Jump to content

Realistic fly?


TristarEsp

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. You do not believe that the behavior of airplanes in flight could be improved?. I think it is not realistic. I have piloted single-engine pistons and I do not say that the behavior must be the same, logically, but it does not seem to me that a fighter plane is immune to turbulence. I think that part is badly simulated. What is your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Hello everyone. You do not believe that the behavior of airplanes in flight could be improved?. I think it is not realistic. I have piloted single-engine pistons and I do not say that the behavior must be the same, logically, but it does not seem to me that a fighter plane is immune to turbulence. I think that part is badly simulated. What is your opinion?

 

Hi and welcome to the forums,

 

Our flight models are some of the best in the industry, we have various levels of flight model defined here

 

If you have data or knowledge on the particular aircraft that our team of Developers, System matter experts, pilots and testers have overlooked we would like to see it.

 

Please ensure you have enabled turbulence in the game options, you should feel the effect.

 

Thank you


Edited by BIGNEWY

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am a real world pilot. I don't think any of the popular sims out there have got the "seat of the pants" feel", the little burbles, updrafts, downdrafts, shear, crosswinds and basically the conditions that make a pilot constantly have to move the controls "like a madman:) " during takeoffs, landings and gusty cruise conditions. I don't blame DCS...I don't think the technology is there yet as far as flight physics, and weather simulation combinations. Plus the fact you can't actually "feel it in your pants" doesn't help either, unless you are fortunate enought to have a motion sim, and even those have their limitations. It is getting better as the years go by, so we have something to look forward to. I still use the flight sim to practice for my real world flights, and DCS, out of all the sims I fly does give me close, relatively speaking, to that real world feeling.


Edited by jimmywa3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To feel it in your pants you need a jetseat or a butt kicker setup . As someone said turn on the turbulence it needs to be about 50 before it makes a difference but at that level you won't be cruising around the pattern like it's on rails. Yesterday on takeoff I hit my leads wake and had to fight a big flip felt completely realistic and shocked the heck out of me gonna have to start lining up on the correct side from now on.

 

It's not a 20 million plus full motion sim but with the right gear and settings it does a great job. As the previous poster said without being a true motion sim it's about as good as we can get for now.

 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

I7 3930 4.2GHz ( Hyperthreading Off), GTX1080, 16 GB ddr3

Hotas Warthog Saiteck Combat Pedals HTC Vive, Oculus CV1.

 

GTX 1080 Has its uses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am a real world pilot. I don't think any of the popular sims out there have got the "seat of the pants" feel", the little burbles, updrafts, downdrafts, shear, crosswinds and basically the conditions that make a pilot constantly have to move the controls "like a madman:) " during takeoffs, landings and gusty cruise conditions. I don't blame DCS...I don't think the technology is there yet as far as flight physics, and weather simulation combinations. Plus the fact you can't actually "feel it in your pants" doesn't help either, unless you are fortunate enought to have a motion sim, and even those have their limitations. It is getting better as the years go by, so we have something to look forward to. I still use the flight sim to practice for my real world flights, and DCS, out of all the sims I fly does give me close, relatively speaking, to that real world feeling.

That is true of course. Air and all it's movement is pretty difficult to simulate exactly and would need a NASA super computer to do somewhat realistically. The new wake turbulance feature is quite a nice addition in this regard btw.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know what you guys are on about....

 

I mean, there are a lot of aspect of weather which can get improved in DCS....

 

But even right now you can create weather where you will definitely be having a lot more lively landings

 

The turbulence setting is based on wind speed, so it is not necessarily needed to have it above 50.

 

You can set it up with light winds and high turbulence you will still feel the bumps on landings or you can have a stronger wind with lighter turbulence setting..... ooooor you can crank up some crazy numbers and buckle up

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us not also forget the effects of wing loading and overall mass . A light aircraft with a wing loading of 12-13 lbs (or less) , is going to "feel" very differently than a 40-60 thousand-pound aircraft with a wing loading of 50-60 pounds (or more) .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers. Flight missions made by the community in Mig21, F18 and f16 in the majority is not present the issue of turbulence. I will try as you told me to configure this section and try. I was in doubt if the feeling at the controls of a fighter plane was so "Quiet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't understand, why you always have to jump in to defend DCS against criticism, when it is - like in this case - totally valid.

did you guys ever board a real aircraft? you don't need a pilot license to see that DCS simply does not model those atmospheric effects that lead to what is commonly called "turbulence".

it could very well be that at this point, no other aviation sim does it properly (i just don't know tbh), but it sure is lacking in DCS.

 

I am expecting some improvments with the improved clouds, since it really only makes sense to built those effects on the basis of a solid atmospheric/weather system - which we simply don't have yet.


Edited by twistking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't understand, why you always have to jump in to defend DCS against criticism, when it is - like in this case - totally valid.

did you guys ever board a real aircraft? you don't need a pilot license to see that DCS simply does not model those atmospheric effects that lead to what is commonly called "turbulence".

it could very well be that at this point, no other aviation sim does it properly (i just don't know tbh), but it sure is lacking in DCS.

 

I am expecting some improvments with the improved clouds, since it really only makes sense to built those effects on the basis of a solid atmospheric/weather system - which we simply don't have yet.

 

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

 

There is no doubt that DCS does not simulate everything. For e.g., how hot/cold in the cockpit when a particular aircraft's environmental controls do not work properly. Or the neck and backache you develop from pulling G's, Or yes, stochastic effects of a real, real, highly-complex atmosphere (the " burbles, updrafts, downdrafts, shear, crosswinds" etc as described by jimmywa3). Or the wear of engines resulting in uneven performance from two-engine birds. Or lightning strikes. Or a careless mechanic leaving a bolt in the air intake. Or FOD on the runway. Or budget cuts / supply chain issues resulting in not all weapons availablle. Or .. any of other of a million things.

 

Nobody is denying that.

 

Nobody is defending that.

 

It's just a question of reasonable expectations. What comes across to you as "defending DCS" is just people telling you to temper your expectations to reality. If your expectations are absurd or naive for what a $70 game can do on a $1-3K home desktop computer, you are going to be disappointed with lots of things in life, not just DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of those are FBW, so they don't ''feel'' normal by any means. Also your irl vs virtual perceptions are not even tangentially similar. Lastly, lots of that IS modeled (thermals under puffy clouds allears to be a thing after I wandered under one in the Yak and started rising.inexplicably). However, your 5000lb, 100mph GA aircraft is a lot more susceptible to such things than 60,000lb fighter jets traveling at 500mph+.

 

In short, people bitch about everything, and it's not perfect, but you are probably very wrong. Oh, and speaking in generalisations and ''i think''isms just reinforces to observers that you're grasping at straws. Be specific, be detailed, and try not wander into waters you don't know as if you are the captain de excellence.

 

Btw, he's probably talking about atmo, not wake.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

did you guys ever board a real aircraft? you don't need a pilot license to see that DCS simply does not model those atmospheric effects that lead to what is commonly called "turbulence".

it could very well be that at this point, no other aviation sim does it properly (i just don't know tbh), but it sure is lacking in DCS.

 

I am expecting some improvments with the improved clouds, since it really only makes sense to built those effects on the basis of a solid atmospheric/weather system - which we simply don't have yet.

 

[...] There is no doubt that DCS does not simulate everything. For e.g., how hot/cold in the cockpit when a particular aircraft's environmental controls do not work properly. Or the neck and backache you develop from pulling G's, Or yes, stochastic effects of a real, real, highly-complex atmosphere (the " burbles, updrafts, downdrafts, shear, crosswinds" etc as described by jimmywa3). Or the wear of engines resulting in uneven performance from two-engine birds. Or lightning strikes. Or a careless mechanic leaving a bolt in the air intake. Or FOD on the runway. Or budget cuts / supply chain issues resulting in not all weapons availablle. Or .. any of other of a million things.

 

Nobody is denying that.

Nobody is defending that.

 

It's just a question of reasonable expectations. What comes across to you as "defending DCS" is just people telling you to temper your expectations to reality. If your expectations are absurd or naive for what a $70 game can do on a $1-3K home desktop computer, you are going to be disappointed with lots of things in life, not just DCS.

 

I'm german. My expectations are always tempered.

In all seriosness though: I don't think it is outlandish to wish for some more fidelity. The lack of buffeting effects is especially striking when flying the warbirds or the yak.

Also the original post was wondering, if DCS lacks some fidelity from atmospheric effects (or that is how i understood it). The correct answer to this would be: "Yes, it does (but it's still a great simulator and the world is not perfect)". The wrong answer - which had been given - would be: "No, it's all there"

 

Twistking - See from 0:50

[...]

You just have to turn the turbulence on.

yes, that is wake turbulence. great feature. not what i meant though. and i assume that is also not what the original post was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say they are not tempered enough maybe.

 

No one has said that turbulence simulation is all there but I stated that's it's pretty good with the right feedback.

 

The current turbulence questioned in the original post is probably a problem more down to the feedback available in your particular setup rather than a DCS problem.

 

If you want it to feel more realistic you have to get a physical feedback device of some sort.

 

 

 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

I7 3930 4.2GHz ( Hyperthreading Off), GTX1080, 16 GB ddr3

Hotas Warthog Saiteck Combat Pedals HTC Vive, Oculus CV1.

 

GTX 1080 Has its uses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers. Flight missions made by the community in Mig21, F18 and f16 in the majority is not present the issue of turbulence. I will try as you told me to configure this section and try. I was in doubt if the feeling at the controls of a fighter plane was so "Quiet."

 

Hi TristarEsp,

welcome to the forums. To summarize a little what was said in this thread. There are currently two "turbulences" modeled in DCS.

1. The wake turbulence - which you have to activate in the options -> gameplay (pic 1)

2. Wether turbulence - which is configured in the mission editor (pic 2)

 

You can open every mission (campaign/user made) with the mission editor and change for example the weather preset and turbulences. I was quit busy landing my F-16 with crosswind and turbulence set to 12 -> nose was constantly moving left/right/up/down at low speed.

 

Is there room for improvements? Probably.

w1.thumb.jpg.9c9cc393151181844b02cf5db95cefe8.jpg

w2.thumb.jpg.665d1fc40944a61e6e05a5086b2bed4f.jpg

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a Comercial Flight sim that models what you ask for and then we will consider what DCS is lacking.

 

Not even airline trainers have the kind of buffets and small turbulence you demand from a game.

 

By the way all the civilian sims out there that only have THAT to model (not even damage model) don´t have the level of fluid dynamics behaviour you are being disappointed with.

 

So yes , sorry to say, in my opinion, It is unrealistic expectations.

 

And i am not defending DCS, it has multiple flaws, but not modeling an accurate depiction of fluid dynamics is not one of them specially considering that realistic simulations of those kind of effects are barely posible in super computers and very specific software....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a Comercial Flight sim that models what you ask for and then we will consider what DCS is lacking.

 

Not even airline trainers have the kind of buffets and small turbulence you demand from a game.

 

By the way all the civilian sims out there that only have THAT to model (not even damage model) don´t have the level of fluid dynamics behaviour you are being disappointed with.

 

So yes , sorry to say, in my opinion, It is unrealistic expectations.

 

And i am not defending DCS, it has multiple flaws, but not modeling an accurate depiction of fluid dynamics is not one of them specially considering that realistic simulations of those kind of effects are barely posible in super computers and very specific software....

 

i don't see why you would need a complex fluid dynamic simulation for improved atmospheric effects. the sometimes heavy "buffeting" you'll get in clouds for example, could be as simple as a randomized shaking force acting on the aircraft. those bumps don't have big impact on the aerdynamics of the aircraft anyway, so it could be sufficient to have them represented as "bumpiness". of course the min and max values of the bumpiness would be derived from the atmospheric model so that some clouds would come with less, other with more buffeting and there could be bumpy zones even without clouds, where it would made sense, again derived from the atmospheric model, that is already in the works by ED anyway.

 

to give a better representation of storm clouds and the danger of flying through them, you could add heavy localised turbulence, like we already have in the mission editor. i always think of it more of a gusts setting. but having those very strong gusts coupled with the buffeting and localized to certain weather phenomena, it could give a decent approximation and make flying through storm clouds realistically dangerous for smaller aircraft.

 

Of course i don't know how exactly ED's new atmosheric model will work, i just wanted to make clear, that complex fluid dynamics on a micro level would not be needed to add or improve weather/cloud turbulence.


Edited by twistking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't see why you would need a complex fluid dynamic simulation for improved atmospheric effects. the sometimes heavy "buffeting" you'll get in clouds for example, could be as simple as a randomized shaking force acting on the aircraft. those bumps don't have big impact on the aerdynamics of the aircraft anyway, so it could be sufficient to have them represented as "bumpiness". of course the min and max values of the bumpiness would be derived from the atmospheric model so that some clouds would come with less, other with more buffeting and there could be bumpy zones even without clouds, where it would made sense, again derived from the atmospheric model, that is already in the works by ED anyway.

 

to give a better representation of storm clouds and the danger of flying through them, you could add heavy localised turbulence, like we already have in the mission editor. i always think of it more of a gusts setting. but having those very strong gusts coupled with the buffeting and localized to certain weather phenomena, it could give a decent approximation and make flying through storm clouds realistically dangerous for smaller aircraft.

 

Of course i don't know how exactly ED's new atmosheric model will work, i just wanted to make clear, that complex fluid dynamics on a micro level would not be needed to add or improve weather/cloud turbulence.

 

Touche. You have a good point there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, that is wake turbulence. great feature. not what i meant though. and i assume that is also not what the original post was about.

 

__________________

 

It's not (though the OP wasn't specific).

My reason for showing video is that there are no particle videos of the normal turbulence ... but I did remember this, where you can see the effect of the gusting wind on the lift produced by the rotor blades, which is, in essence, what the OP was asking for evidence of.

 

hVSq-HL2-es

or

2RT8OVLF14k

 

Turbulence is there - you just have to turn it on.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My reason for showing video is that there are no particle videos of the normal turbulence ... but I did remember this, where you can see the effect of the gusting wind on the lift produced by the rotor blades, which is, in essence, what the OP was asking for evidence of.

fair enough.

it's just that i would not call that turbulence at all. i'd call that gusts. if you make them super strong, i'd still call them gusts, not turbulence. but maybe that's a language issue: so no need to argue about that. i simply mean something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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