Jump to content

Degraded Su-27 aerodynamic lift


Maverick Su-35S

Recommended Posts

I also truly believe that IT IS ED's obligation to show us HOW they came up with the FM and not the other way around. If they can show the hard evidence for their FM then all these useless discussions on the forum will come to an end.

 

 

The guy's in this thread are just backseat armchair engineers that are always nitpicking on everything that's not 100/100 modeled. The work that go's into making these fight models are massive. Are they 100/100 perfect simulation? I dare say no...Are they the best out there for the home PC, outside of the military and their hardware? I dare say a big yes....

 

Below is the best post on the forum that simply explains what these guy's do, or you can also download the High Fidelity Flight Dynamics and Tech/Academic Initial Demonstration to get some idea. The Data source was from NASA technical papers, the engine model are extrapolated equations from the NASA manned sim. Read more here

 

Another good read is the Heatblur Simulations AIM-54 Phoenix CFD Whitepaper. Heatblur hired guy's to do CFD Simulation on the missile to gain enough info on the flight characteristics and performance for the sim, read the document, it's crazy modeling and data mining for a missile for a sim.

 

I am neither an FM programmer nor an aerodynamics specialist in any way, but I believe blade element theory is not only perfectly applicable to ED's AFM, but is in fact only one aspect of it. In other words what we describe as AFM includes blade element theory, but also other modeling approaches that combine to make the entire aircraft model.

 

We break the aircraft down into sub-elements (including breaking the rotor blades/propeller blades/wings/stabilizers into sub-elements like the root, mid-section, trailing edge) and apply physics equations to each element in real time to determine the forces and moments acting on it at any point in time. These are summed together to produce the total velocity of the aircraft. In addition each element affects other elements of the model, such as the wings affecting the airflow over the tail section, or the prop wash effects on the fuselage of the P-51, etc.

 

1-1_zps0c000c00.jpg

 

Where I would say ED's AFM takes it a step further is in applying the same principles to primary aircraft systems modeling, like the engine, fuel, hydraulics, and most recently electrics. Obviously you can increase the level of depth in real-time modeling endlessly and the limit only depends on time available and computing power, but generally I would say that our AFM models probably feature the deepest and widest real time (what we call "honest") calculated factors of such aircraft systems you would see on the PC, at least at the consumer level. To give you an idea, when you run the starter in the P-51D and see the landing gear warning lights dim, it isn't because there is a specific script for this to happen, but because you're actually pulling virtual juice from the virtual battery that is virtually running in real time and supplying the instruments and systems with virtual power through a virtual bus, to which the lights are connected. The same applies to the engine model with its main elements like cylinder pressures, temperature and lubrication factors, the various mechanical components like the RPM governor, supercharger, radiator doors, etc. And the same applies to other mechanical systems like the flight controls and their operation between the cockpit and the control surfaces, the trim mechanisms, the landing gear. Again, it's ultimately a model and cannot be completely correct or account for every physical phenomenon, but we try to go as deep as possible in terms of real-time modeling and as wide as possible in terms of covering physical effects within reasonable limits of time and money. Otherwise we could work on any one model endlessly, which is probably what some of the devs would like to do. smile.gif

 

To be short, AFM is built from the ground up. We don't build behaviors to match desired performance. We build a physical model as correctly as possible and then check it against known performance characteristics. If the model is built correctly, it should match the performance characteristics closely by itself without requiring any "top-down" scripting to do so. Of course some miscalculations or oversimplifications or just plain errors happen along the way, so testing, tuning and adjusting is always necessary.

 

Here's a description of the Ka-50 model:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/black_shark/#22728

 

Similar for the Huey:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/huey/#340494

 

 

300 posts.. I'm out. Times up. Got a better things to do.. Cya.

 


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also truly believe that IT IS ED's obligation to show us HOW they came up with the FM and not the other way around. If they can show the hard evidence for their FM then all these useless discussions on the forum will come to an end.

 

 

No, it actually isn't, especially considering some of the stuff they have access to is privileged information from the manufacturers. How about not act like drama queens every time you think you find something you consider a flaw? Too adult? You guys aren't consumer advocates arguing about a virtual aircraft's flight model, and in the case of the insinuations of lawsuits, you're just virtue signaling fools. Plain and simple.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys know there is a ignore list on your user cp? You can put their name there and not deal with undesirable people behavior. I use it all the time and sure makes the forums more enjoyable.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that claim right or wrong should be customers?

 

If you claim it's wrong, the burden of proof is on you. This is how it has been since the dawn of time in any sane society. Not ED's problem if you fail to understand this.

 

Also, fraud? Are you stoned or something?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have closed this thread a long time ago when Maverick was proved to be wrong.

 

This thread is pointless, a waste of time.

 

See how much time ED devs spend looking here. Except they don't because the ones saying there is something wrong can't prove their point and they try to use videos, "thinks" and "guesses" instead of proper documentation like other people on this forum do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have closed this thread a long time ago when Maverick was proved to be wrong.

 

This thread is pointless, a waste of time.

 

See how much time ED devs spend looking here. Except they don't because the ones saying there is something wrong can't prove their point and they try to use videos, "thinks" and "guesses" instead of proper documentation like other people on this forum do.

 

Wrong! ED can't prove their point with real aerodynamic data on the real 3D models with corrected wind tunnel data ((the uncorrected wind tunnel data is far from being realistic) and I know for sure what's wrong from right because I'm an aerodynamicist and at the moment I can only tell the Su-27's and other plane's FMs should still be considered a WIP, simply because some aerodynamic coefficients aren't correct and also because no airplane completely simulates the flaps and slats effects (although another thread is has been raised just for that topic).

 

If you say ED should've closed this thread, then that means ED should also close their relationship with those who buy their product, thus their image will start to go down. If they want to follow your words, then they will be the ones to lose, not those who can see for themselves what flight simulator it's worth it or not, because day after day people start looking more for simulation realism rather than graphics, and I hate to think this is some sort of arcade flight simulator, cause I'd regret every cent that I've spent in it!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats attitude paradigm actually. And players should take someone project being 'simulator' just by claimng so in a title and the actual ones to proove is that claim right or wrong should be customers? Things dont work that way esac. You know the one saying 'customers are allways right'? That's the RL ethic. British ED should stick to that.

 

 

Very well said, yet although, we the buyers of ED products for our fun or to see how well the simulator is (my primary interest) are not necessarily have to be "always right" and there is where things should be put on the table, open the books, draw charts and with a professional attitude start proving right from wrong again and again, but no..., the attitude that we see from ED is...:

 

 

"I don't think that ED has to offer any explanation for how it's being simulated, I don't think that ED should give you an answer..., I don't think that ED should even look at you...! From this picture, I'd rather realize that that ED has become some sort of god that eats his customers patience by trying to foul with their minds and won't give credible answers to anyone, no matter what.

 

 

As a metaphor: "ED rejects the reality and substitutes it's own..."! Well, at least that's the way we see it more and more!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED doesn't have to prove anything to you. They made the sim and its out there. You are the one saying it's wrong therefore you have to prove it. Not ED.

 

ED said it's correct, so you have to prove that they aren't.

 

 

NO! ED said it's correct, so they are the first who must prove that what they did is right, and only then I may come with my arguments and own analysis, but we haven't yet passed the first step. Even if I come with real charts and data they will still find another excuse not to listen and try to make me look like the wrong one once again, so it won't be it!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO! ED said it's correct, so they are the first who must prove that what they did is right, and only then I may come with my arguments and own analysis, but we haven't yet passed the first step. Even if I come with real charts and data they will still find another excuse not to listen and try to make me look like the wrong one once again, so it won't be it!

 

When it is suspected that you committed a crime, how does it go ? Do you have to prove your are not guilty first ? without the other party providing any proof that you could be appart from "I think he did it" ?

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it is suspected that you committed a crime, how does it go ? Do you have to prove your are not guilty first ? without the other party providing any proof that you could be appart from "I think he did it" ?

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

 

Of course there are flaws in ED's design and some of us just want ED to acknowledge them and correct them. Defending ED in the manner that you do is the most ignorant thing to do. Questioning everything is the key to learn and to improve... everything.

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

 

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement.

Microsoft combat flight sim 1 was a simulator, just not a very complex one.

DCS is obviously a SIM (the A-10C module being derived from a military simulator)

 

What you're suggesting is that they claim it's perfect, which they don't.

They say it's as good as is practically possible given current technology.

They also say they will - and have in the past - change aspects if proof of a discrepancy is provided.

 

So the sim exists as it exists until ED change it.

 

If ED are to change it, they can either do so when they're presented with facts, or they can do so in response to the shoutiest voices.

 

The loudest voices will say "too much" today, and "too little" tomorrow. Allowing the loudest voices to lead rarely results in the best outcome for the followers.

 

making changes in response to presented facts makes the most sense.

 

 

WRT ED 'proving' their modelling is correct, I suspect nothing short of, and perhaps including, presenting their entire database, methodology and calculations would satisfy some people - but it would satisfy anyone else that wanted a shortcut to setting themselves up in competition.

 

Commercially sensitive material is commercially sensitive material....

 

The SIM gives the capability to analyse it's performance.

Use that, and real life data if it can be found, to make any arguments you have.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

That would be true if it was your forum about sims and ED as a user made such statement there. You as an admin report "no, it's not". Then they "have to" prove otherwise to stand correct.

 

 

Of course there are flaws in ED's design and some of us just want ED to acknowledge them and correct them. Defending ED in the manner that you do is the most ignorant thing to do. Questioning everything is the key to learn and to improve... everything.

And everyone agree with that. You just have to prove it's wrong in a well documented way and not with just "Of course there are flaws" which is the case here. Otherwise you're ignored because there are a lot of people who "think" there is something wrong and it'd be unwise to sacrifice time and resources of a company to prove them wrong every time a false statement is made.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why isn't ED bothering to send one of their "experts" in to assist and explain

 

 

Because every two weeks some world renowned theoretician shows up to argue the same shit over and over again. You and Jack are textbook examples of what I frequently refer to : "somebody starting a drama thread about *insert topic* as if they were the first person to have the thought". Every single time they claim to be field leading experts, too!

 

 

Even IF you two actually do have a clue what you're talking about (although I'm doubtful) best case your bloated egos get in the way of any points you might be trying to make. And thus far, though I haven't trawled the dozens of pages of detritus here, all I've seen is conjecture and hearsay combined with some napkin math and theorising from the two of you.

 

 

I'm with Esac, you guys should go off to a romantic tropical island together and make your dream game... Or maybe go invest some more time in these "better sims" you were such dramatic influences on, since DCS is such a disappointment. You won't be missed.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just that there are flaws but missing fundimental free body motion physics over basic inertia tensor matrices. Model position and angular velocity values spikes in and around all axes in such way that every time you can say wtf at loud. Models are massles and trajectory control is a myth. Drag/lift curves are not near actual wind tunnel tests - even it would be acceptable error margin of 20% for a rudimental sim by far away from RL software CFD calculation attempts. Model performance is not even close near that crude calculation but way below actual data. The worst thing is that not all geometrically simmilar models preform in simmilar way but each have their own set of rules of physics. Its such a mess there. Next big flaw is actual density of air that greatly affects lift and drag curves thus we have RL climb champions greatly fall behind some ingame models that behave like interplanetary rockets, T/W ratio is completly neglected. Shall we go on structural strenght attempt integration that touches only Su family line by braking glass wing 'feature': pull stuck hard to limit - wings fall off and damn fuel fire goes on (where did that came from?) even weight of fuel is 1t with 2 remaining missiles under belly but on other side some models pull 12g thru all flight envelope without any structural damage. Shell we touch pure balistics of missiles? Test it please. All missiles fall short at 30% of nominal range as deceleration is tremendeous, plane catches 120km range missile after 15 secs of flight. Shall we talk about radar return signature as obviously on some models screaming return signal is silenced as what you optically can see your radar cant even notice. Same story on IR signature. List goes on and on.. Missile guidence and countermeasures resistance is per some modeles close to rule regardles of intercept aspect so eg. just drop pair of flares and youre safe against any inbound IR seeker. Proximity fuse, warhead blast energy impact or cumulative effects are all different per module.. But look this, dcs in its previous incarnations have come pretty close to actual performance charts so they have prooven its cause but during the time things got so biase and polarised that this product does not dserve its titile, and we know that coders are actually capable to come close to actual performance. This game is so toxic that it deserves warning disclaimer. And at the end, some (ed?) guys claiming that DCS is a sim and that customers need to proove it first is such outrageus claim that just cant stand any rational brain. Nobody asked ED to say what methods they have used to acomplish flight model performance but only and only final verification of FM against either RL wind tests or certified software tests-simple as that, and in conclusion the ingame vs real chart data deviation as This post initiative brought up by simple comparison. Its trivial but no ED guy gets that serious so why would customers too, civilian or mil in the same manner. Get real. Bring us proof of simulation or place disclaimers around as everyones intention by critics is not to start lawsuits but to fix what is wrong in this 'sim'. When will ed get that straight?

Somehow I figured you wouldn't actually leave. You're having too much fun.

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg

 

_____

Win 10 Pro x64, ASUS Z97 Pro MoBo, Intel i7-4790K, EVGA GTX 970 4GB, HyperX Savage 32GB, Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD, 2x Seagate Hybrid Drive 2TB Raid 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually supporting my collegues from actual RL industry that actualy can't be taken unseriously in professional field and while not really having so much fun.. It looks more like job of Sisyphus but I cant actually say that I didn't try to warn ED of its (deliberate?) mistakes. My conscience is clear. It's up to ED to deal with incomming tidal wave of complaints. Also, I'm finishing my drawings so this could be called a little digression of a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to say that but if you guys are the stars of the RL industry we would have no planes which are actually able to fly.

 

Remembering your unforgotten wheels on grass thread and Mavericks famous (or infamous?) tour through all the FM's of the Mirage, the F-15 and now the Su-27 (beat me if I forgot one :thumbup:) I have more than serious doubts that anybody of you two guys is more than an aeronautics student in the second year. I could be horribly wrong but this would not make it better in any case...

 

 

As it was said before, you guys were never able to prove ED wrong and in dubio pro reo…

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to say that but if you guys are the stars of the RL industry we would have no planes which are actually able to fly.

 

Remembering your unforgotten wheels on grass thread and Mavericks famous (or infamous?) tour through all the FM's of the Mirage, the F-15 and now the Su-27 (beat me if I forgot one :thumbup:) I have more than serious doubts that anybody of you two guys is more than an aeronautics student in the second year. I could be horribly wrong but this would not make it better in any case...

 

As it was said before, you guys were never able to prove ED wrong and in dubio pro reo…

 

This is just getting.....mmm

 

aeronautics student? Don't think so, if they had any idea they would be more professional less condescending and use real documentation and actually "show ED" how it could be modeled better and what's missing and how ALL these simulations should be as good as he "thinks it should" and all run together and still all run perfectly on our home PC's. (ED is adding the Valkan API for headroom)

 

Just backseat armchair engineers, nitpicking on everything with very vague statements and idea's, it's borderline tolling in every thread that gets started. stuck on grass etc. Many of the things you post will get better in the sim at some point. I'm sure many of the dedicated coders and engineers at ED would love to make much of these little things better. You have to balance it all out tho and still move forward as a company to stay in business.

 

Maverick Su-35S

 

I'm not going to go on about those other sim's you posted as we don't do that here. They are great for what they do, when it comes to modelling edge of envelope and helicopter flight they fail. The ww2 one is not bad, still feels way to easy for a prop plane and I do follow guy's that are very into that sim and point out many faults, it's still a great "game" to play. ED needs this too and are making parts of the sim a better for "game play", this is also why they need the Valkan API for more headroom.

 

DCS for me feels way more alive than other sims and convinces "me more" that I'm flying a real aircraft in the air and the choppers even more so. This all comes back to how much modelling go's into building up these FM's.

 

They also have many commercial contracts and some use the software and FM in D level sim's. mi-17, mi-8 AVIA traning & Simulators

 

Building from scratch, no reference to other engines, prefer just being original and not to be possibly misguided. Ready on vulkan api, setting up workflow schematics, also seting up dynamic tessellation on terain model-found great samples for vulcan, second level refinement over procedural terrain is a must, coding gui framework, importing dummy OBJs.. Seting up trajectory engine is next big step after this above is set and ready.. We'll see..

 

I would still go with the JSB Sim open source flight dynamics model software for the physics, this has been around and worked on for a long time.

 

Have fun.;)

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all actions learned and all muscle memory gained by playing this game could lead to misleading actions and/or loss of life and physical damage to real life assets if commited in reality. ED does not guarantee viability and accuracy of FM in comparison to actual performance data of referenced flight models. Use at your own risk!

 

I don't see the problem here... you think you can train perfect muscle memory with a desktop simulator ? And that you can have a 1:1 FM ?

 

For me this particular statement (without the first whiny bit) is quite a good disclaimer that could be applied to any desktop software/SIM.

 

Are you using DCS to practice before flying the real air-frames ? If it is what you are doing, I'm sorry but you are doing it wrong.

 

As I said before :

 

If you think you can do a better SIM in less time, DO IT.

 

If you think that ED is doing false advertising and that it should be reported to authorities, DO IT.

 

But stop with the empty threats.


Edited by myHelljumper

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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