Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#4402576 - 01/30/18 02:32 PM Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations.  
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 156
straycat Offline
Member
straycat  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 156
After seeing the recent screenshots of the corsair and that weird civilian plane and the hilariously bad trailers and promotional material I was wondering what happened to LN.
Here is what I think:

1.Nicolas Dackard says he wants to do a viggen. all swedish crew on the team would like it too. However everyone not swedish wants to do something else. Let's be real, the viggen is an obscure plane and not that interesting for non-swedish players. The production quality of the module is very good, but who cares about a viggen.
2. LN splits up into 2 factions: the heatblur crew does the viggen and f14, the rest takes the mig21 and forms mag3.
3. Mag3 is desperate for money so they postpone the corsair for some obscure civilian prop plane. If they were not desperate, they would continue on the corsair, but they dont, and the only logical reason is that they need money fast.
4. Turns out all the slick promotional material people ended up with heatblur, because all promotional material for magnitude 3 looks like trash. Seriously, the trailers and screenshots look like a photoshop newbie intern was allowed to play with filters. VEAO-level incompetence. The promotional material is so bad it is revolting and if it were not for the mig21 I would assume mag3 is a bunch of 3rd rate devs trying to cash in quick, like veao and razbam.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4402841 - 02/01/18 09:53 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,504
VF9_Longbow Offline
Hotshot
VF9_Longbow  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,504
Tokyo, Japan
Christen Eagle is not an obscure civilian plane, it's one of the most popular acrobatic planes in private use

It's not military but the fidelity of the DCS engine makes it a good platform for training. I think it is a nice thing to have more high fidelity options for people that want it for training purposes.

Who knows what happened to LN, but it is too bad about the split. I don't have the viggen but it seems like an interesting aircraft.

I'm not sure why the hate on Razbam, the M2000 is one of the best modules in the sim, and the Harrier is probably going to be very good a few months down the line the same as the Mirage started out rough, it'll get better.

Perspective is important, I know people on this forum love to do nothing but b1tch and moan, but for all your moaning, there is no other simulator that simulates any of these aircraft with even close to the same fidelity, and that's just a fact. How can you complain and whine about something when it doesn't even exist anywhere else.

The moaning ought to be limited to the real basket cases of DCS - stuff like the 101 aviojet which will never be completed, the Hawk which also seemed to be abandoned, and the Gazelle which started out good but then just got left hanging.

#4402882 - 02/01/18 04:27 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: VF9_Longbow]  
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 VF9_Longbow
It's not military but the fidelity of the DCS engine makes it a good platform for training. I think it is a nice thing to have more high fidelity options for people that want it for training purposes.

The DCS engine is better than the likes of P3D or XP11?


- Ice
#4403121 - 02/02/18 10:12 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
AggressorBLUE Offline
Check out my
AggressorBLUE  Offline
Check out my
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
Jerz
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow
It's not military but the fidelity of the DCS engine makes it a good platform for training. I think it is a nice thing to have more high fidelity options for people that want it for training purposes.

The DCS engine is better than the likes of P3D or XP11?


For an aerobatic aircraft, I could see that being the case, as the AFM likely offers the greatest flexibility of all those platforms, although XPX has lots of untapped potential there as well. I've always felt the flight models in FSX and it's derivative versions were very "robotic", and to build around that apparently a lot of sim-connect magic is required (citing top tier projects like A2As Captain of the ship packages).

If it were me, I'd lean toward XPX for flight model focused sims, and FSX (or P3D) for systems and flight environment focused sim aspects (the best application of desktop simming as a training tool, IMO), if only because these platforms clearly have a much easier and more professional developer base to work with.


My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case

Other Assets Deployed:
HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 smile
TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro biggrin
Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION


#4403122 - 02/02/18 10:17 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
AggressorBLUE Offline
Check out my
AggressorBLUE  Offline
Check out my
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,462
Jerz
Originally Posted by straycat
After seeing the recent screenshots of the corsair and that weird civilian plane and the hilariously bad trailers and promotional material I was wondering what happened to LN.
Here is what I think:

1.Nicolas Dackard says he wants to do a viggen. all swedish crew on the team would like it too. However everyone not swedish wants to do something else. Let's be real, the viggen is an obscure plane and not that interesting for non-swedish players. The production quality of the module is very good, but who cares about a viggen.
2. LN splits up into 2 factions: the heatblur crew does the viggen and f14, the rest takes the mig21 and forms mag3.
3. Mag3 is desperate for money so they postpone the corsair for some obscure civilian prop plane. If they were not desperate, they would continue on the corsair, but they dont, and the only logical reason is that they need money fast.
4. Turns out all the slick promotional material people ended up with heatblur, because all promotional material for magnitude 3 looks like trash. Seriously, the trailers and screenshots look like a photoshop newbie intern was allowed to play with filters. VEAO-level incompetence. The promotional material is so bad it is revolting and if it were not for the mig21 I would assume mag3 is a bunch of 3rd rate devs trying to cash in quick, like veao and razbam.



(emphasis mine)

Yeah, I do sort of regret the purchase of the Viggen. It's a great module for what it is, but I don't really have the time or inclination to learn how to fly something with such obscure systems (a comment on the source aircraft, not the simulation of it). It's a module that would have been amazing if it had FC3 level avionics, married to the AFM, so essentially accessible systems modeling with all the fun of it's STOL capabilities.

Hmm, come to think of it, maybe I'll try the "game avionics" mode, and give it a spin.


My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case

Other Assets Deployed:
HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 smile
TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro biggrin
Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION


#4403136 - 02/02/18 11:40 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: VF9_Longbow]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,547
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,547
CA
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow


Perspective is important, I know people on this forum love to do nothing but b1tch and moan, but for all your moaning, there is no other simulator that simulates any of these aircraft with even close to the same fidelity, and that's just a fact.


Geez...I don't want to just simulate "aircraft" I want to feel like a combat pilot. You know...with believable AI in an immersive battlefield...like they used to achieve back in the 90's. What's the point of learning these "high fidelity airframes" if you can't
employ them in a realistic battle scenario with good AI and period units and terrain? IMO...ED will never get there...too much emphisis on cranking out unfinished airframes while things like AI and immersion fall by the wayside.


Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard
Windows 7 64 bit Home edition
Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz
16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory
EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card
Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive)
Samsung 840 1TB SSD
Onboard Realtek sound
______________________________________________________

Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"



#4403147 - 02/03/18 01:37 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: Force10]  
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,618
trindade Offline
Senior Member
trindade  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,618
Portugal
Originally Posted by Force10
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow


Perspective is important, I know people on this forum love to do nothing but b1tch and moan, but for all your moaning, there is no other simulator that simulates any of these aircraft with even close to the same fidelity, and that's just a fact.


Geez...I don't want to just simulate "aircraft" I want to feel like a combat pilot. You know...with believable AI in an immersive battlefield...like they used to achieve back in the 90's. What's the point of learning these "high fidelity airframes" if you can't
employ them in a realistic battle scenario with good AI and period units and terrain? IMO...ED will never get there...too much emphisis on cranking out unfinished airframes while things like AI and immersion fall by the wayside.



+1

#4403151 - 02/03/18 02:16 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Exactly. I fail to see how "plugging in the values" and getting a flight model would be getting better fidelity than the likes of XP11 where the actual flight model is taken from the actual model of the aircraft.


- Ice
#4403163 - 02/03/18 07:55 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,837
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,837
UK
Agreed, the only high fidelity you get out of DCS and where all the polish seems to go is the manual start-up of each module.......after that it's all so stale and pointless.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4403176 - 02/03/18 11:09 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: Force10]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 847
KeyCat Offline
Member
KeyCat  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 847
Sweden
Originally Posted by Force10
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow


Perspective is important, I know people on this forum love to do nothing but b1tch and moan, but for all your moaning, there is no other simulator that simulates any of these aircraft with even close to the same fidelity, and that's just a fact.


Geez...I don't want to just simulate "aircraft" I want to feel like a combat pilot. You know...with believable AI in an immersive battlefield...like they used to achieve back in the 90's. What's the point of learning these "high fidelity airframes" if you can't
employ them in a realistic battle scenario with good AI and period units and terrain? IMO...ED will never get there...too much emphisis on cranking out unfinished airframes while things like AI and immersion fall by the wayside.


I agree. DCS is pretty OK for making smaller combat scenarios in the editor but it's far, very far from the feeling you get in F4 with an ongoing simulated war as well as the really good ATC etc.

I like both but if DCS had what F4 in terms of AI and dynamic campaign it would be an easy pick of course this since I'm a rotor head. I actually fly the FC3 level planes quite often beside my helis this due to the learning curve and lack of time. F4 are quite heavy as well and if you leave for say 6-12 month you will spend some time relearning - at least me smile

Another thing with the FC3 level planes is that you can fly with friends that just want's to have fun and semi realistic planes. For me it's my brother that have even less time to devote due to kids etc. but still want to fly sometimes. In addition to that FC3 level is IMO needed to attract new players.


Last edited by KeyCat; 02/03/18 11:25 AM.

>> It's all about teamwork! <<
#4403196 - 02/03/18 02:28 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: Paradaz]  
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 Paradaz
Agreed, the only high fidelity you get out of DCS and where all the polish seems to go is the manual start-up of each module.......after that it's all so stale and pointless.

Don't forget the accuracy in modelling which parts of the airframe is steel, which parts are plastic, which parts are composite material!! biggrin I suspect they spent most of their time researching that!!

Who needs good AI and dynamic campaign if you can't even model the aircraft correctly? biggrin


- Ice
#4403302 - 02/04/18 07:58 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
IceecI Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
IceecI  Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
Member

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
There isn't much point for them to make proper FM, cause they're gonna break it anyway later on, at the latest when they start to push people to buy their next broken aircraft module. Some of these wiseguys even publicly announced (after breaking module pretty badly) that they are not going to fix it, because they have more important things to do, you guessed it right the new broken module, which is on sale and they are gonna 'fix' it first.

But yeah to the main... Leatherneck.... I'm sure it's just a coincidence they took new names as much as possible to confuse people ..... after people realised how they already have messed up two modules, and pretty much ended active bug fixing. It's more like featuring new bugs every update. But hey, just an example, when the main guy (yea the guy who gets most fanboy praises in certain forum) says increasing texture sizes have no negative effect in anyway in sim, you know what to expect. In fact my suggestion is to put all DCS textures 8192res, since it woudn't affect the performance at all and sure, take your time doing that - not that anyones waiting to fly the two modules they've paid - a year or two or so ago.

Thank god we get some aerobatic plane, so we can sidetrack and fly that broken model and forget all these mishaps and be happy - afterall we are not clever enough to know crap is being thrown at our faces.

Last edited by IceecI; 02/04/18 08:06 AM.

Give a man fish and he gets food, give a man a fishing rod and he asks for another one.
#4403385 - 02/04/18 05:33 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: Force10]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,242
Blade_Meister Offline
Member
Blade_Meister  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,242
Atlanta, GA, USA
Originally Posted by Force10
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow


Perspective is important, I know people on this forum love to do nothing but b1tch and moan, but for all your moaning, there is no other simulator that simulates any of these aircraft with even close to the same fidelity, and that's just a fact.


Geez...I don't want to just simulate "aircraft" I want to feel like a combat pilot. You know...with believable AI in an immersive battlefield...like they used to achieve back in the 90's. What's the point of learning these "high fidelity airframes" if you can't
employ them in a realistic battle scenario with good AI and period units and terrain? IMO...ED will never get there...too much emphisis on cranking out unfinished airframes while things like AI and immersion fall by the wayside.


Unfortunately, the unbelievable, not fun to fight AI is the downfall of just about every modern CS for the SP flight sim junkie. WOFF UE and IL2 1946 are about the best right now IMHO. I cannot for the life of me understand why any of these devs cannot see that creating a believable and fun to fight AI would produce more SP sales is beyond me. While I love WOFF UE, the graphics and some physics(landing & takeoff mainly) are just limited by the CFS3 engine, but the AI is good enough to make any Modern CS(DCS, BOX, ROF, CLOD Blitz) a lot more fun for the SPs. I can only Hope that someone in one of these DEV Communities hears the Broken record of disappointment from many of us customers about the AI in there sims. I wish more SPs would be vocal on these Forums to let the Devs know what we expect and hold their feet to the fire until they make a concerted effort to develop competent and Fun to fight AI. banghead rolleyes

S!Blade<><

#4403411 - 02/04/18 08:30 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
IceecI Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
IceecI  Offline
1975-1997 R.I.P.
Member

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 248
"I wish more SPs would be vocal on these Forums to let the Devs know what we expect and hold their feet to the fire until they make a concerted effort to develop competent and Fun to fight AI."

ED forum ->
Player: We'd like to see single player improvements
Mod: We know
Player: But what have you done...
Mod: Tool!
Player: What?
Mod: Tool tool!
Player: Can you elaborate?
Mod: SP is fine.
Player: But...
Mod: Tool!
Player:?
Mod: Nice that we came to agreement, I now move this thread to another section, later it will be removed since clearly you haven't read the forum rules.

^An example of using a vocal eraser tool

Many have tried.... and fallen....

Obviously that conversation was a fictional, like ED having a quality control, could still happen tho. =)


Give a man fish and he gets food, give a man a fishing rod and he asks for another one.
#4403422 - 02/04/18 09:02 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
SC/JG_Oesau Offline
Member
SC/JG_Oesau  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
Sydney, Australia
Back to the OP - believe the Corsair was in the works before the split, perhaps it came down to two different wants within Leathernecks (props vs jets).


CPU - i7-3770K @3.50Ghz, RAM - 32Gb (800Mhz), Video Card - GTX980Ti
TrackIR-4, Thrustmaster Warthog, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Satiek Quadrant, Saitek Switch Panel, Logitech G510 Keyboard, Win 7 Home Prem 64bit
#4403426 - 02/04/18 09:29 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 761
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 761
QLD
in a 'team environment'....when ever there is 'lots of money' involved combined with 'individual team work'....the project is doomed to fail and costs blow out. Then there are months or more likely years of delays to the original project.

Let's look at the track record.

ED\DCS a complete shambles behind the scenes. (proven by the mods\former mods\testers\and anyone else associated with ED all having the opinion that "everything is ok people" attitude when the facts prove it clearly is not

VEAO: This has been mentioned numerous times

CTD\polychop: does not have the original members.

AvioDev: chop and change than I care to remember.

the list goes on but really it comes down to money+individual teamwork=fail

Before someone jumps the gun with a brain dead comment...let me clarify. Individual teamwork meaning, a programmer, texture artist, blah blah blah all working as a team to contribute to the overall project.




#4403440 - 02/04/18 10:44 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 161
zaelu Offline
MercInc staff
zaelu  Offline
MercInc staff
Member

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 161
France (ex Romania)
DCS might ride a fine dangerous line as improvements lag decades (like AI and usable ME) and 3rd parties ar choked in inabilities to create for the engine(s), inabilities to stick together or manage resources properly.

2.5 is just out and people are cheering but I tend to believe DCS is on the downhill now. 2.5 might be too "little" too late, the dead 3rd parties corpses that might litter the DCS arena this year could scare anyone else (public also as bugs in such complex modules will render them useless quickly). And DCS is not cheap to run by ED as it is.

So yeah.... LNS story is not a surprise...

Anyway.... any failure can be a lesson.

#4403446 - 02/04/18 11:15 PM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: straycat]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 771
Johnny_Redd Offline
Member
Johnny_Redd  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 771
I read, if I recall correctly, on the Milviz Facebook page, that ED want 30% of 3rd parties sales plus they want to own the models, textures, everything. It's hardly surprising a lot of third parties fail and having signed that kind of contract they're not left with much options other than trying to push on as all their work now belongs to ED.


DCS Kickstarter
Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable."
Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
#4403502 - 02/05/18 07:35 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: AggressorBLUE]  
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
Steve_wm Offline
Junior Member
Steve_wm  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow
It's not military but the fidelity of the DCS engine makes it a good platform for training. I think it is a nice thing to have more high fidelity options for people that want it for training purposes.

The DCS engine is better than the likes of P3D or XP11?

Originally Posted by AggressorBLUE
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by VF9_Longbow
It's not military but the fidelity of the DCS engine makes it a good platform for training. I think it is a nice thing to have more high fidelity options for people that want it for training purposes.

The DCS engine is better than the likes of P3D or XP11?


For an aerobatic aircraft, I could see that being the case, as the AFM likely offers the greatest flexibility of all those platforms, although XPX has lots of untapped potential there as well. I've always felt the flight models in FSX and it's derivative versions were very "robotic", and to build around that apparently a lot of sim-connect magic is required (citing top tier projects like A2As Captain of the ship packages).

If it were me, I'd lean toward XPX for flight model focused sims, and FSX (or P3D) for systems and flight environment focused sim aspects (the best application of desktop simming as a training tool, IMO), if only because these platforms clearly have a much easier and more professional developer base to work with.




ED's engine is more accurate in simulating flight, it still depends on how far you take the fight model physics, without bring the game to it's knees lol.

Some engines are limited, you can see this with how the developers had to build the Majestic Q400, they used an "independent Flight Dynamics Engine (FDE )" out of P3D and FSX, the Q400 software is use to train pilots so it needs to be accurate, to get that accuracy, they didn't use the P3D/FSX engine, it's only used to hold scenery, ORBX etc.

Link to the post below X-Plane Blade Element Theory vs. DCS Physics?

Originally Posted by EvilBivol-1;1774163
I am neither an FM programmer nor an aerodynamics specialist in any way, but I believe blade element theory is not only perfectly applicable to ED's AFM, but is in fact only one aspect of it. In other words what we describe as AFM includes blade element theory, but also other modeling approaches that combine to make the entire aircraft model.

We break the aircraft down into sub-elements (including breaking the rotor blades/propeller blades/wings/stabilizers into sub-elements like the root, mid-section, trailing edge) and apply physics equations to each element in real time to determine the forces and moments acting on it at any point in time. These are summed together to produce the total velocity of the aircraft. In addition each element affects other elements of the model, such as the wings affecting the airflow over the tail section, or the propwash effects on the fuselage of the P-51, etc.

[Linked Image]

Where I would say ED's AFM takes it a step further is in applying the same principles to primary aircraft systems modeling, like the engine, fuel, hydraulics, and most recently electrics. Obviously you can increase the level of depth in real-time modeling endlessly and the limit only depends on time available and computing power, but generally I would say that our AFM models probably feature the deepest and widest real time (what we call "honest") calculated factors of such aircraft systems you would see on the PC, at least at the consumer level. To give you an idea, when you run the starter in the P-51D and see the landing gear warning lights dim, it isn't because there is a specific script for this to happen, but because you're actually pulling virtual juice from the virtual battery that is virtually running in real time and supplying the instruments and systems with virtual power through a virtual bus, to which the lights are connected. The same applies to the engine model with its main elements like cylinder pressures, temperature and lubrication factors, the various mechanical components like the RPM governor, supercharger, radiator doors, etc. And the same applies to other mechanical systems like the flight controls and their operation between the cockpit and the control surfaces, the trim mechanisms, the landing gear. Again, it's ultimately a model and cannot be completely correct or account for every physical phenomenon, but we try to go as deep as possible in terms of real-time modeling and as wide as possible in terms of covering physical effects within reasonable limits of time and money. Otherwise we could work on any one model endlessly, which is probably what some of the devs would like to do.

To be short, AFM is built from the ground up. We don't build behaviors to match desired performance. We build a physical model as correctly as possible and then check it against known performance characteristics. If the model is built correctly, it should match the performance characteristics closely by itself without requiring any "top-down" scripting to do so. Of course some miscalculations or oversimplifications or just plain errors happen along the way, so testing, tuning and adjusting is always necessary.

Here's a description of the Ka-50 model:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/black_shark/#22728

Similar for the Huey:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/huey/#340494



Originally Posted by - Ice
Exactly. I fail to see how "plugging in the values" and getting a flight model would be getting better fidelity than the likes of XP11 where the actual flight model is taken from the actual model of the aircraft.


See above, it's not just about "plugging in the values" it's about the whole package working together as one, acting on each other. It's ok when your just driving a bus in the sim, the FM on the F16 in combat, is a whole other ball game, you need to be able to hit each point on the charts at certain speeds,Gs and altitudes across the whole flight model etc.

[Linked Image]

You would want this to be accurate, when ED builds the F16, it's only a matter of time, there's going to be some good dogfights between the F18, they should be quite close I believe in most extreme flight regions?


#4403509 - 02/05/18 08:47 AM Re: Here is what I think happened to Leatherneck Simulations. [Re: Steve_wm]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 761
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 761
QLD
Originally Posted by Steve_wm


You would want this to be accurate, when ED builds the F16, it's only a matter of time,



Is that a typo? if not.....where is the proof? it has been mentioned more times than I care to bother finding a quote that General Dynamics will not allow allow a developer to sell the F-16 as a module legally outside of P3D

Page 1 of 2 1 2

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
Star Wars IX Final trailer
by Chaz. 10/22/19 01:48 AM
CoD MW Article
by Rick_Rawlings. 10/21/19 06:15 PM
Time marches on
by No105_Archie. 10/21/19 03:02 PM
Why Looney Tunes is great for history buffs
by PanzerMeyer. 10/20/19 11:05 PM
IJN Kaga found.
by NH2112. 10/19/19 10:32 PM
Grouch (Joker Parady)
by Arthonon. 10/19/19 02:19 PM
Nike vs B-17
by KraziKanuK. 10/18/19 08:30 PM
Grouch
by Chaz. 10/18/19 01:49 PM
How to pi$$ off Londoners...
by Chucky. 10/17/19 12:16 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0