A friend of mine who is a Aero-Engineer was telling me once that one of the reasons real aircraft might differ greatly from sims is that wind tunnel data is apparently subject to errors based on test methodology. He used lift coefficients as an example. He told me that CLmax for instance is a value that can change very dramatically based on very small deviations in calculations and that due to the nature of wind tunnels any CL value can be suspect. One example he gave is that ground effects inside a wind tunnel would have to accounted for when converting raw wind tunnel data to usable values and the nature of the tunnel and the methodology of the testers could produce meaningful errors in the results, especially for testing done back in the day so to speak. If this is true, I always wondered if DCS's approach gets around this when the recreate a airfoil or air frame in game allowing the game engine to act as its own source of data. Is there any truth to this guess or am I way off.

Maybe a Sim you should also try, although related to R/C Aircraft, is Aerofly Professional ( DeLuxe ) and its later versions.

Maybe not modeled in such an extent when it comes to damage model and gear struts, but the airfoils, C.G., Propeller effects, size of control surfaces etc... for sure at the same level if not higher...also the price is like DCS with all Modules.

I learned how to "torque" my 3D Model with it and it saved many many hours fixing & gluing Balsa doing it this way. It does not behave different in real. The difference is as big, or small, as with 2 identical planes build by 2 persons... very very close to real R/C piloting.

Bit

SFM: Calculate lift/drag for the whole aircraft out of one table.

AFM: Calculate lift/drag for each flight surface or even parts thereof, apply those forces to a newtonian model of the mass distribution. Therefore flight surfaces can stall separately, inertia of the airframe is better modelled, etc.

Edit: To add to Sith's post: Wind tunnel testing is only static. If you get the static behaviour right, it will perform like the real thing while you are flying a steady curve, flying straight and level, climbing at a fixed angle, etc. How the aircraft behaves while alpha or beta change has a huge influence on the feeling of flight and this cannot be sufficiently derived from wind tunnel tests, you need pilot input for that (tests for dynamic behaviour would be enormously complex and expensive, and while such data probably exists, it won't be easy to obtain it, nor does that mean that it might be extensive enough to confidently model a simulator after it).

There is a lot of flight test data available for some aircraft if you know where to look and/or who to ask.

As for wind tunnel testing etc, as mentioned before - there is flight test data available and usually there are SMEs who can speak to the flying qualities.

You won't find this for all aircraft, and that drives ED's choices as to what type of FM will be implemented for a given aircraft (or probably even which aircraft will be chosen as a DCS series aircraft).

Thanks for the info guys. Got some follow up questions.

 

Why is the access to the test data packs unprecedented?

 

This next question isn't directly related to one of the answers but I thought I'd ask it anyhow. A friend of mine who is a Aero-Engineer was telling me ....

 

 

If this is true, I always wondered if DCS's approach gets around this when the recreate a airfoil or air frame in game allowing the game engine to act as its own source of data. Is there any truth to this guess or am I way off.

Is that instead of using a set of 12 or so parameters for a FM and some equations to model performance, DCS instead models each separate control surface, widget, propeller radio mast, etc, and then simply dumps them into the engine and watches to see what happens.

No, DCS isn't X-Plane. The problem with this approach is that to be able for a PC to calculate this in real time, you need to use a simplification of the Navier-Stokes equations (those describe the fluid dynamics). The advantage is that you can throw any geometry in it and the engine will calculate what should happen without needing any of your input. The downside is that because only a simplification of Navier-Stokes is used, the model does not faithfully act like a real aircraft would, and this shows under certain circumstances.

DCS has a different approach in that it doesn't try to solve the aerodynamics in real time based on the geometry. Instead ED try to obtain as much lift/drag vs speed etc. data for airframes as they can, and then basically the FM just has to look what force it needs to apply to a certain point of the airframe under the current circumstances without having to solve Navier-Stokes. This needs a lot of careful tuning and engineering on EDs part for it to behave correctly, but the resulting model does reproduce RL behaviour faithfully under a much wider spread of circumstances.

DCS vs Other Sims, what makes the difference FM wise?

SFM: Calculate lift/drag for the whole aircraft out of one table.

 

AFM: Calculate lift/drag for each flight surface or even parts thereof, apply those forces to a newtonian model of the mass distribution. Therefore flight surfaces can stall separately, inertia of the airframe is better modelled, etc.

 

Edit: To add to Sith's post: Wind tunnel testing is only static. If you get the static behaviour right, it will perform like the real thing while you are flying a steady curve, flying straight and level, climbing at a fixed angle, etc. How the aircraft behaves while alpha or beta change has a huge influence on the feeling of flight and this cannot be sufficiently derived from wind tunnel tests, you need pilot input for that (tests for dynamic behaviour would be enormously complex and expensive, and while such data probably exists, it won't be easy to obtain it, nor does that mean that it might be extensive enough to confidently model a simulator after it).

Sorry but there are errors in this post that I feel an unstoppable need to correct :P

1) AFM/EFM/PFM does not imply a "summing"-model (adding coefficients for different parts of the A/C into the model), for example the F-16 by CptSmiley is not like this but the L-39 (I believe) is. This is a widely held misunderstanding. Adding multiple (possibly slightly errounous) coefficients together might get you further off the mark instead of just using coefficients for the whole aircraft, or it might not. It's all up to the coder. The AFM/EFM/PFM do otoh have a physics modeling that the SFM lacks.

2) Wind tunnels are not only "static". Just angle the model a little bit and measure the torque on the model as well as the change in force.

1) AFM/EFM/PFM does not imply a "summing"-model (adding coefficients for different parts of the A/C into the model), for example the F-16 by CptSmiley is not like this but the L-39 (I believe) is. This is a widely held misunderstanding. Adding multiple (possibly slightly errounous) parts together might get you further off the mark instead of just using coefficients for the whole aircraft, or it might not. It's all up to the coder. The AFM/EFM/PFM do otoh have a physics modeling that the SFM lacks.

Well, i wasn't talking about EFM planes. You are.

2) Wind tunnels are not only "static". Just angle the model a little bit and measure the torque on the model as well as the change in force.

This doesn't change the fact that it is a static test. The AoA is changed, then the test is rerun. The data does not contain any information on what happens during the transition of AoA.

DCS vs Other Sims, what makes the difference FM wise?

I could possibly have misunderstood, sorry if so. Are you talking about dynamic resistance? I am not exactly sure how they managed to get it but I am looking at wind tunnel test data of that right now.

Edit: this is how they do it: http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1213/ijsrp-p2407.pdf

Edit2: Sorry for being a besserwisser... :(

 

DCS has a different approach in that it doesn't try to solve the aerodynamics in real time based on the geometry. Instead ED try to obtain as much lift/drag vs speed etc. data for airframes as they can, and then basically the FM just has to look what force it needs to apply to a certain point of the airframe under the current circumstances without having to solve Navier-Stokes. This needs a lot of careful tuning and engineering on EDs part for it to behave correctly, but the resulting model does reproduce RL behaviour faithfully under a much wider spread of circumstances.

Does this include simulating / pre-computing values for segments of the airframe or the airframe as a whole under conditions for which no data is available?

I´m thinking that you should be able bridge gaps and tune it close enough by simulating its aerodynamic properties as long as you can precisely replicate its shape within a program that does this for you.

I could possibly have misunderstood, sorry if so. Are you talking about dynamic resistance? I am not exactly sure how they managed to get it but I am looking at wind tunnel test data right now.

No need to apologize.

I'm not a fluid dynamics guy, but i imagine that there is quite a lot of stuff going on that a static test might not cover (like the non uniform influence of angular velocities, etc.).

Edit:

Edit: this is how they do it: http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1213/ijsrp-p2407.pdf

This is quite interesting, thanks. :)

Does this include simulating / pre-computing values for segments of the airframe or the airframe as a whole under conditions for which no data is available?

I´m thinking that you should be able bridge gaps and tune it close enough by simulating its aerodynamic properties as long as you can precisely replicate its shape within a program that does this for you.

I don't know and i'm not sure if Yo-Yo wants to tell. ;)

I don't know and i'm not sure if Yo-Yo wants to tell. ;)

He´s already posting enough interesting stuff anyway.

X-Plane doesn't use simplified CFD but Blade Element Theory just like DCS.

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/

DCS uses apparently some more advanced methods for determining propwash, downwash and wingtip effects (and most likely some other effects). X-Plane uses some generic look-up tables for all aircrafts while DCS can have customized tables for each airframe or even some kind of simulation for these effects. Ka-50 is a good example that shows simulation of rotor interaction with each other and itself that is just unbelievable when you start to examine it more thoroughly.

X-Plane doesn't use simplified CFD but Blade Element Theory just like DCS.

How do they cope with such a wide variety of geometries, then?

Take DCS: P-51 for example. It performs nothing like the Mustang in other sims. Hell, there are tactics that work in DCS that don't work in other sims at all. Curious if anyone can answer this question for me.

Now I am curious. Can you elaborate on the said tactics?

How do they cope with such a wide variety of geometries, then?

Well it seems to me they don't. I don't have experience with most recent versions but for example fuselage lift wasn't calculated very accurately. It seems like a plane with a rectangular fuselage cross-section behaves like one with a round one for example. At least body cross section shape didn't seem to make much difference in behavior in my experiments. But as is stated in their own website, they don't use CFD and there's no precalculation using CFD in the Plane Maker either. X-Plane gives probably very good results for planes with somewhat circular cross sections ( ie. cylindrical body) and traditional wings sticking from it regardless how the wings itself are positioned or shaped. For the rest you need to improvise the geometry to some degree to get good results like in case with planes with blended wings. Blade Element Theory is very effective with airfoils but you can't use it for fuselage or how the flow behaves after the airfoil.

I'm speculating here but X-Plane probably has something like SFM for the fuselage that's tuned with the general dimensions of the fuselage to give plausible figures regarding its drag, lift and torque. If you throw in forces from airfoils modified with some wake effects simulation you will get a pretty close match as long as your fuselage doesn't have too funky shape.

Why don't they make an Extra 300 and fly a FAI pattern with it.

That would proof without any doubt if it fits or not.

Knife Edge, Torque rolls, Snap Rolls, forced stalls, spins....all that the FAI demands to enter a competition.

Once you can "sim-fly" such a pattern and it looks like the real thing, then you are close.

I really don't think ED is that far yet. The closer you get to the edge of the envelope the further all sims drift away from RL behavior.

And it should be possible to change the airfoil of a given aircraft with ease...and it should behave accordingly. Clark-Y ( Piper Cup ) to S-3 ( P-47 ) to RG,Selig, Naca etc. airfoils. Also washout, dihedral, chordspan etc should all be able to be edited and "feel" the result. Size of control surfaces ( length and depth ) etc..

We should have a "Dummy" AC where all this can be dialed in and experienced.

R/C Simulators have been that far 15 years ago, and they haven't stopped getting better.

But you also can't compare the price those are sold for. 200€ and up entry price...and don't think they sell less copies then DCS does and thus justify their price tag. IMHO they sell a 10-fold more copies. I know more than 10 people myself that have such Simulators, whereas I am the only 1 I know owning DCS with all Modules ( about same price ).

I know more than a few national champion ship Pilots that don't hesitate to train FAI Patterns with it in the winter time without being afraid to spoil their RL skills and eye-hand coordination.

DCS is not the only good Sim out there and I think when it comes to simulate flight dynamics it is not the best. It needs to pay attention to so much more with given resources. I am not saying it is bad, hell no, but I would really like to see what ED could do with an Extra 300 or Edge 540, Pitts Special etc.. That is flight dynamics at the edge of the envelope. Dashing a F-15 around with 550 knots doesn't tell you much and hovering the Ka aint close to what 3D Helicopters can do, in RL and in R/C sims.

And I do know people that do all 4 Worlds ( some all 4 together in 1 Person ). Luftwaffe/US Airforce RL Pilots, Sim Pilots R/C and Combat, Lufthansa Cargo, Cessna etc.. and they think R/C sims are the closest to real physics, closer than any Sim. Though they all say, RL flying is still a touch different, no respawn button HAHA.

Clouds get very meaningful when they are real and you don't have GPS but a standing Propeller and a vague knowledge where that runway "could" be that ATC advertised !

You can't simulate that feeling and stress in any sim that I am aware of.

What I really want is IMMERSION, and DCS still lacks a lot in that field. Too many bugs that spoil game play. Fix those FIRST and keep the community happy. DCS is about fighting a War, with decent AC, but it is not meant to simulate a FAI pattern flown by an Extra 300.

Get the Balance right, is my tip. Than DCS will sell more and ED will have more power and stamina to make it better overall.

Bit

Differences in flight model types outlined here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

Yeah, we've heard that R/C stuff before.

R/Cs aren't in danger of being anywhere near resembling accurate simulators of full scale aircraft.

Also I'm not sure what you want from 'edge of the envelope' on an Extra 300 that you can use to prove anything about an F-15, or Ka-50. Those aircraft have massive, massive differences in how they are set up and how they fly - you can't use one to judge the quality of another. I also don't see how you could conclude that an extra 300 is somehow a challenge for the PFM.

DCS is not the only good Sim out there and I think when it comes to simulate flight dynamics it is not the best. It needs to pay attention to so much more with given resources. I am not saying it is bad, hell no, but I would really like to see what ED could do with an Extra 300 or Edge 540, Pitts Special etc.. That is flight dynamics at the edge of the envelope. Dashing a F-15 around with 550 knots doesn't tell you much and hovering the Ka aint close to what 3D Helicopters can do, in RL and in R/C sims.

 

And I do know people that do all 4 Worlds ( some all 4 together in 1 Person ). Luftwaffe/US Airforce RL Pilots, Sim Pilots R/C and Combat, Lufthansa Cargo, Cessna etc.. and they think R/C sims are the closest to real physics, closer than any Sim. Though they all say, RL flying is still a touch different, no respawn button HAHA.

Why don't they make an Extra 300 and fly a FAI pattern with it.

That would proof without any doubt if it fits or not.

:-) It seems to me that to some extent, that's what the P-51 started out as - a technology demonstrator/investigation - & it seems to have done pretty well, there are people out there flying aerobatics with DCS.P-51, and providing feedback that it is realistic in its responses - in the case of some of the Testing team, feedback based on RL experience

Knife Edge, Torque rolls, Snap Rolls, forced stalls, spins....all that the FAI demands to enter a competition.

See above.

And it should be possible to change the airfoil of a given aircraft with ease...and it should behave accordingly. Clark-Y ( Piper Cup ) to S-3 ( P-47 ) to RG,Selig, Naca etc. airfoils. Also washout, dihedral, chordspan etc should all be able to be edited and "feel" the result. Size of control surfaces ( length and depth ) etc..

We should have a "Dummy" AC where all this can be dialed in and experienced.

First - I think you've misunderstood what the intent of the sim is (& how exactly do you decide that the 'feel' of an imaginary aircraft is correct ?), 2nd - Only to the extent that you're prepared to ignore the interaction of those modules with each other.

Regarding the 'feel', for the PFM & rotary wing aircraft modelled to date, pilots with experience in the actual aircraft have provided 'tuning' advice to bring the aircraft 'feel' close to that of the actual plane.

R/C Simulators have been that far 15 years ago, and they haven't stopped getting better.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that it's apples with apples. The Power to Weight ratios on RC aircraft - the entire flight regime on RC aircraft - tend to be a long way from those of real combat aircraft, and w/ regard to performance or 'feel' I'm not sure how well I can tell how good the FM is, if I try controlling the aircraft from an F3 view -which is essentially what you're doing in RC simulation.

But you also can't compare the price those are sold for. 200€ and up entry price...and don't think they sell less copies then DCS does and thus justify their price tag. IMHO they sell a 10-fold more copies. I know more than 10 people myself that have such Simulators, whereas I am the only 1 I know owning DCS with all Modules ( about same price ).

Anecdotal evidence should always be taken with a grain of salt. I know 15 people that have at various times made their living selling 20 GWh - 30 GWh of electricity a day into the wholesale market. That doesn't make it a common job. Of those people I'm the only one that does Flight Simming, but none of them do RC flying (or RC flight Simming). That doens't mean no-one else does either thing.

I know more than a few national champion ship Pilots that don't hesitate to train FAI Patterns with it in the winter time without being afraid to spoil their RL skills and eye-hand coordination.

Yep, and real life aerobatics teams use little physical models they hold in their hands to go through their routines (and the PLA used to use Lock-On !). Depends what you're trying to practice.

DCS is not the only good Sim out there and I think when it comes to simulate flight dynamics it is not the best.

Out of curiosity, which Simulator does a better job (leaving aside RC simulators - I don't think they help your argument) ?

It needs to pay attention to so much more with given resources. I am not saying it is bad, hell no, but I would really like to see what ED could do with an Extra 300 or Edge 540, Pitts Special etc.. That is flight dynamics at the edge of the envelope. Dashing a F-15 around with 550 knots doesn't tell you much and hovering the Ka aint close to what 3D Helicopters can do, in RL and in R/C sims.

Again - I don't think referring to RL RC aircraft, or RC sims does your case any good. If an RC sim might have aircraft do the things in this video http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjh8mEe27h8, but it seems to me that you could be 20% out on the trust modelled / forces generated by control surfaces / etc, & as long as you were high not low, who would know ? Where's the test data to compare it to ? The 'feel' ? how do you separate the tuning of your control gear from the performance of the aircraft with no hard data to compare it to ?

Still, as I mentioned, there are people that have flown the F-15 (I've read feedback from the SME F-15 pilot - he was very complementary (I don't think that's giving away secrets - if so apologies), and pilots with Many - Many hours in P-51 & UH-1H & Hi-8 helicopters that say it is close to what the real aircraft are like

And I do know people that do all 4 Worlds ( some all 4 together in 1 Person ). Luftwaffe/US Airforce RL Pilots, Sim Pilots R/C and Combat, Lufthansa Cargo, Cessna etc.. and they think R/C sims are the closest to real physics, closer than any Sim. Though they all say, RL flying is still a touch different, no respawn button HAHA.

Maybe - and I'm only half joking - they should try flying from F2 view not F1 ? See how that compares to R/C simulation ?

Clouds get very meaningful when they are real and you don't have GPS but a standing Propeller and a vague knowledge where that runway "could" be that ATC advertised !

You can't simulate that feeling and stress in any sim that I am aware of.

I've physically jumped when hit by SAM or A2A missiles in game, because I was immersed, and dtressed...

What I really want is IMMERSION, and DCS still lacks a lot in that field. Too many bugs that spoil game play. Fix those FIRST and keep the community happy. DCS is about fighting a War, with decent AC, but it is not meant to simulate a FAI pattern flown by an Extra 300.

Get the Balance right, is my tip. Than DCS will sell more and ED will have more power and stamina to make it better overall.

So, apart from the unmodellable intangibles (like the stress of flying through clouds), and fixing bugs (which no-one is going to argue about), how would you suggest the balance should be changed ?

Better FM : " Why don't they make an Extra 300 and fly a FAI pattern with it "

or that doesn't matter :

" DCS is about fighting a War, with decent AC, but it is not meant to simulate a FAI pattern flown by an Extra 300."