Jump to content

Is DCS WWII stalled? DCS dont want customers?


motoadve

Recommended Posts

I did not state what you state here. Please do not force me to post a quotation from "Master and Margarita" Variete scene...

Documents for this matter are primarily source, evidences - just to prove, add detailed, etc.

 

Haha :megalol:

 

Well I apologise for my assumption, I did not intend to imply that the flight models are based on the hearsay of pilots whom, from the books i have read, tend to be staunch defenders of whichever aircraft they happen to have flown.

 

Please could you expand on what you meant by the sentence below to clarify the matter.

 

I have this evidence from the first hands, not only from documents.

 

Thanks


Edited by Krupi

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ED Team

Erich Bruņotte had a close call as he tried to spiral down to his airfield. Two months ago I had a meeting with him again. I knew this story from our first meeting, but this time I recorded it as well as some new stories.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Brunotte says in that video that that diving spiral was one of the few times he flew with both hands on the stick. Otherwise he seemed to imply that his left hand was always on the throttle. He does mention things getting more "exerting" I guess in combat though, not a specific mention of stick forces but also implied through his gestures.

 

Honestly I've read through Yo-Yos post about the stick force calculations in the 109 thread a couple of times, trying to understand the theory and going through the math etc etc. Its not really that complicated to follow (although there are a few details that may have been lost in translation somewhere along the way), and I don't think theres an issue there. But there are times when it does feel like there is a bit of lag with the hand switching logic or something like that. And definitely the whole thing seems to be affected by netcode and server performance.

 

Yo-Yo maybe you can clear this up once and for all: How does the hand switching logic work for the 109? Does he always fly with both hands? Always with 1 hand? 1 handed till a certain force is reached then 2?

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P51 from a real pilot

 

It has been a long time since I few the P-51 in DCS, specifically take off scenario. When I was, I struggled as the aircraft had a propensity to roll, to the port I think. I would crash more often than not.

 

My wife's Uncle is an FAA fella. Goes to crash sites to investigate AND builds planes. His current favorite is a "hot rod" Luscombe that he rebuilt from a wreck, and has taken me up in, to do barrel rolls, loops etc . . . while cackling the entire time. He has also flown the P-51 or relaying what he learned from a P-51 pilot who is a friend of his associated with the confederate Air Force. Again, couple of years (however long since the P-51 came out), and now I fly the A-10 exclusively.

 

Anyway, I was mentioning to him how much trouble I was having with the P-51 in DCS. He instructed me to set the trim just so, and (I think) lock the tail wheel, and apply power and rotate at XYZ. Guess what, next time from cold start to take off, I lifted off and didn't crash.

 

For whatever that anecdotal evidence is worth.

 

When a real pilot, tells me to do XYZ, and I apply it to a aircraft in DCS and it works as compared to the same P-51 I have flown in the other "high end" titles, I would say in my own anecdotal real life experience that DCS flight models are pretty darn accurate, more so than any other flight titles have I have flown - and I have flown a lot of them.


Edited by SmirkingGerbil

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did we get into this, again, in a completely different thread? :huh: Stick forces is the new complain about Bf109 you found or what? :lol: And that happens despite having probably the best WWII fighter with regards to raw performance :doh:.

 

When a real pilot, tells me to do XYZ, and I apply it to a aircraft in DCS and it works as compared to the same P-51 I have flown in the other "high end" titles, I would say in my own anecdotal real life experience that DCS flight models are pretty darn accurate, more so than any other flight titles have I have flown - and I have flown a lot of them.
That's it mate, though despite your problems at first don't dismiss the fact that you could follow and fulfil the instructions given, which apparently not everybody does :thumbup:.

 

When the official DCS manual says something has to be done like that, but you read others do that other way IRL and after having a go DCS also works with that other way that means IMHO DCS has something others just don't. Take a look at low rpm high boost engine settings Fenrir found to work in the Spitfire despite no manual says a thing about those, only RL experience found that, but in DCS those engine setting do work as expected in the RL counterpart… that means something mates, you understand it or not, and that's the kind of details making me like DCS so much.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I will buy all the DCS WWII stuff as soon as its on sale again.

I have a concern regarding the flight model.

I own a CJ6 Nanchang, which flies very close to the Yak 52.

 

I have the DCS Yak 52, feels pretty good, but something that its totally wrong its the landing, I can land the DCS Yak 52 in 500ft, one time after the other, which is not realistic in real life.

 

I can land my STOL equipped Cessna182 in 500 ft , which stalls at 40mph and I approach at about 48mph, and has extremely powerful brakes.

Yak 52 stalls at about 57 kts and a pretty slow approach is 62kts, its never going to stop in 500ft, with the kind of brakes it has, those air operated brakes are weak, no way.

 

This is my concern about the FM, people claim DCS has the best FM, but if the Yak 52 is modeled like this, how are the WWII planes modeled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I will buy all the DCS WWII stuff as soon as its on sale again.

I have a concern regarding the flight model.

I own a CJ6 Nanchang, which flies very close to the Yak 52.

 

I have the DCS Yak 52, feels pretty good, but something that its totally wrong its the landing, I can land the DCS Yak 52 in 500ft, one time after the other, which is not realistic in real life.

 

I can land my STOL equipped Cessna182 in 500 ft , which stalls at 40mph and I approach at about 48mph, and has extremely powerful brakes.

Yak 52 stalls at about 57 kts and a pretty slow approach is 62kts, its never going to stop in 500ft, with the kind of brakes it has, those air operated brakes are weak, no way.

 

This is my concern about the FM, people claim DCS has the best FM, but if the Yak 52 is modeled like this, how are the WWII planes modeled?

 

As you say, it's a matter of brakes, so, to compare both you have to apply the FM brakes the same way you do in RL - using short pulses. Braking moment is relatively easy to estimate looking at the power setting they can hold.

 

And, by the way, I can not understand how the minor thing like braking moment tuning can be a reason to doubt in the FLIGHT MODEL in general...

 

Anyway, we can measure the istantenious RL deceleration from intensive brake usage directly as they are applied to compare.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the technical part of the work - the most challenging works are now in progress: fan cooling for the BMW that will be as physical as we use to do, Komandogerat with the same physics we have, for example, for R-R boost control and Bendix-Stromberg carburettor as well as for Jumo-213 MBG including thermodynamics approaches to aneroid modelling.

Then will be the time to the turbo unit for P-47 that will be done using the same approaches that we have for Ka-50, A-10 and L-39 engines.

 

This sounds fascinating and will obviously lead to the gold standard of damage modeling once it's finished, but is there any way y'all would consider a simpler intermediate step just to make some of the simpler missions/matchups more flyable against the AI?

 

Right now it's a huge exercise in frustration, and the primary reason I haven't spent much $$$ on Missions (I buy every aircraft module, map, ect., even if I don't fly them... I'm a WWII fanatic, not jets, though I do love screaming down the Strip in a Mirage once in a while...) I can post track after track of damaging an enemy aircraft, where there are as many as four streams of black smoke pouring from the wings, and the AI continues to perform at 120% of max possible reality until I overheat or run out of ammo. Decals, smoke position, etc, are all 'nice to haves', but this is game-breaking to me, and directly causes me to not fly the sim nearly as much as I should.

 

A simple 60-90 second timer for the AI to bail or attempt to fly home once a certain amount of damage in the CURRENT flight model is delivered would completely fix the playability from my standpoint. Even better would be something like a 50% AI penalty to speed and turn rate. A few lines of very general code... NOTHING like the above incredible detail, and the playability vs. AI would go from game-breaking to completely acceptable.

 

I don't mind the simplified flight model for AI... I don't mind simplified visual or physical damage modeling. I mind the game-breaking inability to defeat AI aircraft after delivering crippling hits to them, that the game acknowledges as crippling with streams of black smoke. Is there any chance this can be addressed while we wait for the precise reduction in performance to be coded and tested that one would get with a 7.62 round through the turbo intercooler? :)

PC - 3900X - Asus Crosshair Hero VIII - NZXT Kraken 63 - 32 GB RAM - 2080ti - SB X-Fi Titanium PCIe - Alienware UW - Windows 10

 

Sim hardware - Warthog throttle - VKB Gunfighter III - CH Quadrant - Slaw Device Pedals - Obutto R3volution pit - HP Reverb G2 - 2X AuraSound shakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say, it's a matter of brakes, so, to compare both you have to apply the FM brakes the same way you do in RL - using short pulses. Braking moment is relatively easy to estimate looking at the power setting they can hold.

 

And, by the way, I can not understand how the minor thing like braking moment tuning can be a reason to doubt in the FLIGHT MODEL in general...

 

Anyway, we can measure the istantenious RL deceleration from intensive brake usage directly as they are applied to compare.

 

Plane touches down and sticks to the ground like glue, with little forward momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will buy all the DCS WWII stuff as soon as its on sale again.

I have a concern regarding the flight model.

I own a CJ6 Nanchang, which flies very close to the Yak 52.

 

I have the DCS Yak 52, feels pretty good, but something that its totally wrong its the landing, I can land the DCS Yak 52 in 500ft, one time after the other, which is not realistic in real life.

 

I can land my STOL equipped Cessna182 in 500 ft , which stalls at 40mph and I approach at about 48mph, and has extremely powerful brakes.

Yak 52 stalls at about 57 kts and a pretty slow approach is 62kts, its never going to stop in 500ft, with the kind of brakes it has, those air operated brakes are weak, no way.

 

This is my concern about the FM, people claim DCS has the best FM, but if the Yak 52 is modeled like this, how are the WWII planes modeled?

 

I think there is a built in braking action modeled into DCS that somehow affects all the aircraft. Every jet I’ve flown taxis always along pretty briskly just with idle thrust. I can’t directly compare DCS to real life, but I’d be surprised for example if the F-14 quickly stops on its own with no brakes in RL as in DCS. Maybe this is what is happening with the YAK.... perhaps it’s not specific to that model but of DCS itself.

 

I’ve flown the real Yak, but don’t have the DCS model. The 182 you have, is that a Katmai or Petersen SE260? I used to fly one of those - cool airplane.

6700K@4.6 48Gb - 1080Ti Hybrid - Warthog - RIFT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plane touches down and sticks to the ground like glue, with little forward momentum.

 

Not for me. You sure you don't for some weird reason have the brakes always on or something?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a built in braking action modeled into DCS that somehow affects all the aircraft. Every jet I’ve flown taxis always along pretty briskly just with idle thrust. I can’t directly compare DCS to real life, but I’d be surprised for example if the F-14 quickly stops on its own with no brakes in RL as in DCS. Maybe this is what is happening with the YAK.... perhaps it’s not specific to that model but of DCS itself.

 

I’ve flown the real Yak, but don’t have the DCS model. The 182 you have, is that a Katmai or Petersen SE260? I used to fly one of those - cool airplane.

 

Not the Katmai but lots of mods in my 182.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEy4on05jWQG3aNN5USqChQ?view_as=public

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I think there is a built in braking action modeled into DCS that somehow affects all the aircraft. Every jet I’ve flown taxis always along pretty briskly just with idle thrust. I can’t directly compare DCS to real life, but I’d be surprised for example if the F-14 quickly stops on its own with no brakes in RL as in DCS. Maybe this is what is happening with the YAK.... perhaps it’s not specific to that model but of DCS itself.

 

I’ve flown the real Yak, but don’t have the DCS model. The 182 you have, is that a Katmai or Petersen SE260? I used to fly one of those - cool airplane.

 

F-14 IS NOT DCS PRODUCT. It is FOR DCS - great difference

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps it’s not specific to that model but of DCS itself

 

I don't think so. Aircraft I fly in DCS are the Fw-190, Mi-8, L-39 and Yak-52, and none of them suffer from excessive ground friction or wheels / brakes stiction that I can notice.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice to have an update on the WWII side of DCS today :music_whistling:

 

I can't wait to see the mossie cockpit :music_whistling: or damage model :music_whistling: :D

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ofcourse aircrafts are laking, we only have fighters and one bomber.

 

ww2 hasnt stalled at all, its just beginning :D

 

2 maps

A-8, P-47, Me-262, Corsair

new damage model

 

Why Corsair?(I like it a lot but..) Also saw they are making an IL16.

 

Will more make sense if they do one front to start with , I would like a 109G 6 , which was in Normandy, not the 109K or Dora.

Unrealistic match from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also saw they are making an IL16.

 

Can you provide a link please? This is the first time I hear about this. And yes, as a groundpounder I'll buy it straightaway, because that plane packs a bloody punch :gun_smilie:

 

EDIT: No, they are not. They're making an I-16 which isn't even remotely the same thing. But thanks anyway.


Edited by msalama

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW2 aircrats:

ED:

Fw-190 A-8/F-8, P-47, Mosquito, Me-262, follow projects

 

Magnitude 3

F4U-1 corsair

 

Octopus-G

I-16

 

The Bf-109K-4 was part of the old WW2 Kickstartes by Luthiem with the Fw-190D-9, P-47 and Me-262. Initially was planned as a standalone product, with the WW2 Assets pack. Now under the WW2 team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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