Jump to content

109 sounds and other so called improvements


birdstrike

Recommended Posts

well...even at the very early stage of the first beta version of the 109, the devs claimed, that their sounds are as close as it can get, as they use recordings of the real thing....now meantime, the engine sound of the 109 changed probably like 5times already, and has hardly anything in common anymore with the original sounds...so what is it? was the sound of the open beta the real deal, or is the current one the one which they consider to be close to real life:music_whistling:

 

normally im not too much into the sound aspect of a flight sim. so im not arguing much about whether this or that is closer to the real 109....BUT...with every single patch that adressed the sounds of the 109, the different engine revolutions became less and less audible. im flying piston engines every day in real life, and even with the headset on, besides all the noise, different rpm settings are very much audible, especially if you are used to a certain type of aircraft. in the dcs 109, this became harder and harder up to the point with 2.5.4, where there is actually not any difference anymore between lets say 2500 and 2900 rpm except the overall noise. for me personally clearly great steps backwards....

 

now the sounds are one thing, but while the devs obviously put some work into the cockpit textures, while there are apparent bugs that are reported SINCE ITS RELEASE and have not even been acknowledged up to this very day, im afraid not even the new cockpit is an improvement in my eyes. the opposite tbh.

 

and then there are the new ground physics, which are maybe more noob friendly, but not more realstic...im starting to ask myself, if dcs still has the same focus they promised when i actually purchased that module....realism.

:)


Edited by birdstrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see the last "improvements" also would to know where is DCS heading now in WW2?

 

 

We still go for Full Realism or more for Mainstream Playability?

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New 109 sounds more like a lawnmower than anything else :(

 

My first impression, exactly. It is impossible to hear now what RPM you are running.

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for me it was quite a great sound update ? Whazzup ?

 

 

 

Good question. I have seen quite a few discussions about the sound before, and oddly the raw sound files often sound great when you open them, but ingame they sound nothing like the raw ones.

 

 

And I know that there are several parameters involved into sound recording like microphone quality and such. But I have been at enough air shows and with most video's on youtube a P-51 sounds like when I heard one in real life.

Something appears to be off.

 

 

So I end up using mods myself for the WW2 aircraft and UH-1. From the modules I own, only the FA-18 sounds great out of the box. This is of course also subjective.

Spoiler

W10-x64 | Z390 Gigabyte Aorus Ultra | Core i7 9700K @ 4.8Ghz | Noctua NH-D15

Corsair 32Gb 3200 | MSI RTX 3080ti Gaming X

Asus Xonar AE | TM Hotas Warthog

MFG Crosswind pedals | Valve Index

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2days ago you said that you dont even own the module currently...so whazzup?

 

Simple! Christmas IS Christmas....

 

I pushed the update this morning, flew the 25-N, and then proceeded to buy the K-4, installed, configured, went for the Quickstart takeoff ( Caucasus ) mission, and voilà !

 

 

I had also bought Nornandy, and pushed it, trying the 25-N over Normandy in the default Quickstart doghfhgt mission, which gave me that other GOOD! surprise regarding performance / smoothness gains since I had last used Normandy.

 

 

How could I have used before? I just wrote I bought it? Whazzup ??? - Go figure!


Edited by jcomm

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple! Christmas IS Christmas....

 

I pushed the update this morning, flew the 25-N, and then proceeded to buy the K-4, installed, configured, went for the Quickstart takeoff ( Caucasus ) mission, and voilà !

 

 

good for u :lol:

 

well, then re-read my opening post and compare with your installation...or even better, also try the previous 2.5.3 for comparison, and tell me in which installation the different rpm settings are more audible.

 

for me with 2.5.4 the 109 now sounds pretty close to this at either 2500 or 2900rpm:

 

 

while i could notice differences with the first open beta version when the plane was released, of about 50rpm, now i can hardly tell the differences of 400rpm anymore.


Edited by birdstrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good for u :lol:

 

well, then re-read my opening post and compare with your installation...or even better, also try the previous 2.5.3 for comparison, and tell me in which installation the different rpm settings are more audible.

 

for me with 2.5.4 the 109 now sounds pretty close to this at either 2500 or 2900rpm:

 

 

while i could notice differences with the first open beta version when the plane was released, of about 50rpm, now i can hardly tell the differences of 400rpm anymore.

 

Well..., I'll check it later on ... and report back.

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, the tires have too little friction. i dont agree that this looks "better", or in anyway convinceable. look at 1.5 videos of the 109...they had it almost spot on before, and then changed it to be beginner friendly. which makes no sense whatsoever, as there are already features like "autorudder" and "take off assistance" suiting to beginners who had problems with the original ground physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it great when people who haven't the first bloody clue about sound recording and the issues in recording prototype aircraft for sampling in a simulation, make sweeping catch all statements about how it should be better.

 

I'd love to give you guys a small developers sound budget and tell you go record a sample set for a Bf 109K and see how far you got. Lol!

 

Here's a little lesson on what you have to worry about.

 

The trouble with getting good samples for WW2 period engines across the entire power range is problematic indeed, even for commonly available (read Merlin or Allison) powerplants.

 

For example, a typical Spitfire display according to a source I talked to about 10 years ago never went above 6lb boost (more typically kept to 4) and 2400-2600RPM.

 

No owner runs these motors at anything like the full military power settings, let alone WEP. They're too expensive and engine life is reduced for every lb of MP you use that isn't necessary.

 

So you can have your recordings in cockpit, at idle, and various decisions of power and prop combinations - and you'll have to select a compromise few cos there's no way you could rationally package a complete audio file subset for every possible combination of power and RPM; the data size would be ridiculous. So you compromise there.

 

Now how the hell do you get a sub-set for all those areas of the power envelope that the very nice owner (who has, incidentally, let you clamber all over his very expensive airframe installing mics and put fatigue hours on both his very expensive airframe and even more expensive engine) will not permit his airplane to get to?

 

Please, as such doyens of aeronautical acoustics you should surely have the solution....

 

Then there's the microphones. All mics colour the sound they hear compared to human hearing by nature of the physics inherent with the microphones dimensions and materials it is constructed from. Now it goes without saying that as a general rule the more money you pay the better the mic and the less colouration you get - BUT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME. But this brings budget into consideration. You as sound guy have to possibly fly somewhere (paying for flights) with your mobile sound recording studio (not light gear btw) paying for hotels, food and the like just to access the particular airframe/powerplant combo that is your target. How expensive are the mics gonna be...

 

Now you gotta consider where you record from - ideally you want it at ear level in the cockpit, but a pilot generally sits there so you gotta find some where unobtrusive, but representative. Put it too outta the way and you'll get a load of airframe noise with powerplant returns that have bounced off and scattered of a hundred formers, avionics boxes & the like; not good. So it has to be in cockpit. For that you probably need a small mic so it doesn't get in anyones way - OOPS! You run into colouration issues cos a mic with a small diaphragm/capsule colours sound and will lose low end.

 

You wanna record engine noise outside of the airframe? Then the airframe will have to be tied down and run-up (for which there are again limits) cos you have a snowballs chance in hell of recording anything but wind noise with a microphone stuck out in a 150+mph airflow.

 

And this just for a Merlin!

 

As for the Daimler Benzess? Flying examples of these are vastly rarer and such just having access to a live example is even more problematic, without even thinking about running it at the K-4 rated ATAs and RPMs. And - lol - MW50? Ha! Forget about it.

 

 

The only real solution is thus:

 

Take the recordings you have and analyse the various frequency and harmonic trends over the sound spectrum that the engine occupies as power and RPM changes occur and try to extrapolate the likely shifts in these as further power increases shift the patterns around. Use this analysis to then create a sound model that is programmed to follow these trends for the target airframe; essentially a pre-programmed - with variable but finite input parameters - synthesiser.

 

Now much here depends on the modelling, the core synthesiser software, bit-rate, throughput and resolution. As software tech improves, so these models improve.

 

This is how most previous sims since Il-2: 1946 have done it, and is the only way to get around the limited power output of the protype examples running.

 

It also explains:

 

well...even at the very early stage of the first beta version of the 109, the devs claimed, that their sounds are as close as it can get, as they use recordings of the real thing....now meantime, the engine sound of the 109 changed probably like 5times already, and has hardly anything in common anymore with the original sounds...so what is it? was the sound of the open beta the real deal, or is the current one the one which they consider to be close to real life

 

Because 5 years ago it was the best the software could come up with - improvements in software and manipulation since have allowed closer approximation.

 

I hope your ignorance on this issue has been dispelled and that snowballs into slightly less sneering attitude from you in the future Birdstrike.

 

PS - For what it's worth, I've flown the Mk.IX Spitfire and in cockpit the DCS one is spot on. They're getting something right.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been around a few spits in my days and at least the external overhead fly by’s sound nothing like real world. Some very good sound mods within the community that makes these airframes sound more accurate.

I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fenrir..... wall of text and taking the merlin and spit as an example while in the 109 forum? and ending with insults while not even reading what i was saying. its you who is ignorant.

 

i dont even need real world recordings...what i do expect though, is to be able to hear differences between 2000 and 2900rpm other than a slight volume increase.


Edited by birdstrike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, the tires have too little friction. i dont agree that this looks "better", or in anyway convinceable. look at 1.5 videos of the 109...they had it almost spot on before, and then changed it to be beginner friendly. which makes no sense whatsoever, as there are already features like "autorudder" and "take off assistance" suiting to beginners who had problems with the original ground physics.

 

Because Nick Grey pointed out you get far more sensational feedback in the real airframe that there is no way of replicating in the sim; ergo it is harder to keep the a/c straight in the sim than real life. Which kind of goes against the point - if it's harder then it's as bad (or worse) than being easier?

 

They decided to let the frictional physics be more forgiving as a concession. Was it the right decision? Depends on your position in the gulf between purist user demanding 100% accuracy and the developer wanting accessibility for their product.

 

The auto-rudder and take-off assistance will have no effect if someone touches down with too much sideslip cos they can't feel it btw.

 

And just because you can do it at the "too realistic level" doesn't mean everyone can - I know a lot of my squad mates too intimidated by DCS to even try it; that means lost potential sales and that's not good for the community as a whole.

 

IMHO I suspect they went a little too far too, however, these things are always a subjective matter, and will require adjusting to best suit everyone's taste. Lately, it seems, a better balance has been struck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fenrir..... wall of text and taking the merlin as an example while in the 109 forum? and ending with insults while not even reading what i was saying. its you who is ignorant.

 

i dont even need real world recordings...what i do expect though, is to be able to hear differences between 2000 and 2900rpm other than a slight volume increase.

 

As is suspected. You want to tell everyone how they are wrong and learn nothing from anyone else. Good luck to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Nick Grey pointed out you get far more sensational feedback in the real airframe that there is no way of replicating in the sim; ergo it is harder to keep the a/c straight in the sim than real life. Which kind of goes against the point - if it's harder then it's as bad (or worse) than being easier?

 

They decided to let the frictional physics be more forgiving as a concession. Was it the right decision? Depends on your position in the gulf between purist user demanding 100% accuracy and the developer wanting accessibility for their product.

 

The auto-rudder and take-off assistance will have no effect if someone touches down with too much sideslip cos they can't feel it btw.

 

And just because you can do it at the "too realistic level" doesn't mean everyone can - I know a lot of my squad mates too intimidated by DCS to even try it; that means lost potential sales and that's not good for the community as a whole.

 

IMHO I suspect they went a little too far too, however, these things are always a subjective matter, and will require adjusting to best suit everyone's taste. Lately, it seems, a better balance has been struck.

 

all fine with that...make it optional then and let the guys who want the realistic ground physics still have it...but dont force it on us.

and imo, even with the "harder" ground physics, landings and takeoffs in dcs were easier than irl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been around a few spits in my days and at least the external overhead fly by’s sound nothing like real world. Some very good sound mods within the community that makes these airframes sound more accurate.

 

Agreed, but that becomes part of a realm in which it becomes even more problematic and has to do with the modelling of SPL and the fact that the entire virtual spectrum of sound has to be compressed - else the explosion of a Mk84 would blow the cones out of your speakers or rupture your eardrums - which brings it's own problems.

 

The previously-abandoned-title-that-cannot-be-named has a neat way of getting around this; I suspect it plays a looping sample when a viewed aircraft is a set distance from the player and blends it with the synthesised engine sound model, then seemingly applies it's own rules for SPL and Doppler effects. It sounds pretty convincing, with a nice throb and apparent resonance.

 

Whether DCS could use the same process is known only to ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all fine with that...make it optional then and let the guys who want the realistic ground physics still have it...but dont force it on us.

 

Valid point.

 

 

and imo, even with the "harder" ground physics, landings and takeoffs in dcs were easier than irl.

 

I'll take Nick Grey's opinion over yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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