Leatherneck Simulations Monthly Update - January 2015

[FSKRipper]

Look how it is made in Mi-8, Ka-50 (quite long time ago). And Sabre can have deformed wing after exceeding G-limits.

 

The highest level of flight model accuracy is PFM. F-15, Su-27 already have it.

But PFM is too complicated, so AFM was chosen for MiG-21 (as dcs site tells), and thats also nice. But look at the behaviour of Su-25 - it can be overspeeded untill you cant pull up from that dive - and there is no any compromise.

 

I can understand your point of view. As you have seen the LN Team monitores the bug section very well. When they decide to announce features for the next patch and you read nothing about known bugs, that doesn't mean they are ignoring them.

Look at ED's PR strategy, it's done when it's done.

I would only start to worry if they declare that the work on the 21 is completely finished but as a lot of ED's planes the Fishbed is still in beta state.

 

For the avionics part you may be right. As said I'm simply not that trained on this aircraft (yet).

 

You said there is no compromise in the Su-25 engine model. But there is one thing i don't understand. The plane starts shaking (very nice :thumbup:) into it's non-recoverable dive (as long as you accelerate) taking more and more speed. In my mind a critical jet engine overspeed results in mechanical fan blade failure with a total flameout and loss of power (since the engine is simply dead). All the developers did is setting a given value (around 1100km/h, like the magic barrier in the 21) at which the engine experiences a flameout.

 

Is that correct so far? If so, the developers could (if they want) change that speed barrier from acceleration-stop to instant engine kill. Would be the same as in the Su-25 then.

 

Edit: I attached the Tacview file frome the flameout. It occurs at timestamp 10:01:22. From there on IAS stays exactly at 1089,0 km/h...also not very dynamic

flameout.txt.zip

Edited January 24, 2015 by FSKRipper

[GUMAR]

Is that correct so far? If so, the developers could (if they want) change that speed barrier from acceleration-stop to instant engine kill. Would be the same as in the Su-25 then.

I don't have TacView, so I can't look, but I can guess. Negative g-load for long time cuts off fuel flow to engine.

[vicx]

Radical idea. You buy a license of mig-21 but ...

 

License is for one plane. You crash it, it's gone. You ruin the mechanical from over driving it, it's gone. You get shot down it's gone. Still very affordable compared to the real thing and simulation of a crew chief is not required,

 

You will kick yourself up the ass each time you have to buy a new license.

[FSKRipper]

I don't have TacView, so I can't look, but I can guess. Negative g-load for long time cuts off fuel flow to engine.

Will check it later when home again but as I remember, I pulled the stick into my gut to keep the plane from sinking to fast.

 

Edit: Tacview shows between 0.8 and 1.5 before engine failure. After flameout the plane unloads to 0.1.

Edited January 24, 2015 by FSKRipper

[King_Hrothgar]

I'll pass on that idea vicx. In any case, I think all of this stuff is getting blown out of proportion. The MiG-21 clearly has one of the better FM's in DCS. Its fidelity far exceeds that of the Su-27, F-15 and even the A-10C. Is it perfect? No, but it is very good. The limitations in its FM are very likely due to limitations in the game engine itself. DCS is ultimately just a super heavily modded version of LOMAC and the limitations of it reflect that. Those limitations are being removed slowly over time but many will remain for years to come. Better overall FM's and DM's can be had in RoF and BoS, but like DCS, they too have their limitations.

 

We are fast approaching a point where PC flight sims border on being perfect representations of the real thing (minus the danger, costs, maintenance and so on). But we aren't there just yet. I think what we see in the past few pages of this thread (and similar threads on the RoF and BoS forums) is the frustration of coming so close and yet still falling a little short.

[GUMAR]

I'll pass on that idea vicx. In any case, I think all of this stuff is getting blown out of proportion. The MiG-21 clearly has one of the better FM's in DCS. Its fidelity far exceeds that of the Su-27, F-15 and even the A-10C.

WHat?:megalol: Does A-10C have such stupid stall? or F-15C? I cant find polite words to say how you are wrong! :chair: You must be trolling :)

[ronht]

I think you are losing perspective that this is after all still a computer game that can be purchased today for much less money than we paid for arcade level flight simulations just a few years ago.

 

This is also a business, that if it's to be successful, has to factor in what the majority of users want. At some point in the "realism" factor, you actually start running business off because the "fun and entertainment" factor becomes overwhelmed by complexity that the average "gamer" doesn't want to waste their time on. In this regard, I believe DCS in general has struck the perfect blend of "realism" versus "gaming" and a more than reasonable cost.

 

There is a difference between suggesting and complaining especially to the business entity. If the complaints become the greater focus, the business will eventually go the way of all the great flight simulations of the past and we'll just be left with X-Box and PS -x wondering what ever happened to the great simulations of the past.

[OnlyforDCS]

There is a difference between suggesting and complaining especially to the business entity. If the complaints become the greater focus, the business will eventually go the way of all the great flight simulations of the past and we'll just be left with X-Box and PS -x wondering what ever happened to the great simulations of the past.

 

You are wrong. Flightsims of old did not go the way of the dodo because customers 'complained'. They were simply not profitable enough for the mainstream market. In a niche market ED (and its partners like Leatherneck) can make some (albeit I suspect very little) money. It's called a niche market for a reason. I believe I can speak for most people who are into flight sims that realism = enjoyment.

[xxJohnxx]

I believe I can speak for most people who are into flight sims that realism = enjoyment.

 

This might be true for the hard-core users that regularly discuss on this forum, however it is probably not representing the majority of the users. The users that are not on the forums, that don't really show themselves in the internet and that don't play any multiplayer. The same users the "simple" avionics mode is for.

 

Just look at the numbers. Let's generously assume that this forum has 3000 active users (which it hasn't) of which all bought the MiG (which they didn't) at a price of 50$ (which they didn't (You see where this is going?)) and all of them want maximum realism (which they don't). If that assumption is true you can calculated that the amount of revenue is 150.000$ generated by the hard-core forum user base. This is ignoring that ED, DRM and other costs also take away from that revenue. Now that 150.000$ of revenue is split between 4 people that have been working on the MiG for up to 3 years. If we assume that it has been split evenly (to keep it easy), we would end up with 37.500$ per dev. After subtracting whatever amount of taxes gets applied, we end up with a very low per dev profit for effectively 3 years of work.

 

 

It should become very apparent by now that the active amount of forum users is probably only making up a very small amount of the actual LNS customers. Orienting a business on the requests on a marginal amount out of the total customers is probably not a good idea. (There are some approaches to fix this problem though, like selling the AFM/PFM or higher realism versions at a higher price, separately, which have the disadvantage of splitting the community within multiplayer games and often also opinion wise.)

 

However, to be fair, LNS is doing a fantastic job at keeping us happy and fulfilling our requests and suggestions. Kudos to them.

 

 

This is just meant to remember that we are complaining at a very high level now. Often not justifying the harsh tone some apply occasionally (not meant to directly point at anyone. It can and does happen to anyone that a post is written a bit to temperamental). We have to be glad to have what we have now, and we can only look forward to get more. To eventually get more, we might have to consider to be not to needy. :smilewink:

[GUMAR]

Will check it later when home again but as I remember, I pulled the stick into my gut to keep the plane from sinking to fast.

 

Edit: Tacview shows between 0.8 and 1.5 before engine failure. After flameout the plane unloads to 0.1.

I tested Su-25, Su-25T - it didn't flamed out at supersonic speed.

I believe I can speak for most people who are into flight sims that realism = enjoyment.

+1

Edited January 24, 2015 by GUMAR

[Manuel_108]

So, you guys are saying that DCS is not using its full potential of realism just to "please" more potential buyers and users? I thought that's exactly not the case. If there is one thing I don't want, then it's DCS being an arcarde game.

[King_Hrothgar]

Some seem to think that even though the very existence of ASM planes proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they are wrong. Flying is easy, hitting all the buttons needed to actually fire a missile is the hard part. That applies to a lot more than just the MiG-21.

 

Edit: Incidentally, IL2:BoS models all planes on a simple systems management setup like the FC3 planes and yet doesn't hold back at all on structural damage, engine limits and stall modeling. DCS is simply an older program that still has some legacy issues in a number of areas. I think LNS did the best they could with what they had available. Overall, I'm very pleased with the result. Some improvements could be made, but they should be approached as suggestions, not complaints.

Edited January 24, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[xxJohnxx]

If there is one thing I don't want, then it's DCS being an arcarde game.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want that either. I would like, as anyone else here, that every aircraft is modelled 100% like the original.

 

However, just because we want something doesn't necessarily mean that we can have it. Or at least not without doing anything. I guess you could get any third party to model nearly anything at 100% realism if you transfer large 6-digits numbers of money to their respective bank accounts.

However, as long as no one is doing that, the third parties have to rely on other sources of income. As I tried to illustrate with my example above, this income is very likely not generated by the hard-core simmer, but by less-than-hard-core users. The casual flight-sim guy (not arcarde guy, that still is a couple of steeps down) that wants to shoot some bandits while having a couple of beers.

 

Anything that goes beyond that casual flight-sim guy's zone of interest is a gift from the devs to the hard-core community.

 

Just to name a direct example: The Doppler-nav in the Mi-8. It has been fully implemented by BelsimTek and is working as it should. You can plot a route and enter the results into it and then use the Doppler-nav to navigate accordingly to that route. While being worth a couple of hours of entertainment (just by learning how to use it effectively), yet most of the people don't even know about it, leave alone have ever used it.

If you look at it from an economical standpoint: What will your boss say if you spent days of work on a system that only a tiny minority of the users ever will operate? He probably won't be happy, I can tell you that.

However, BelsimtTek have gone that far and have implemented it. The users that haver ever spent some time on learning it, have appreciated it.

 

Same goes for LNS. A lot of systems in the MiG are simulated that we normally don't really even notice. Still, they are there, and once upon a time some of us stumble across them and gets enjoyment out of discovering them. Thanks for that to the team!

 

But some things might just aren't justifiable from an ergonomic standpoint. Some of the stuff we might like to complain about, but which no considerable amount of players will ever stumble upon, neither really worry about. (I personally did not know about the maximum IAS limitation until reading this discussion).

 

 

But just to provide some more statistical proof. 4 months ago I uploaded two videos. One about using the air-to-air missiles, one about using the RSBN navigation system. Both of the videos have been promoted and shared to the same extend, yet the air-to-air missiles tutorial has twice the views of the RSBN video.

This shows, at least to me, that people prefer to shoot stuff (and know how to do so) than diving deeper into more advanced levels of simulation.

 

 

Again, I personally would like a 100% simulation on any flying object out there. But aviation is a niche market and the hardcore-level simulation is a niche market within a niche market inside a bus stop out in nowhere.

I respect any dev that takes on the challenge to produce something as close to 100% as possible, because there are sure easier ways to generate income within digital media.

Edited January 24, 2015 by xxJohnxx

[FSKRipper]

I tested Su-25, Su-25T - it didn't flamed out at supersonic speed.

 

+1

Will post the track soon, the Tacview also dont lie. Constant fall rate with engines off. So far for the difference between AFM's. Don't get me wrong, I love both modules but don't try to make more of the Su Afm as it really is.

 

Edit: Track attached, same situation as before. 0,8/0,9G before flameout. IAS never exceeded 1098km/h. After flameout, immidiate unloading to 0G down to -0,5, speed stable with 1089km/h. Tacview will be added if someone asks. Did 5 runs so far, every time the same result. So far for magic barriers....

Did the same test with the Su-25T, no flameout but the IAS stopped to raise at 1098.0km/h. If someone can provide tracks with a higher velocity, I would be thankful, otherwise I would come to the conclusion that the guys from ED were simply smarter in hiding this barrier :music_whistling:

 

BTW: Would be nice to see a track from you, how you got this beast (Su-25) to supersonic flight without engine overspeed especially at low altitude.

su-25flameout.trk

Edited January 24, 2015 by FSKRipper

[Manuel_108]

John, I fully second your statement and I too never really recognized the speed limitation. Coming from FSX (looooong time ago) I already find it great that the engine flames out at 0 g loads after different times depending on afterburner etc.

[fjacobsen]

You are 100% right in Your statement xxJohnxx !

 

Next problem is that when we do not understand a certain system fully and can´t get it to work as we suppose it should work, then it will be regarded as a bug.

 

But it also comes down to the manulas supplied. If explained in an understandable way, then we will learn it, otherwise not.

 

But some of the more special, non combat stuff, are often not used, which is a bit sad.

 

BTW: I really like Your videos !

 

 

FinnJ

[Guest =YeS=CMF]

I had problems with rendering but now video with FM bug ready - http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2301509&postcount=1

And dont say me that real plane can do such things!

[King_Hrothgar]

The ground handling in DCS is terrible in general. Yes the MiG-21 has some issues but they are the usual ones for DCS planes tbh. Nearly all fixed wing planes in DCS have the exact same problems. I doubt there is much LNS can do about it.

 

The explosion bit on that massive over G is interesting, but once again, I think that's a limitation of DCS atm. It doesn't do structural failures like RoF and BoS do. It's more of an on/off switch type of thing. Simply shedding both wings and killing the pilot would be more appropriate than blowing the whole thing, but the end result is the same. The +/- fluctuations on the info bar do not reflect what appears to be going on in that video, congrats on finding a bug in DCS itself that has nothing to do with MiG-21. I suggest you report it in the appropriate area.

 

The hard cap on speed does need to go but this is likely not an easy fix. I suspect those speed caps at various altitudes and payloads are in fact accurate and they are needed to keep the overall acceleration accurate. It isn't an elegant solution, but it does work. I agree it should be improved but that could take a fair bit of time.

 

The stall characteristics when flown normally are inline with what the real aircraft is like from what I've heard. What you did is deliberately brake the FM by doing stuff no one would ever attempt in real life. Yes it does look strange and probably isn't realistic, but why in the world would you attempt those types of moves in the first place? It's like my little video of the Su-27 doing a cobra at mach 2+ resulting in a peak G load of 55g. Not only did the plane perform that ridiculous move in the first place, it didn't even hurt it. And that's a "PFM" by ED itself.

 

The point here is that DCS does have some significant limitations on what the physics engine can currently handle. Some of these limitations can be worked around by LNS and others cannot.

[Guest =YeS=CMF]

The ground handling in DCS is terrible in general. Yes the MiG-21 has some issues but they are the usual ones for DCS planes tbh. Nearly all fixed wing planes in DCS have the exact same problems. I doubt there is much LNS can do about it...

...The point here is that DCS does have some significant limitations on what the physics engine can currently handle. Some of these limitations can be worked around by LNS and others cannot.

 

I see you can explain any bug, even such evident as I showed!

Lets stop this useless discussion and listen for developers.

[GUMAR]

BTW: Would be nice to see a track from you, how you got this beast (Su-25) to supersonic flight without engine overspeed especially at low altitude.

On your track this is the moment, when engine flamed out. There is a problem with track playing?

I attached 2 tracks. On the first Su-25 is braking sound barrier, and there is no engine flameout

On the second one, I showed you, that there is no speed barrier - Su-25 accelerates to any speed you want, it is matter of dive angle. And I am sure that airplane in reality in horisontal won't have enough thrust to go supersonic, because its high drag. Just like F-86 can't, because its drag dramatically increasing at subsonic speed.

 

P.S. Lets go to thread made by =YeS=CMF. You can answer me there

Su-25_supersonic.trk

Su-25_Diving.trk

[SilentGun]

expect the next monthly update to be far more image heavy. ;)

 

so does this mean your announcing your new project in February?

[Lilkiki]

From their Facebook page, I must say I like this kind of humor :megalol: :thumbup:

[westr]

From their Facebook page, I must say I like this kind of humor :megalol: :thumbup:

 

Who was it that made that post? :)

[Manuel_108]

It's getting obvious with those hints, altough I still doubt that they can make a plane as complex as the F-14 at DCS standards. On the other hand, it is being withdrawn from service so it is possible.

[Mode1961]

The biggest issue is that the F-14 would 'almost' require 2 seat ability which is not in DCS yet and from the last update post by WAGS it isn't coming anytime soon. It was supposed to come with the L-39 but that feature appears to be pushed back. Mind you, if it is the F-14, it is quite a way out yet anyway. I know LN said "we won't have to wait till 2016 for the next module" but I think they are being rather optimistic with that estimate, especially if it's dependent on a feature from ED.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Mode1961