Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10
#4289730 - 08/23/16 10:42 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
David_OC Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
David_OC  Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
Member

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Australia
First off glad you could make it bkthunder,

There is no right or wrong in this thread and we all expect what we expect with our sims and thanks for posting.

Not sure if you got to read a few of the first post from Troll a IRL Pilot. That uses real Fight Simulators and fly's real aircraft with ITT's off by up to 50 and needed to split throttles by an inch to get the same power setting!

Would this be OK in the sim? No one would post in the bug section would they?

"I play the hand I was dealt" Really resonated with me especially for WW2 Planes. 72 InHG of MAP and the next one you fly 65. Here we expect the best performing all the time. Yes even for the F18 as long as it's close, I don't need the speed anyway, I will just out fly all of them. (Guns Only right Troll) lol

Originally Posted By: Troll

My take on this is like it is in real life flying. I play the hand I was dealt. I would love to have a brand new aircraft every day at work, or the ability to take off in cool high performance air every time. I can't, and that's just what it is.


Originally Posted By: Troll
This is an interesting topic... I fly for a living. I have been for the last 16 years. I have my bi-annual simulator check, around 14-16 hours every year, in full motion flightsims.

They do not perform like the real aircraft. Maybe some sims do, but not the ones I have tried. There's a lot of "What happened there?", "Why did it do that" and "That's not right", and the instructor answering "Yeah, it's a simulator thing... Continue!" smile
Not to mention the "feeling of flight"... Sure, good enough, but not like the real deal. I have never been airsick in a plane, and I have a Acro rating and fly in some really crappy weather with loads of turbulence. I have been sick in the sim though.

Many flightsimmers seek the perfect HOTAS and complain about stickiness and sloppy controls, or want mega huge resolution magnetic sensors. In real life, the controls have noticeable center play and sloppy wires. Sometimes the power levers are split by an inch for the same engine output. Engine 1 and 2 differs by 50 degrees ITT for the same power setting.

In a PC based flightsim, you can test everything and compare it to perfect standards. You can simulate the exact same atmospheric settings with perfect constant ISA temperature lapserates. And some people do... And they find that their documents doesn't match what they see in the sim. It's a big deal for some, not for others.


Be sure to take a look at Chucky's post

The A10 for me is good enough because I like the combat strategy. The systems are still in depth tho and enough for me for what I need. I like to fly, well not for a while the Dash-8. Now this is modeled not far off 100% (The Majestic Q400 is there only plane) and they don't have their own world to look after too. There main business builds the complete IRL simulators for companies so yes the systems do have to be good.

Last edited by David_Pytha; 08/23/16 11:32 AM.
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4289760 - 08/23/16 12:43 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: David_Pytha


Not sure if you got to read a few of the first post from Troll a IRL Pilot. That uses real Fight Simulators and fly's real aircraft with ITT's off by up to 50 and needed to split throttles by an inch to get the same power setting!

Would this be OK in the sim? No one would post in the bug section would they?




Actually I took the time to read the whole thread (damn, it was a long read, but good!).
So yes, I read what Troll wrote and I can also totally confirm that in my real experience on multi engines you often fly with split throttles, split prop levers etc.
If we had this in the sim, I would welcome it, and this would definitely enhance realism IMO. I love what A2A does with their FSX modules and the simulation of "owning" an airplane.

But we're talking about different things.

First off, it's not about different performance between two engines (thus requiring split throttles), but it's about baseline performance of the TF-34 as simulated in DCS.

Most importantly though, If you read what was posted and discussed in the ITT thread(s), you'll see that ~830 is pretty much guaranteed, if anything, in a worn out engine the ITT for a given thrust will be higher, not lower (up to 865).
So to have a lower ITT in DCS makes absolutely no sense, and this alone defeats the whole argument of "it's like being given a worn out airplane, shut up and fly", and thrust me, I'd be all for DCS having the depth of simulating engine wear, but if it did, the ITT would have to be higher.

#4289762 - 08/23/16 12:51 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: ]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: Troll
Bkthunder,

I agree. it absolutely depends on where the fault is.

But, like I was trying to say earlier... Every sim has its faults. Some more, some less.

Why is this accepted in some sims, but not DCS?

I think, probably because of the attitude of the developers to deal with both complaints and suggestions.
People don't like being brushed off.
A simple statement that "yes, we are aware of this", "We think its within margins", etc. Something along those lines, would go a long way.
Sure, some people think they have the right to demand changes because they paid $50. We can never please these guys.
But the rest are probably ready to accept fact.

Still, ED is doing so much right, and some things...could be better. But, they have to set their priorities themselves. I can't do that for them.





We were posting at the sam time wink

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except that I don't think that obvious inaccuracies are accepted in any sim, not in BMS as much as in DCS. The difference as you say is the attitude, and let's not forget that ED promised to "love all their modules equally" and provide regular updates to keep them accurate and fix where needed. Pretending they did something that has no flaws, and working far too hard to discredit people with better factual knowledge, instead of acknowledge them and thrive on the wealth of information they freely provide...

#4289853 - 08/23/16 04:38 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'm less concerned with it being right according to some document than it feeling right.

Watch footage of A-10s doing maneuvers in exercises. Lots of talk from its pilots about how tight it can turn, how agile it is at low level and low speeds...

Then I try and do that in DCS. Seems to take 10 minutes of level flight or a dive from altitude to get up the airspeed to make a single sharp turn, then after that the speed has bled off to the extent that any further turns are at the edge of stall and risk departure or require you to level out and wait another 5 minutes to get the speed back. At max thrust, and even then you have less acceleration than a truck going uphill. The very notion of flying the A-10 around at 100% from the time you start your takeoff roll till you're readying to land is ridiculous, obviously the real pilots don't do that...yet you have to in DCS just to maintain enough forward motion to be able to evade an incoming shot.

Is this because of some issue with the ITT? Is it a symptom of a different issue, perhaps hidden deeper?

I don't know. Honestly, I don't care what the problem is. All I know is I have to fly the A-10 more like a Cessna with gentle banks and turns and constant monitoring of speed or I'll fall out of the sky in an instant.
The sim is underpowered, whatever the numbers may say. I enjoy the flight more in Strike Fighters' A-10, where it's just as slow but somehow has better acceleration, less speed bleeding off in turns, and actually feels like I'm flying a threat to ground targets and not just a wallowing target for ground guns. frown



The Jedi Master



I seem to remember a discussion on Thirdwire forums years back and it seemed like TK just relented to what he thought was the popular opinion on the A-10 and changed it in the next patch. I don't remember what was presented as evidence but knowing TK it is likely the original was close to the actual TO flight test data. (Not the only thing done to match public opinion!)

Out of curiosity I have taken a few rough data points from what I should be expecting in a horizontal sustained turn and the DCS version seems pretty close. e.g. 6 x Mavs with LAU-88 + 11 pylons + ALQ-131 + Pave Penny.....and the flight test data gives a peak ST load of around 2.1G at around 235 KIAS / 10,000ft, with 50% internal fuel....which the DCS model seems to pretty much match (with a bit of effort). I don't think I have the time to go through every set of data though........
I guess if they had to create their own EM charts the energy gain/bleed rates could be off.

Pilot input is obviously important but you can't model much from some anecdote on how something felt. In a cockpit you can fly by feel..on a sim you have to go by the numbers on the screen which is why in DCS I have found it very important to change controller curves (e.g. less pitch rate for stick pull) for each module to control it better and get an element of physical feel in there.





'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
#4289922 - 08/23/16 06:59 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
I'm not a data test person. I don't do that. I don't have time to do that, let alone the desire. I don't recall any patch in SF changing the A-10, it always seemed the same to me, starting from its first appearance in WOE through SF2's addon.
What I can say, with some degree of confidence, is that if DCS is as close to reality as it gets, then every single pilot whose account I've read is a huge liar. Every. Single. One. There's no way the A-10 can do even close to what they've said they've done with it, there is insufficient thrust for how much drag it has when it has nothing under the wings, let alone a combat load.

I don't mean "it only hits Mach 1.8 when he said it should be 2.0" liar, I mean "I pulled hard this way, then I reversed and turned that way..." at which point in the sim I've stalled, spun, or crashed. Of course, if some of those pilots have commented that they feel the same way vs the actual plane, I'm not imagining it.

I think DCS world needs some physics testing. Like drop a ball and see how long it takes to hit the ground testing. Like throw a ball with a given amount of force and see how far it goes. It doesn't matter if the values for the planes are correct if they're in an environment where correct values give incorrect results. If those prove to be accurate, and the plane's values are accurate, then it's something under the hood that interprets those values as they relate to the world that's wrong.

DCS has been getting progressively more like work. I don't want to work in DCS, that's what my job is for, unless ED is willing to pay me a full-time salary to fly it. Then I'll spend 40 hours a week flying DCS, after which I'll play something else which is not work.





The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4289938 - 08/23/16 07:32 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'm not a data test person. I don't do that. I don't have time to do that, let alone the desire. I don't recall any patch in SF changing the A-10, it always seemed the same to me, starting from its first appearance in WOE through SF2's addon.
What I can say, with some degree of confidence, is that if DCS is as close to reality as it gets, then every single pilot whose account I've read is a huge liar. Every. Single. One. There's no way the A-10 can do even close to what they've said they've done with it, there is insufficient thrust for how much drag it has when it has nothing under the wings, let alone a combat load.

I don't mean "it only hits Mach 1.8 when he said it should be 2.0" liar, I mean "I pulled hard this way, then I reversed and turned that way..." at which point in the sim I've stalled, spun, or crashed. Of course, if some of those pilots have commented that they feel the same way vs the actual plane, I'm not imagining it.

I think DCS world needs some physics testing. Like drop a ball and see how long it takes to hit the ground testing. Like throw a ball with a given amount of force and see how far it goes. It doesn't matter if the values for the planes are correct if they're in an environment where correct values give incorrect results. If those prove to be accurate, and the plane's values are accurate, then it's something under the hood that interprets those values as they relate to the world that's wrong.


The Jedi Master


Who says any of the pilots are lying?.

You not only don't have any feel (G force) when flying the desktop but the stick calibration I gather is nothing like it is in the Jet without calibration.

Get a pilot quote where he sustained a G value for a period of time at a certain altitude and weight/loadout and that might be more useful (if he isn't just estimating)

Max possible sustained turn at Sea Level (only Pylons + Pave Penny + 50% fuel) the A-10 can only sustain around ~3.4G turn at 275KIAS.


'Crashing and Burning since 1987'
#4289948 - 08/23/16 08:18 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
What I can say, with some degree of confidence, is that if DCS is as close to reality as it gets, then every single pilot whose account I've read is a huge liar. Every. Single. One. There's no way the A-10 can do even close to what they've said they've done with it, there is insufficient thrust for how much drag it has when it has nothing under the wings, let alone a combat load.


No, you cannot say that, and I'll tell you why you cannot say that:

Regardless of a person's expertise, they forget, they misinterpret, etc. The absolutely BEST guys who give feedback on the simulators are the numbers guys - ie. the pilots with a scientific approach.
I have to go correct my own statements on missile evasion maneuvers to ED because I got some stuff wrong - and like you I'm not a real pilot, I've heard people talk about this stuff, I've read studies done that were implemented in combat about this stuff, but I did not remember correctly when passing the information on.

If you're not the science guy, you're not the technique guy, you've got basically zero basis on which to evaluate their comments and that is the harsh reality of these simulations.

Quote:
I don't mean "it only hits Mach 1.8 when he said it should be 2.0" liar, I mean "I pulled hard this way, then I reversed and turned that way..." at which point in the sim I've stalled, spun, or crashed. Of course, if some of those pilots have commented that they feel the same way vs the actual plane, I'm not imagining it.


Really irrelevant, because they fly by feel. Most of the players just stare at their HUD and a bunch of numbers. All mishap investigations are based on numbers - no 'I went this way, he went that way' ... no, they get the black box out if they can and find out exactly what happened.

Debriefs are similarly nasty - there are all types of pilots, some better, some worse, but the better guys will take charts that compare two aircraft (yes, I mean the classified charts and studies locked in the vault that tell you exactly how both aircraft perform, from flight testing) and make something of it. They'll also be quite capable of flying with their eyes outside of the cockpit.

Quote:
I think DCS world needs some physics testing. Like drop a ball and see how long it takes to hit the ground testing. Like throw a ball with a given amount of force and see how far it goes. It doesn't matter if the values for the planes are correct if they're in an environment where correct values give incorrect results. If those prove to be accurate, and the plane's values are accurate, then it's something under the hood that interprets those values as they relate to the world that's wrong.


DCS physics are fine, and this has already been proven in the production of the missile mod. The one error we believed that we spotted was a copy and paste mistake on our part.
The Su-27 and F-15 match their charts so well in most cases that you might as well be flying the real thing (caveats always exists in out of control and some other flight modes, but you won't see those simulated perfectly in our lifetimes). I don't think the A-10 is too far off of that, either.

Quote:
DCS has been getting progressively more like work. I don't want to work in DCS, that's what my job is for, unless ED is willing to pay me a full-time salary to fly it. Then I'll spend 40 hours a week flying DCS, after which I'll play something else which is not work.


Flying is a complex skill. Your choice of entertainment is your choice; if you prefer something easier to deal with and by all means more fun for you, that is what you should follow. I would suggest though that learning proper flying technique is not that much work, and as long as you're good enough to understand how to generalize it, you'll do well with just about any flying thingy.


--
44th VFW
#4289994 - 08/23/16 11:10 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: ]  
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 467
nadal Offline
Member
nadal  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 467
Originally Posted By: Troll

I do feel, however, that DCS in particular generally gets slammed harder around here, than other sims.


I think it's simply because standard demand of DCS is inherently high.
For example, look at FC3, people understand its realism set, so that they dont ask too much about it.

#4289997 - 08/23/16 11:26 PM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
David_OC Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
David_OC  Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
Member

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Australia
Flying more like real life is better for the A10.

When I started flying her and got to no how some of the systems worked out, I thought to myself, I'll be right to go now. Arrrr yes but no and got a little frustrated and shot down a lot. The first thing I was thinking this thing is a pig to fly, this cannot be right? It wasn’t until I went through some of Bunyap Sim's Videos watching him roughly workout fuel and weapon loadouts and then realized the A10 was way overloaded. Cut fuel and weapons by half and the A10 is a completely different aircraft.

The books I have read now about flying the A10 in the middle east. The loadouts where Fairly light because of the runways and heat. One maverick and a few mark 82's or gbu's. Full gun for close CAS of course.

The younger guys want a full loadout to blast lots of things. Which is not what happens IRL and this would not help with the edge of envelope Post stall perhaps?

Better to have a lighter load and set the sim to unlimited weapons if you just want to blast everything.

I was also thinking about the difference in systems modelling between PMDG and ED's A10
Sure PMDG is better in some technical systems with full access to Boeing, perhaps better than the A10 in a lot of areas.

But the A10 would have how many more systems to model? Targeting pods, Weapons, Ballistics etc.

Then add in that DCS has there own rebuilt world and (other types) of aircraft to look after. There is way more going for the A10 then there is not by a very long shot.

Perhaps the A10 ITT is off because of the data Yo-Yo had access to. Installed vs Cell data.

Yo-Yo could even turn around and just go ahead and make a better TF-34 like they were considering IRL with 30% more juice. I would be happy with that and would be fun to fly and test. Pretty sure this would not go down well for ED tho.

A big part of all this is communication on both sides and perhaps better education on the work involved. For the work involved vs profit and then add all the crap, I don’t know how they do it. It's not some goat simulator that I believe did quite well? Ed could easily knock that up in the afternoon. No ED Goat jokes allowed OK.

Originally Posted By: Troll
On another note, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the proposed changes are incorporated at a later date... It's a bit "russian" to never admit defeat. wink


Originally Posted By: bkthunder
Pretending they did something that has no flaws, and working far too hard to discredit people with better factual knowledge, instead of acknowledge them and thrive on the wealth of information they freely provide...


On the having the top end performance thing "3000 RPM, or 72 InHG of MAP"

Guy's like Apeoftheyear "ATAG" would kick my ass even if I had a lot better plane, these guy's have how many hours flying? Plus controls setup etc. Great WW2 Training to by the way on Apeoftheyear's Channel.

One huge thing some don't think about with WW2 is that most battles were won because of team work.
So minimum 2v2 or better would be 4 working together etc. Not that I would want to come up against Apeoftheyear and he's mates!

The Best WW2 sim video ever? "Close Encounter"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFMrsOykido

Having that bit more performance would be worth a few percent to these guy's as there skill is unmatched.

Even these guy's vs each other. The one in a crap plane maybe having a good day today.

Last edited by David_Pytha; 08/24/16 01:14 AM.
#4290034 - 08/24/16 04:00 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,708
Paul Rix Offline
Senior Member
Paul Rix  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,708
NW of Austin, Tx
So, I'm not an A10 driver, and I haven't spent a ton of time recently flying the DCS A10C, but every turbine airplane I have flown (including the Challenger that uses the effectively the same engines), ITT is a limiting factor. Lower ITT has always been a good thing. For performance, the most important factors are N1 (fan speed), N2 (core speed - especially at high altitude) and in more advanced engines EPR. If you want to go fast, you pour on the coals until just before one of these values reaches it's limit.

Are the other values topping out first? I'm scratching my head here.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.
Carl Sagan
#4290039 - 08/24/16 04:37 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 43
Noodle Offline
Junior Member
Noodle  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 43
Paul,

Unlike most jets (to include the Challenger or it's successor, the CRJ-200LR, for which I was a sim instructor), it is standard procedure in the TF34-GE-100A powered A-10 to set the thrust levers to MAX for every takeoff. I mean the legitimate mechanical maximum, not a FADEC detent labeled "MAX". With the thrust levers at MAX, the engine must produce at least the Predicted Takeoff Fan Speed (PTFS) to ensure adequate single-engine rate of climb (SERC). Unlike the normal CF34-3B1 N1 limit of 98.6%, the A-10 typically indicates in the low 80s at MAX thrust. Per multiple references, the engines should be achieving between 830 and 865 ITT, depending on rigging.

It is also standard procedure set climb thrust using ITT. Yes, N1 is a better direct measure of thrust, but that's not how the A-10 is flown. After takeoff, the reduction to climb thrust is accomplished by reducing ITT to 800 degrees. In the sim, MAX thrust generally results in an ITT of about 795 degrees on a standard day. As such, it's not really possible to fly the airplane the way the flight manual says it should be done. Doing so would result in a MAX power climb.

For some reason, this issue and the discussion surrounding it has turned into a genuine debacle. It seems there are a lot of people who are deeply offended at the idea that some guy on the internet might know more about something than an ED developer. Hence the pretty awesome squabble you're witnessing.

#4290041 - 08/24/16 05:21 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Noodle]  
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
David_OC Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
David_OC  Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
Member

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Australia
Originally Posted By: Noodle
Paul,For some reason, this issue and the discussion surrounding it has turned into a genuine debacle. It seems there are a lot of people who are deeply offended at the idea that some guy on the internet might know more about something than an ED developer. Hence the pretty awesome squabble you're witnessing.


No squabble here, I thought this thread was going well, I know I was interested how others felt about what mattered to them and what doesn't in the sim in general. To me and I can only speak for myself, the ITT may be off? It doesn't bother me because I don't use the "T.O. 1A-10C-1" and like the combat strategy of DCS. (I Have read it tho) Perhaps Yo-Yo could look into it after the big hump / merge 2.5 / F18 and everything settles down?

Looking forward to "Operation Piercing Fury" for the A10 By Ranger79 OEF/OIF Veteran
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159394

Noodle, What where the documents Snoopy had but couldn't show Yo-Yo. Would this give Yo-Yo enough info to be worth trying to bend the FM better? Does he need more (installed) engine data? Don't want to get into it but would like to know.



Last edited by David_Pytha; 08/24/16 05:29 AM.
#4290043 - 08/24/16 05:28 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,708
Paul Rix Offline
Senior Member
Paul Rix  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,708
NW of Austin, Tx
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info Noodle. So, the next question: is the indicated ITT accurate or do we simply have a faulty pair of ITT gauges? On a standard day, with the power levers set to MAX, are we generating the expected fan speed and is the engine producing a realistic thrust output?

This situation isn't unique to DCS World. Back in the day I used to play a lot of Warbirds and there was constant bickering with the developers and players over flight modeling of various planes. Sometimes it would get pretty heated.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.
Carl Sagan
#4290047 - 08/24/16 06:27 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 43
Noodle Offline
Junior Member
Noodle  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 43
I'm not sure, but I think thrust is likely correct but ITT is incorrect. Those who have tested aircraft performance in DCS have, to my knowledge, said that it matches the E-M diagrams closely. I tested takeoff performance back during the beta, and it was within the margin of error achievable at the time (we didn't have Tacview back then, or I didn't know about it).

I have taken single data points here and there, such as maximum level flight speed, and noted slightly deficient performance. But that could be caused by many things besides insufficient thrust.

The general impression that the A-10 is underperforming in DCS is probably exacerbated by the incorrect post-stall behavior. Whereas the real jet's stall is characterized by buffet, slight g-break, and effective roll control, what we get in DCS is a strong g-break with a severe roll-off tendency and poor roll control.

In practice, this makes DCS less forgiving than its counterpart when max performing the airplane, leading to a sense that the aircraft is underperforming. It's a case of mistaken identity, I think.

#4290050 - 08/24/16 06:45 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Noodle]  
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
David_OC Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
David_OC  Offline
(OC) Pythagoras
Member

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
Australia
Originally Posted By: Noodle
The general impression that the A-10 is underperforming in DCS is probably exacerbated by the incorrect post-stall behavior. Whereas the real jet's stall is characterized by buffet, slight g-break, and effective roll control, what we get in DCS is a strong g-break with a severe roll-off tendency and poor roll control.

In practice, this makes DCS less forgiving than its counterpart when max performing the airplane, leading to a sense that the aircraft is underperforming. It's a case of mistaken identity, I think.


Do a lot of pilots think this about the A10 and what the stall would or should be like? Even Pilots that do not fly the A10 IRL. The wing is a fairly standard slow high lift wing is it not?

Last edited by David_Pytha; 08/24/16 06:46 AM.
#4290056 - 08/24/16 07:26 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: ]  
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Penshoon Offline
Junior Member
Penshoon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: Noodle

The general impression that the A-10 is underperforming in DCS is probably exacerbated by the incorrect post-stall behavior. Whereas the real jet's stall is characterized by buffet, slight g-break, and effective roll control, what we get in DCS is a strong g-break with a severe roll-off tendency and poor roll control.


This is a problem with flightsims, I think. Knowing when you are on the edge. In a real aircraft you have aerodynamic buffet that can be seen, heard and felt. You have flightcontrols with feedback. When you realize this feedback in a sim, it's often too late...
In a sim like DCS the quality of your flightcontrols and how you set them up is of great importance. Setting up response curves to match the simulated aircraft and your hardware is important to get a feel for how the aircraft is behaving and performing. Impossible to get it perfecty accurate, of course, but as close as it gets, anyway.

Does a10 control feedback get influenced by airspeed? (airspeed slows during stalls; controls get lighter; pilot can deflect stick easier to make up for reduced aileron response?)

#4290057 - 08/24/16 07:28 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
Sobek Offline
Professional scapegoat
Sobek  Offline
Professional scapegoat
Member

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 623
AFAIK as long as there is hydraulic power and you are not in manual reversion, there is no force feedback from the flight surfaces.

#4290062 - 08/24/16 07:47 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: Sobek]  
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Penshoon Offline
Junior Member
Penshoon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Originally Posted By: Sobek
AFAIK as long as there is hydraulic power and you are not in manual reversion, there is no force feedback from the flight surfaces.

Thanks for the answer Sobek!

#4290077 - 08/24/16 09:38 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 461
Lord Flashheart Offline
Member
Lord Flashheart  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 461
London, UK
Thought. Can anyone confirm if the ITT data/performance is also off in the A-10 ANG/USAF desktop trainer (which DCS A-10C) is based on?

I would have thought that if there was feedback from your military customer that 'this is slightly off, we can't fly it using our manuals' then ED would have fixed it as a priority.

Otherwise - USAF/ANG A-10 pilots/instructors didn't notice it(unlikely), they did and its fixed (so could be easily patched on unclass DCS version), they did, but too expensive/difficult to fix (breaks other stuff in sim) or they did, but USAF/Pentagon specified error deliberately left in public version as a bit of disinformation as to how agile the A-10 is.. (again unlikely - given 45-year airframe - its not like its F-35 RCS we are talking here..)


There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps!
#4290080 - 08/24/16 10:09 AM Re: How accurate is accurate enough outside of a NASA simulation [Re: David_OC]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: David_Pytha
I's not nice when you get in this mood, it affects me. You must be one big barrel of laughs to be around Ice.

Oh, I'm alright to be around with, but not for people who I call out on and they continue to ignore me. Which I'm seeing you're opting to ignore my questions and proceed with your attempts at humor.

Originally Posted By: David_Pytha
We are trying to have a good friendly discussion about sim's and how accurate they need to be.

It's not really what you are trying to do now, is it?

Originally Posted By: David_Pytha
Only playing Noodle, like I said you would kick my ass with greasers. Trying to get Ice to lighten up. Sorry again. No more jokes I promise. The thread was going good actually reading back, until everyone's sentences were pulled apart word for word.

Stop making me an excuse for your behavior. You are getting "pulled apart word for word" because you were making claims and I wanted to address each one. You've still not countered those and instead moved on to "kickng ass" and "awesome tutorial videos" which doesn't have anything to do with "How accurate is accurate enough."

Also FYI, I like to post quotes to show specifically what part I am addressing. No need to be offended by it. It's like "see what you said here? This is my reply."

Originally Posted By: David_Pytha
Perhaps Yo-Yo could look into it after the big hump / merge 2.5 / F18 and everything settles down?

Noodle, What where the documents Snoopy had but couldn't show Yo-Yo. Would this give Yo-Yo enough info to be worth trying to bend the FM better? Does he need more (installed) engine data? Don't want to get into it but would like to know.

Way to do a backpedal. Earlier, you seemed so sure speaking for Yo-Yo, but now you're asking these questions? Noodle already said (in his BURN post) that ED is in possession of a chart that has the necessary info, so it's not an issue of "no documents".


Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: Troll
The point of this thread, as I understood it, was to discuss how much inaccuracy can you tolerate, in a sim.


Originally Posted By: - Ice
The point of this thread, as I understood it, was to discuss how accurate is accurate enough


There's a big difference between these two comments, to you? biggrin


Er, you snipped my statement off too early there.... go back and read all the way to the period at the end of the sentence.

Originally Posted By: Troll
Originally Posted By: - Ice
If I have STILL misinterpreted your post, then put your point plainly.


I said you're interpreting my posts in the worst possible meaning... And you did that again, it seems.

I seem to be doing that a lot with your posts, Troll biggrin I wonder why?
I do apologize and thanks for clearing it up.... maybe you can clear it up a bit more.

Originally Posted By: Troll
Let me try again.
I did not mention BMS to stir you up.
I did not mention BMS to try to start a competition between BMS and DCS.
Ok?
I did mention BMS to show that even if you start out with a really good sim, that took many years over budget to develop, and keep using the help the community can give all the while you treat the community with respect, etc. Doing all you say ED don't do, ok? This sim still has faults that need correction. For the record, I love what BMS is doing to F4! I have nothing but respect for their work!
I also respect the work ED does for DCS. Yes, it has flaws. There's still no better A-10 (Su-27, MiG-29, F-86, etc.) simulation out there, despite its flaws.
Just like BMS F4 is the best F-16 sim out there, despite having flaws.

Now, Ice, do the flaws of BMS F4 keep you from enjoying that sim? Honest question.

The flaws of DCS and it's modules don't keep me from enjoying DCS.

So, i wasn't trying to start a "error comparison fest" between two sims, if that's what you thought. wink

So you are saying BMS takes years to develop, listens to the community, treats the community with respect, does everything ED doesn't do, but still has faults that need correction (bold part). I am reading this correct, yes?

So what's your point exactly? Because all I got from your reply is what I said above, which doesn't really address our discussion.

Let me repeat my point though:
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Bottom line -- aim for as accurate as possible, but when it's not feasible due to classified documents or limitations between return-of-investment in time/money, then be an adult about it and say so.


As for your honest question, here's an honest answer -- No, the flaws of BMS does not keep me from enjoying the sim. Let me give you a good example: I was spoiled by the SPI function in DCS. I loved how I could set the SPI, go to the Mav, let it look at the SPI, then fire the missile. SPI wasn't working in BMS and that annoyed me. Mavericks were a pain to use which was doubly-furstrating since I was just coming from DCS A10C!! A quick forum search and some questions confirmed that this behavior was known and that a fix was being worked on, which would be available in 3-4 Falcon weeks. This was around 2012? 2013? The "fix" did not arrive until BMS 4.33, which was just last year. But I continued to enjoy BMS and just avoided the "flaw" and I was able to do so because I knew that the "powers-that-be" were working on it.

No excuses. No arguments. It was broken, they acknowledged it, and were working on it. That shut the community up and whenever a new player would show up asking, they were simply told what the situation was. No drama.

Originally Posted By: bkthunder
You see, it bothers me and someone else that the ITT in the A-10 is 800 instead of 830. Yes, that's roughly off by 4%.
But that 4% right there is causing me not to be able to follow RL procedures, more than if it was somewhere else.
It's there on the main engine gauge in the A-10.
I would be equally bothered if the Mustang couldn't reach 3000 RPM, or 72 InHG of MAP (which in-fact it doesn't, an there you go with another thread over at ED, and we know the story...).

If on the other hand that 4% error was in the battery voltage, I wouldn't really mind too much in the A-10, since I have an APU. On another aircraft, battery voltage might be a very central detail for emergency procedures or something else.

I hope you see what I'm getting at: there's a big difference between a 4% error that's right in your face and affecting how you operate an aircraft, and a 4% error somewhere else where it doesn't really influence your combat / flying / procedure following experience.



EDIT: regarding the ITT issue, sure I wasn't aware of it until Snoopy and Noodle brought it up. People were also not aware that the Earth was not in the centre of the universe until Copernicus brought it up... the Church's reaction at the time have been quite similar to ED's reaction, plus the burning people alive, which is the forum equivalent of banning, lol.

LOL @ the banning people analogy... Also yes, there's a difference between a bug that only happens once-in-a-while or does not affect much, but the bug that stares you right in the face can be annoying, even if it's just a little thing. Grr!!

Excellent post bkthunder!

Originally Posted By: David_Pytha
Not sure if you got to read a few of the first post from Troll a IRL Pilot. That uses real Fight Simulators and fly's real aircraft with ITT's off by up to 50 and needed to split throttles by an inch to get the same power setting!

Hmm... this raises an interesting point. Can Snoopy or Noodle or somebody inform us about how things are done in the A-10? I assume even with "optimized" engines, they won't both be working at precisely the same level and so some degree of split throttle is required even for normal operations? The only time I really had to use the split throttle was on RTB with a blown/damaged engine. Then again, I suspect that the tolerance level for a combat aircraft would be different from a civvy?


Originally Posted By: Troll
But, like I was trying to say earlier... Every sim has its faults. Some more, some less.

Why is this accepted in some sims, but not DCS?

I think, probably because of the attitude of the developers to deal with both complaints and suggestions.
People don't like being brushed off.
A simple statement that "yes, we are aware of this", "We think its within margins", etc. Something along those lines, would go a long way.
Sure, some people think they have the right to demand changes because they paid $50. We can never please these guys.
But the rest are probably ready to accept fact.

Still, ED is doing so much right, and some things...could be better. But, they have to set their priorities themselves. I can't do that for them.

Yep, like I said, it's their attitude towards it. It's not even demanding the changes, it's just asking about it and seeing their response.

See? We do agree on some points and I **CAN** read your posts correctly. Well, those that make sense anyway! biggrin

Originally Posted By: nadal
Originally Posted By: Troll

I do feel, however, that DCS in particular generally gets slammed harder around here, than other sims.


I think it's simply because standard demand of DCS is inherently high.
For example, look at FC3, people understand its realism set, so that they dont ask too much about it.

Indeed! DCS has somewhat shot themselves in the foot by accident. I mean, they model all those obscure modes in the A10's computer, how many times to people access those? But then they hem and haw at ITT? The bar is set clearly for FC3, and people who buy into it know exactly that. As for DCS, the bar is seemingly set high, so they are blasted by the community for not reaching it.... or not even working towards it.


- Ice
Page 4 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0