I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but no - AI in A-10C does NOT use flight models that are "on par" with player FM. This includes AI A-10C's.

As for what good it would do - it would allow your computer to run the simulator in real time with more than just yourself flying...
Do not underestimate the computational difference between a flight model like in DCS and "table-data"-FM's like FC2, Falcon, etcetera etcetera. Indeed, even X-Plane that does indeed use a dynamic model isn't even close. (Though I've never studied their commercial derivative applications, might be different there.)

Yeah, ok. I understand. And you're right.
But what the other planes in a sim (let's say A10)use a full complex FM(I'd expect) that is scaled down.

The starting FM is a (almost) full complexity one that get scaled down for the necessary occasion.
And even then, where the optimisation kicks in? Which areas of the Flight Envelope are "toned down"?

I assume only an ED programmer cold answer, but if you're experienced enough, please do tell.
This is not a challenge. It's a pure interest, I'm no programmer per se, so I'm really asking out of sheer curiosity.



Peace.

And, back to the topic, I do still believe that those models (3d and FM) would be a good starting point for modelling any new DCS-Next...

On AI FM, AFAIK they use SFM - that is, table flight models. Think FC2 player flight models.

Doing a "low-fi" AFM isn't as simple as it might sound, but indeed I think Yo-Yo would have to be consulted about that. I know how it works better than most, but that doesn't exactly mean I'm an expert. Far from it.

And the point regarding models is that a 3D model isn't a "starting point". Think of it like this: do you start design work on a first person shooter with the automatic carbine? Or do you first get an engine that is capable of having bullets fly through the air in the first place? This is a bit oversimplified, but as far as FM goes, the more detailed the simulation, the closer your problems are likely to mirror the problems you have in the real world. And as you might recall, before Chuck flew there were actually serious doubts about whether controlled flight past the transonic was even theoretically possible. It too a lot of testing and a lot of development to get there.

...but once the "trick" was found, things happened pretty fast. (No pun intended. )

In an old "table-style" flight model, you can basically just pick up some data from some charts and plug them in. All set. But with an AFM like in DCS, you are truly simulating all of it, and this is non-trivial. This is things that until relatively recently required supercomputers to do at all. ED is doing it in real time, on a consumer PC, AND require it to give realistic results. "Non-trivial."

Basically, what might look like a small thing to an "outsider" might be 90% of the work... Which isn't a dig, it's just the fact that the outsider only sees the things that meet the eye - they see the 3D models, they see the graphical bling, the see the interface of the radar screen (but doesn't see the magic that happens behind the screen) etcetera.

...and the deal with something like a P-51 is that you don't need radars (well, the tail-radar is modeled, but that's really just a glorified proximity fuze :P ), no computer systems, you don't need to deal with the transonic etcetera etcetera. Here the "new" thing is piston engine simulations (which is done at a detail that I suspect will make A2A quite jealous, btw :P ). But for a lot of things the underlying technology is already there. But for a pointy nose, there needs to be a lot of groundwork first, same way there had to be basic tech done to make DCS Ka-50, but after the Ka-50 is here, basic technology for other helicopters is already produced. (Though making other helicopters is still a big job - but the "first" of anything is always the biggest job. And the consumer rarely gets exposed to what the "problem" is since the consumer doesn't see what's going on "under the hood".)

Don't get me wrong.

When I mean Starting point it doesn't LITERALLY mean starting.
Of course they'd start from the FM, and all the rest you said.
But should ED release either DCS F15 or F18 at least the 3D model IS there.

Sure the cockpit is possibly non-existent at the moment...
But you're tellin'me they wouldn't use the actual 3D model?

What's missing from it?

As I said, they've a "starting point"...

Should (hypothetically) DCS Next be an A-6, ED wouldn't have a "Starting point"...

If the next one was the A-6, they'd have more of a starting point than they do for a pointy-nose.

Like I said, 3D model is such a small thing in comparison that you can completely ignore it and not really corrupt the analysis very much at all.

If this is true, it just made me like A-10C even a little bit more. I thought it was the engine that decided whether or not the FM could be table-data or 'physics' based like X-plane. I mean I know the FM feels great, but I just thought it was a really complicated 'table.'

It always amazes me how much energy this community puts into second-guessing developer decisions and paths - maybe I'm just jaded, but we will know what products a developer will deliver once they are delivered, and not a moment earlier. Everything else is speculation.

Well - surely the case. However - I still suspect the project is going in slowmotion mode - surely because of the other project. Nothing wrong with that - whatever they release i'll be happy with !



@EinsteinEP - Speculation allows interaction between players - making forum alives and keeping the interest in upcoming products. Even if that's speculation, i like to read and search any rumors, fact, announcment, debate and even trolling about an upcoming game i'm waiting for. I'm surely checking SimHQ page 5 time a day for any news about DCS

Table data or 'physics', both can be very effective at simulating whatever you need.

The difference here is that the AI 'flies' an FM with far fewer forces affecting it, so its more like the point model FM for SFM planes - but a bit simpler still.