109 sounds and other so called improvements - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2018, 10:53 AM   #11
jcomm
Senior Member
 
jcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
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!
__________________
----V----

Last edited by jcomm; 12-21-2018 at 10:56 AM.
jcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 10:56 AM   #12
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcomm View Post
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

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8DOraUJyiI

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.

Last edited by birdstrike; 12-21-2018 at 11:20 AM.
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 11:54 AM   #13
jcomm
Senior Member
 
jcomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
good for u

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8DOraUJyiI

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.
__________________
----V----
jcomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 01:13 PM   #14
Schmidtfire
Senior Member
 
Schmidtfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,014
Default

Cockpit looks nice and cannon sounds great in 2.5.4. Cannot speak for the engne. What have they changed about the ground physics? I find the old ground physics lackluster, so this might be very welcome improvement.
Schmidtfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 02:05 PM   #15
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
Default

no changes in 2.5.4 but a couple of patches ago...since then this is what we have:
[/QUOTE]
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 02:35 PM   #16
Schmidtfire
Senior Member
 
Schmidtfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,014
Default

I don't really notice a big difference? In general DCS ground physics to me is a little "soapy" as tires have very little traction against the ground. But this looks maybe a bit better than it used to be.
Schmidtfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 03:34 PM   #17
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
Default

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.
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 04:08 PM   #18
DD_Fenrir
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 512
Default

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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by DD_Fenrir; 12-21-2018 at 04:21 PM.
DD_Fenrir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 04:30 PM   #19
Sniper175
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 244
Default

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, OCULUS, ODYSSEY. SSD DRIVES, WIN10
Sniper175 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 04:32 PM   #20
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
Default

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.

Last edited by birdstrike; 12-21-2018 at 04:37 PM.
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.