New damage model

No, props are in our own sandbox... but looking forward it could be possible to gather Sabre, MiG and P-51 (maybe some more props) in one place... then it will play a role. But BST work (in releases) meets our standards. They use "books" and engineer's point of view to the models.

I can remember BST said something about the possibility of a Korean map, not to mention Dmitry Linievich Yak-9 and La-9 3D models belonging to some DCS company (probably BST), but last time we heard anything about that was so long time ago (I think even before jet modules, may be at first Sabre news or release) that I don't believe most of the people recall a thing about it.

 

I would really like to see a Korean theatre to a DCS level. And yes, I absolutely LOVE MiG-15 module, also Huey, Belsimtek team is really exquisite in details.

 

S!

i hope for a playable He111 next :)

 

Is anyone planning on making one?

And, I think, IAF pilot opinion must be valued for you... as you presume pilot's feedback very important.

 

Aerodynamics books and pilot feedback are complementary. Engineers can be wrong just as much as pilots given certain situations. Heck, I've even seen flight test data that was wrong because the sensors weren't installed correctly.

 

Pilot feedback is used throughout the vast majority of commercial and military flight simulation businesses as the main validation process for FM behaviour. Most aeronautical certification authorities do recognize this validation process. Of course, a solid physical model needs to be built before this validation process can occur like you said, but I would not dismiss so easily the value of pilot feedback.

 

I deal with test pilots regularly... and while it is true that their feedback can vary from pilot to pilot on a given aspect of a flight model, there are good or bad test pilots just as much as there are good or bad engineers or good or bad books.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Charly_Owl

This is great news! :)

Please, don't derail this thread with "who has the better approach" . Yo-Yo and ED/BST has always delivered top quality modules! The engineering approach is what makes DCS level PFM stand out from other simulators. For good or bad, somethings might feel too "mechanical and overcalculated", but as Yo-Yo wrote, you need that base to stand on. And only then, the pilots give their input for fine-tuning. That is what brings out all the fun little oddities each module has to offer. The module might not fly like in other sims, but it has a signature DCS level of "feel" to it that I don't get in any other simulator.

Please, don't derail this thread with "who has the better approach" . Yo-Yo and ED/BST has always delivered top quality modules!

 

No one here is dismissing the importance or quality of Yo-Yo's work and a rigorous physics model. Yo-Yo initiated this discussion; everyone here is perfectly calm. :)

Edited July 19, 2016 by Charly_Owl

Aerodynamics books and pilot feedback are complementary. Engineers can be wrong just as much as pilots given certain situations. Heck, I've even seen flight test data that was wrong because the sensors weren't installed correctly.

 

Pilot feedback is used throughout the vast majority of commercial and military flight simulation businesses as the main validation process for FM behaviour. Most aeronautical certification authorities do recognize this validation process. Of course, a solid physical model needs to be built before this validation process can occur like you said, but I would not dismiss so easily the value of pilot feedback.

 

I deal with test pilots regularly... and while it is true that their feedback can vary from pilot to pilot on a given aspect of a flight model, there are good or bad test pilots just as much as there are good or bad engineers or good or bad books.

 

And there is a definite distinction between actual test pilots and pilots in general in regards to how they evaluate flight characteristics of a particular aircraft. Hopefully we can enjoy the results of the entire equation because it is especially rewarding to live a moment you previously only read about in your favorite WWII aviation book.

 

It seems incredibly ambitious to virtualize every aspect, but please don't stop trying:)

 

I've read you can torque roll (pilot account) a P-51D by slamming the throttle while cruising straight and level but I have never been able to do it in DCS.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Merlin-27
Spelling error

"making sure those high standards are met" :)

 

so glad my DCS dream will come true, with all best from all hard core sims.

DM high levels as clod

FM high level as ... DCS

new awesome 2016 light shaders on FB page

historical AI units...

and maybe one day

a realistic historical ATC for immersion

and a new weather engine

 

can't believe it. you rock Ed Guys

making teasing us like junkies

 

Personally I couldn't tell you how accurate the DCS FMs are, I'm not a pilot. I can say that of all the WWII sims I've tried over many years they are my favourite, they have a great consistency to them that I find very believable and satisfying. I find them a joy to fly.

 

I'm very glad to see the DM is being updated. Is that also going to apply to the AI aircraft as currently they are perhaps the biggest problem?

Great news here.

The details sound like they might actually require a lot of calculations just for one single plane, but very exciting nonetheless.

The progress on DCS is very promising. :thumbup:

Hopefully this will come with some nice new graphical effects, the fire doesn't look right for props currently and some new oil leek effects would be nice :D

I don't mind the existing effects, but this sure sounds nice. Like in: REALLY nice, from a gameplay perspective!

You know I am always the one saying "gameplay,gameplay,gameplay, then graphics" and this is a huge step in gameplay!

This is a really interesting discussion, the bolded portion below struck a particular chord:

 

It's a very dangerous delusion... I would even say - deadly delusion for FM.

 

The "nuances" begin play a role only after your plane have met "books". And have met general physics laws for a start.

 

The typical, well documented in "books" (I mean RIGHT BOOKS and not the general articles or even performance and flight quality test reports, that are THE SECOND STAGE in the design process) meet these SECOND STAGE numbers very well within, say, 5-7%

 

 

Be ready - sometimes different people can give you just opposite feedback for the same things!

It was very interesting story when we discussed Mi-8 rudder / tail rotor authority. The angular speed that was a result of math and physics seemed too high for one pilot and right or even too low for another.

the first point of view won the discussion and we had to add artificial dampener to this channel.

 

In other words "books" and true physics is a crystal structure of the FM covering about 95% of the whole thing. Feedback being like a cherry on a cake only feels gaps in this structure.

 

Human perceptions are quite flawed, especially for fine details of things like acceleration, etc. Our minds are nonlinear and most perception seems to be proportion based, meaning that our perception thresholds steadily change with magnitude as well. Add to this that recollection and perception are heavily influenced by our emotional state, focus of concentration, and seemingly unrelated secondary factors. There are some interesting videos on Netflix that discuss these issues and give some specific examples. Our brains use some fixed algorithms that can override an accurate perception despite our best efforts or awareness of what it "should be".

 

Then we have to remember things accurately...which really doesn't happen as often as we think. Or a real pilot goes to test the FM in the real aircraft, but his perception of the dynamics can be influenced by his hope that computer FM is accurate. Not to mention that he/she is trying to match a real experience to something that he/she is seeing on a small screen (maybe this part is now better with the Rift/Vive...).

 

All that said, pilot input seems best for things like control responsiveness, especially with small inputs, or bad behaviors during the approach phase, classic "gotcha's", etc. But for true performance, real measurements has no equal. Pilot input my encourage the FM modeller to change it a bit (say if they found that the aircraft never quite performs as well as measured due to detuning engines, maintenance issues, or the like).

 

The best is when you have real world measurements, real world control response data (NASA did this type of work on many Western aircraft), and pilot input. This type of data exists for the Tomcat...I'm hoping it is put to good use! :)

 

-Nick

Good example for that:

Field of view heavily impacts the sense of speed. On a monitor the field of view that feels natural to you is actually very different from real life.

In the racing games community there are huge discussions about that topic. Racing games often choose a FOV that makes things "look fast".

This is a really interesting discussion, the bolded portion below struck a particular chord:

 

 

 

Human perceptions are quite flawed, especially for fine details of things like acceleration, etc. Our minds are nonlinear and most perception seems to be proportion based, meaning that our perception thresholds steadily change with magnitude as well. Add to this that recollection and perception are heavily influenced by our emotional state, focus of concentration, and seemingly unrelated secondary factors. There are some interesting videos on Netflix that discuss these issues and give some specific examples. Our brains use some fixed algorithms that can override an accurate perception despite our best efforts or awareness of what it "should be".

 

Then we have to remember things accurately...which really doesn't happen as often as we think. Or a real pilot goes to test the FM in the real aircraft, but his perception of the dynamics can be influenced by his hope that computer FM is accurate. Not to mention that he/she is trying to match a real experience to something that he/she is seeing on a small screen (maybe this part is now better with the Rift/Vive...).

 

All that said, pilot input seems best for things like control responsiveness, especially with small inputs, or bad behaviors during the approach phase, classic "gotcha's", etc. But for true performance, real measurements has no equal. Pilot input my encourage the FM modeller to change it a bit (say if they found that the aircraft never quite performs as well as measured due to detuning engines, maintenance issues, or the like).

 

The best is when you have real world measurements, real world control response data (NASA did this type of work on many Western aircraft), and pilot input. This type of data exists for the Tomcat...I'm hoping it is put to good use! :)

 

-Nick

 

Are you trying to say that the essence of what makes us human secretly hates math? :D Good post. It makes sense that our instincts and innate abilities are tuned more for survival & propagation of the species rather than scientific scrutiny and human interpretations can/will vary. Everything with a gain of salt I suppose, and I'm sure everyone involved in this complex task is aware of the value of both.

 

There is no doubt it took an incredible amount of hard work to produce the aircraft we have now...and surely with the ones on the horizon.

 

The icing (as Yo-Yo put it) most definitely would be to have a pilot agree that the experience is in some way representative of the actual aircraft and an invaluable resource if some parameter seems off or artificial.

I wonder how things will evolve. I don't think the AI flight & damage model is a ED thing, they are most likely limited by current CPU performance. I don't think they would have difficulty to port current DM to AI, but in the other hand, the average joe's computer will just melt.

I wonder how things will evolve. I don't think the AI flight & damage model is a ED thing, they are most likely limited by current CPU performance. I don't think they would have difficulty to port current DM to AI, but in the other hand, the average joe's computer will just melt.

 

What's taxing the CPU is making an AI that flies the PFM to the edge.

 

The DM has nothing to do with that, it's as taxing whether an AI or a human flies the plane.

That's my though too - CloD was (still is) handling detailed DM of many AI units in the air battle at once very well. I'm sure DCS could do the same. CloD's AI FMs on the other hand, are result of necessary compromises and I'd guess we're still a few years away from average PCs being efficient enough to deal with detailed FMs for all units in future flight sims.

I really don't think we need the AI to fly using the same PFM that we fly with. That always seemed like overkill to me. So long as they fly a reasonable facsimile of it that's good enough for me. I'd prefer to see AI CPU calculations being diverted towards trying to get the AI to fly tactically decent.

Combat improvements to the AI are queued up for development.

 

Do we have a timeline for the map? Some of us paid good money for Normandy.

 

Regardless of the accuracy of the flight models, when are we going to hear about the map, the missions, the 'game'?

 

Vapourware was never so better represented.