Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 13 of 23 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 22 23
#4375621 - 08/21/17 12:54 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
I hope these guys figure out that the end consumer does not know and/or does not care about how complex or simple a fix is. Whether it is a band-aid fix or a total re-code from the ground up, what the end consumer sees is whether the module is working as expected or not. If you were a racing car driver, would you appreciate a very complex car for it's complexity if it did not win races? Or would you go with a simpler car that can give you a fighting chance for a spot on the podium? All this dev whining does is massage their own egos..... the consumer does not care for that. The "massage" for such egos should be the money that comes in due to the consumer being happy with a good product...... and if the product is good enough, word-of-mouth can be an amazing thing.... and then more money comes in to massage the ego.

Like I said, never count your chickens before your eggs hatch. Why can't people keep their mouth shut and let their actions (or product) do the talking for them?


- Ice
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4417370 - 04/22/18 09:25 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
It is that time again gents. 12 more development months is upon us, time to dust off the VEAFAIL thread and give the anual update.



[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Source



And when there is an update, the customers rejoice in the comments like this fine example.



[Linked Image]

But fear not, it is not all doom and gloom for this lot. There are still satisfied customers of VEAFAIL still out there like this lone gent

[Linked Image]



Over the next couple of days, I will add to this thread some 'quality points' for the next 3rd party developer who comes along, promises everything, delivers nothing



#4417371 - 04/22/18 09:34 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
**Reserved**

#4417373 - 04/22/18 09:55 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD


Originally Posted by Pman
First off lets talk Hawk, the taxi/wind/aoa bug has been haunting us for a little while and we had difficulty in both replication and identification of the bug. It would take longer than I have now to go into details of exactly what was causing the issue but the head line is that because of the methodology that we use for the FM on the Hawk there are several non scripted dependencies and one of these was returning a NaN, we have had these kind of problems before and have built in protection from such behavior, however a side effect was that because the redundancy was taking over there was a small error and it took us a while to track it down.

Long story short - we found it and we have fixed it, the fix will go out with the next patch from ED.


This issue has been long standing, since 2016 and 2 years on it's fixed?? When is this going to be patched?

This was from 10/10/17

Originally Posted by Pman
Ok, So Hawk.

Yes there are issues, We have been stripping away alot of the legacy code (bear in mind some of it was written over 5 years ago!) This has taken some considerable time.

We have a list of things that we want to work over and continue expanding development on, Most of these items are known in the community anyway but include things like FM tuning, Damage model re-work (primarily effects and failures), electic system issues etc. We know and have been logging lists of things that need reworking.


So tuning on the FM, Damage model etc has been placed on the back burner for several years since I 1st raised the issue at the very start of this thread. 2 years on....FM and damage model is still in a sad state of affairs with no fix in sight.

Yet the focus on Cockpit textures which is a complete waste of time and energy.....

Originally Posted by Pman
We have also been working on some of the external PBR textures and the internal cockpit PBR update, the external work has been completed and will, like the taxi fix, go out in the next patch. Chris and the guys are working hard on the PBR cockpit update and while it may go out in the next update it also may miss, depending on when the next patch hits I can't make promises on that one yet. There are other fixes included in the update as well and they will be detailed in brief in the patch notes.


Who cares about the cockpit textures, this should not even be an issue and has been on going since 2013 alpha. Don't take my word for it, other consumers all so feel the same way.

[Linked Image]




#4417375 - 04/22/18 10:27 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
UK
These guys are a match made in heaven combined with the incompetence of ED. They should turn their focus to cyber-security, they could inadvertently bring down North Korea by total mistake when trying to fix something else that's completely unrelated! yep


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4417376 - 04/22/18 10:54 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Originally Posted by Paradaz
These guys are a match made in heaven combined with the incompetence of ED. They should turn their focus to cyber-security, they could inadvertently bring down North Korea by total mistake when trying to fix something else that's completely unrelated! yep


that has to be one of the most truthful posts in this thread.

They operate along very similar lines....like VEAFAIL's 'hydraulic jitter'

Originally Posted by Pman
Work is also underway on restructuring and coming to grips with Hawk 2.0 (note not Hawk T2) and we have been working away on that as well, this is quite a major overhaul of the systems of the Hawk, mainly on back end code, and will enable us to continue to update and support Hawk far into the future with less regressive adjustment on legacy code. Things that are currently in the works is pretty much everything and something I have taken a note of is the hydraulic jitter issue that we have seen previously, this will not transfer over to 2.0.


So the hydraulic jitter is now a confirmed issue?

Before it was "turn off force feedback, it's a joystick issue" almost like ED's 'Memory leak' which NineLies basically put it down to "upgrade the ram, no problem with the software"



[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Check the dates on those 2 pics.....and it has been ongoing since



Here is some more proof for our avid readers and followers here and at ED that the 'EFM' was never up to scratch.

Originally Posted by Pman
In other Hawk news Tim Davies has been continuing to work with us on all aspects of the T1A, as you may know Tim is an extremely experienced Hawk pilot and he along with our other pilots are taking even more interest in fine tuning some of the behaviors, especially in the FM. The first round of changes to that will also go out to you with the next DCS patch. I can't say too much right now but there will also be some content coming directly from Tim on our Hawk in the future as well, including some in game content you can download and try yourself! So keep your eyes peeled!


Yet the aircraft is so dodgy it has been pulled from their stores page

[Linked Image]




#4417386 - 04/22/18 01:39 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,501
Blade_Meister Offline
Member
Blade_Meister  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,501
Atlanta, GA, USA
What is funny about VEAO and ED to me is that they will ban you for a short time for criticism or for life if your criticism is , in their eyes, harsh enough, yet they both allow almost criminal practices. IMHO it is criminal, but I am not accusing anyone of anything. Ed allows 3rd parties to advertise and pre-sell (7/02/2015) modules that are never released (VEAO P40) for years. Then VEAO offers a limited time refund, which they do not send an E-mail to their pre purchase customers to advise them of this opportunity even though they require the customers E-mail upon pre purchase and could do so and give each customer a chance to get the refund. They offer this refund in writing on their FB page and in the ED Forums only. I am guessing, maybe someone can share the facts here, but I am guessing this offer lasted less that a month. I was told it was one week, but I can't confirm that. I don't use FB and I go to the ED Forums maybe once a month, so I missed this refund possibility. Once I found out about the refund I PMed and asked on the Forum but was denied and told that the VEAO Lawyers had advised VEAO to make this a limited time offer. So here I am still owning a pre sale module from 7/02/2015 that I most likely will never see as VEAO works on projects on other sims as their priority and works on the P40 slowly as a second priority. Pitiful in my eyes and criminal IMHO. Couple this with the 2.5 memory requirement shell game from ED and you have a true picture of how things are run in EDs world. This is not to mention all of the BETA Modules that never are finished while they make new shiny trains for DCS. Maybe Ed should revamp the the acronym to DCS, Digital Circus Simulator.

S!Blade<><

Attached Files VEAO.jpg
Last edited by Blade_Meister; 04/22/18 01:41 PM.
#4417390 - 04/22/18 03:31 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,871
UK
I tried to get a refund on the Hawk and was told they don't honour refunds on their pre-release content.

Given that the Hawk is so crap I can't really see how it will ever leave beta anyway......unless of course ED in their infinite wisdom decide to copy what they did with 2.5 and just transpose the version number onto their alpha content.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4417407 - 04/22/18 06:35 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Why should they clean up their act? The main software devs (ED) does not and allows this sort of product to continue so where is the pressure coming from? The costumers who have already paid? What are they gonna do, pay more? Who wants to bet that this will soon follow a Black Shark 2 approach wherein "we did so much work for version 2 that we want to get paid for it!" and VEAO will release it as a separately new module?

Another issue I cannot understand is why develop a module when the core code itself is constantly changing? While VEAO is partly at fault here, it's not totally their fault, unless you go down the logic of "well, they could've chosen NOT to do anything until the core code is more solid."


- Ice
#4417446 - 04/23/18 12:45 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,107
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,107
US
I got a refund on the Hawk. I tried to give it a chance, I really did. But the quality just wasn't up to par with the FC3 level planes. Yes it had a mostly (at the time) clickable cockpit and I didn't pay much, I think $16. But the artwork to the sounds and whatnot were just not comparable to the other modules I owned. I got a refund via Steam. However, that was years ago. Probably three (3) years ago. I felt somewhat bad at the time because I do like to give niche game developers a chance. But now I am very glad I did. I'd rather put the money into a better module or another game.

#4417462 - 04/23/18 08:18 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Further to the hydraulic jitter that has plagued this aircraft since 2015....

Read some of the threads at the source: The responses are quite amusing from this bunch of failures. Heck even some of the 'consumer's who invested their money into this fail look for excuses to justify the money spent and comments made prior to release on how they look forward this 'awsome POS'
Just punch in hydraulic jitter in the search engine at DCS and there are several threads on the issue.....all but 2 are referring to this POS



[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]



It is very similar to the Aden gun sound issues from 'only' 2 years ago....



Originally Posted by Winfield
Righto my fellow Australians and all those disappointed customers of VEAO around the world.,

Quick update on the EFM released yesterday, This post will be regarding the amazing sound quality experienced by the upset and angry clients of VEAO and the responses by none other than "up the tree at VEAO"

I'll let the quotes do the talking regarding the sound issues experienced with the release of VEAO's Hawk EFM module. Personally, the issues could have been solved had the testers actually tested the module in the Public branch and not the developer branch. Now when I say public branch, it means the branch that is released to the 'Official' testers before it is released to the public. However, I have taken on the role as an unofficial tester, an off the books, unpaid tester to carry out what VEAO's paid testers should have picked up. No need to thank me gents, I'm doing my part for the sim community. Who knows, I may even get my review of the EFM published over at mudspike.

So without further ado....

Originally Posted by Smartis
So just installed the patch for Hawk in DCS 2.
It really feels nice to fly with the EFM, good job on that!
But, It seems to me that alot of sounds is missing in cockpit, things like the gun pod and engine sound. All I hear is pretty much just some constant buzzing that doesn't change.
It's not like this in my 1.5 install. (Which is pre-efm ofc)

Is this as intended or these to come. Or am I just doing something wrong? Tried a repair, and complete reinstall of the Hawk module.


Originally Posted by Schmidtfire
Same here. I think that those issues are being looked at by VEAO.


Originally Posted by 'Up the tree at VEAO'
If you press F2 do you get the engine sounds?

Aden sounds were working last time I checked it.


(when exactly was the last time you checked? Alpha release back in 2013?)

Originally Posted by mondaysoff
This is the first time I have opened up the Hawk module in DCS 2.0.2, made a custom mission just placing it at Nellis for practice, I always start from ramp cold in every mission I make so far. Anyways when I press fly and jump to the aircraft the cockpit is full of engine sounds even before anything is switched on, I press F2 and all is as quiet as a mouse.

I'll be honest I haven't had a lot of time to compare against other missions or nor have I done a repair.


Originally Posted by burnjp5
I also have the constant buzzing sound in cockpit, I hear the other sounds as well but this one sounds almost like an electrical sound maybe?


Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
The sounds are fuel pump, the gryo's spinning and the Ardour engine running.
The fuel pump does seem a tad loud and the engine sounds aren't mixing quite right.


indeed the sounds aren't 'mixing quite right' doesn't take a genius to work that out. I figured that out the moment I got past multiple CTD's yesterday and made my damage model video

Originally Posted by pegleg1972
The sound never changes.Full throttle or idle no difference.Hard to tell if engines on.


Wait for it....since old mate tree hugger is being bombarded with multiple complaints, this is how he handles the situation....

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
There is a subtle difference at 65% and 85%rpm with the pitch getting higher.
Sounds are very much WIP at the moment.


yep, you guessed it, for those who may have missed it

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
Sounds are very much WIP at the moment.


and again just in case it didn't sink in...

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
Sounds are very much WIP at the moment.


I've saved the best quote till last....

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
Just checked and the Aden sound has stopped working...WTF??!!###


So the tree hugger has no idea why his own aircraft is bugged??

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
WTF??!!###


I'll tell you WTF??!!, you don't test your own aircraft, hence
Originally Posted by 'Up the tree at VEAO'
Aden sounds were working last time I checked it.


nor do you follow up the list of bugs your paid testers should be testing in the public release branches. I could go on but this update is regarding sounds.

like this post from yesterday, which mind you was posted 9 hours before the sound complaints thread came to life

Originally Posted by Schmidtfire
We finally got the long awaited sidewinder tone. The volume knob for it does not function properly, but that is no biggie. I like how VEAO uses separate sound files for seek and lock. As a modder, I've already changed the seeker sound to my liking. Overall great job on that!
Sadly no sound from the ADEN pod has been implemented. The engine sound also needs improvement. However, this is going in the right direction and is not a show stopper for me.


and "up the tree at VEAO's" response several minutes after the complaint

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
Aden pod should have sound, well it did last time I tested it, I'll double check that one.


yet it took 9 hours and numerous complaints before someone at VEAO actually looked into the situation.

3 years of development.....SERIOUSLY 3 YEARS????? makes me question....

Originally Posted by 'up the tree at VEAO'
WTF??!!###


Source:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165239

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165261





Aden pod sound

This was a review back in Feb 2017 from some unknown who was given a 'free' copy of the hawk to review.....

Originally Posted by Jose
What do you get with VEAO's Hawk?

Even though the module is still in beta state, you get a mostly finished aircraft, in a more advanced state than the C-101 (just an example).
You also get some missions, which range from doing a cold start to trying to perform the best time in a Mach Loop themed timed event.
Two training missions are also included.


so we know from this review that the POS is 'a mostly finished aircraft' that to the reviewer is in 'a far more advanced state than the C-101'
yet the following 2 points stated have been around since 2013 pre alpha and 2014 Alpha

As for the Damage model, mind you this review was 10 months after I began this blunt honest review of this POS

Originally Posted by Jose
The Hawk has an External Flight Model, which according to Eagle Dynamics "uses only a part of PFM (Professional Flight Model); rigid body physics and contact model".
In the short time I've been flying the Hawk, I've found it to be an extremely agile airplane, but I guess it's realistic (I'll trust VEAO on this).

The only thing I find annoying is the damage model. Although VEAO say the Hawk includes a "highly detailed damage model", I've had some weird experiences with it.

[Linked Image]


Read the full review

10 months after I tested the damage model nothing had changed.

Brace yourselves gents, I am downloading DCS again as my hard drive crashed a couple of weeks ago. Possibly from the software related to the 'world'

I will upload a video of my findings with this POS and see what happens.


In the meantime, I thought I was the only person who didn't find the remarks from this dodgy dev un-funny.



Much like the Nando's comments as I have mentioned near the start of this thread. NineLies must be asleep....how did this get through the 'spam' filter

[Linked Image]

Source








#4417593 - 04/24/18 08:14 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I got a refund on the Hawk. I tried to give it a chance, I really did. But the quality just wasn't up to par with the FC3 level planes. Yes it had a mostly (at the time) clickable cockpit and I didn't pay much, I think $16. But the artwork to the sounds and whatnot were just not comparable to the other modules I owned. I got a refund via Steam. However, that was years ago. Probably three (3) years ago. I felt somewhat bad at the time because I do like to give niche game developers a chance. But now I am very glad I did. I'd rather put the money into a better module or another game.


I see where you are coming from, however the main point that I have raised numerous times in this thread and many more times in other threads is that this vendetta I have with VEAFAIL is not only to showcase how piss poor this POS module is but
to prevent this issue from happening with other 3rd parties licensed by ED\TFC\Belsimtek from happening again.

Now it is known fact that not only the 3rd party developers read the forums here at SimHQ as well as those employed by ED\TFC\Belsimtek. I can name 2 further 3rd party developers who have ranted in this very thread as backing vocalists for the VEAFAIL band in which I have responded with one comment to each 'licensed developer' and they left tail between their legs (looks at cobra)

However VEAFAIL were one of the 1st to gain a 3rd party license. Only a couple of threads below this one I made one that "Another 3rd party dev bites the dust" Yes I could have just moved on, shelved this POS and left this thread to die but I see it as the 'community duty' to give updates on an annual basis for the next 3rd party license that is just 'handed out'

Keeping this thread alive whilst knowing word is getting back from prying eyes of ED\TFC\Belsimtek and the 'follower's and backer's' of VEAFAIL. This thread alone is giving the community of DCS an honest review how not to present a module that would make the A-10C look like the HAWK did when I began this review. I'm still waiting for the airshow from the actual Red Arrows that was promised but never happened. Just one of the many points VEAFAIL made clear to the community before the release whilst chowing down nacho's

If you want me to review any other aircraft with the same honest and blunt opinions....I am open to suggestions.

My original goal of this thread was that if I can put forth uncensored honest opinions that would persuade any 3rd party developer to lift their game, AND they actually did from this review....the community would see more smiles and less gripes.

Now I could join in on in the 2.5 open beta thread chorus and hit a few 'high notes' myself, but Ice, Paradaz and many others have that one under control already. They have shared more views with submitted evidence even with out my mind focusing on that subject matter.

Who remembers when VEAFAIL announced their list of aircraft they had planned and the map was going to be a release of that actual Mach Loop and surrounding area??? shelved gents, can't even finish their 1st module after 6 years.

Roughly out of the 40,000 views this thread has had, maybe half of that are the same people....then there would be a possibility that 1000 of those people would love to see this thread locked and put to rest.

Now Chris at VEAFAIL comes from a stated OH&S background, I am more than sure he understands the term 'duty of care' well folks, I have a 'duty of care' to continue keeping this thread alive and updated until the consumer's get what they paid for.

Those future TFC\DCS\Belsimtek licensed 3rd party developers should take note from this very thread and sell something worth paying for (considering ED\TFC\Belsimtek have upped the price on modules across the store page)


#4417893 - 04/26/18 09:41 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
NOTE:: I have not updated to the latest version since I installed DCS 2 nights ago. The following was recorded with the hawk from when it was last updated before this latest patch release.



Now there are a few subtle changes to the damage model of this POS. I made several recordings to give this developer the benefit of the doubt. Most note worthy is after crashing into a few vehicles, the POS was still able to fly as though it had both wings. Note the nav light on the wing is still lit up, flaps operate on both wings whilst one is completely missing.

The nose wheel missing several times is all so noteworthy as the POS sits as though it still has one. Still able to turn the aircraft left and right even though the nose wheel is completely ripped off.

This can be seen at 5:40

The damage model has been slightly improved but still has ways to go. Something that really stands out is that I can no longer overload either outer wing pylon which was possible 2 years ago. The aircraft will now fly with a single loaded wing with what weapons are available so yes I did need to give full left stick to get the plane upside down.

Perhaps VEAFAIL learnt from my video from 2 years ago and made the pylons only able to carry 3 bombs on the inner pylon, not the outer pylon. No longer able to overload the outside pylon which kind of defeats the 'unofficial testing' purpose.

The below is from 2 years ago.




Change is happening gents from this thread. The pylons have been moved, there is now 'damage' from coming into contact with vehicles (after several attempts). I am taking bets that VEAFAIL take the cheap alternative with the damage model in the not so distant future (2 years from now) and have the POS explode on impact if it comes into contact with anything else within the so called 'world' The damage model still has many more years to go before it is anywhere near a 'release' version. As for the EFM, it flies with a missing wing. Perhaps 4 more years of development time before this is worth reviewing.





#4417911 - 04/26/18 12:18 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Originally Posted by Sometard
DCS Hawk T1 by VEAO
First round of changes to the FM behaviour.
Improvements to departure from flight logic.
Improvements to electrical system logic.
Fix for the taxi bug.
Improvements to AoA calculations.
System damage improvements.
PBR improvements to the external model and skins.


I am just going to have to test this crap over the next few days and review this (unpaid of course, unlike NineLies)

#4417941 - 04/26/18 03:45 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
I remember when someone tried to make a claim that ED calculates flight behavior based on flight surfaces deflection/input. DUH!


- Ice
#4418003 - 04/26/18 09:14 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,598
Frederf Offline
Member
Frederf  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,598
"Flight behavior due to control input" would describe every flight simulator ever made.

#4418010 - 04/26/18 10:10 PM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Not control input but rather by flight surfaces, like how XPlane calculates aerodynamics/flight characteristics.... at least that was the claim. Winfield's video showing the Hawk flying with half the other wing torn off shows this isn't the case.


- Ice
#4418037 - 04/27/18 01:38 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,598
Frederf Offline
Member
Frederf  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,598
I assume the least effort to technically comply with the statement, e.g. aileron deflection from 0-100% gives a force from 0-100%. Now you want functional dependency that aileron only works if wing is still attached? Wasn't part of the spec.

#4418040 - 04/27/18 02:22 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,029
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,029
Woodbridge, VA, USA
The problem described here is mostly due to the visual damage model not coinciding with the the flight model. I am not trying to defend ED/VEAO but I do see how the details of damage would be difficult to model with regards to the flight model. There is not an easy way to model how the aircraft will fly with x amount of damage to the aircraft.

Last edited by cichlidfan; 04/27/18 04:33 AM.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
#4418057 - 04/27/18 07:19 AM Re: DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 871
QLD
Originally Posted by - Ice
Not control input but rather by flight surfaces, like how XPlane calculates aerodynamics/flight characteristics.... at least that was the claim. Winfield's video showing the Hawk flying with half the other wing torn off shows this isn't the case.


I was quite suspicious of this myself when the Hawk was able to take off, fly a dodgy circuit with both internal and external views showing the the flaps at full extension have absolutely no influence on the 'EFM' let alone cause the left wing to rise and enter a spiral spin as it would IRL.

Back to the drawing board for VEAFAIL smile

I am curious about how this one has been implemented

Originally Posted by atard
Improvements to departure from flight logic


This should be quite interesting considering the Hawk has absolutely zero 'flight logic' It flies on 1 wing just fine and taxis just fine even when it has no wing or nose wheel. I am calling BS on this one.

Yet if it had any logic, it would be able to do something like this in my test video above with the wing ripped off



Never fear gents, once I have completed the 'unofficial tester flight program' on the Hawk in it's current state, I will update to the 'latest and greatest' version for a side by side comparison

Another upsetting factor that has changed is the stores this crap wagon can carry.

Originally Posted by -The Hawk Story
Table 6 gives some idea of stores
configurations that have been cleared for the Hawk, up to about 1981.



Table 6 External Stores (1981)

STORE TYPE PYLON STATION
Under Inboard Outboard
Fuselage Wing Wing
Aden 30 mm Gun Pod X X X
BR 125 125 kg bomb (free fall) X X X
BR 250 250 kg bomb (free fall) X X & XX X & XX
BRP 250 250 kg bomb (retarded) -- X X
BR 500 500 kg bomb (free fall)* X X X
Mk.81 250 lb bomb (free fall) X X X
Mk.81 SE 250 lb bomb (retarded) -- X X
Mk.82 500 lb bomb (free fall) X X & XX X & XX
Mk.82 SE 500 lb bomb (retarded) -- X X
Mk.83 1000 lb bomb (free fall)* X X X
540 lb MC bomb (free fall) X X X
BL 755 Cluster bomb X X X
Matra F155 M/N Rocket launcher -- X X
Matra F2 Rocket launcher -- X X
LAU 51 Rocket launcher -- X X
Oerlikon Snora Rocket launcher -- X X
CBLS 100 Practice bomb carrier** -- X X
CBLS 200 Practice bomb carrier** -- X X
455 litre (100 IG) External fuel tank -- X --
600 litre (130 IG) External fuel tank -- X --
865 litre (190 IG) External fuel tank -- X --
Sidewinder AIM-9G -- X --
Matra Magic Air-air missile -- X --
Reconnaissance camera pod X -- --
Sea Eagle Air-surface missile X -- --
All are 14 inch twin suspension stores. X indicates single carriage
* Modified trailing edges to fins. XX indicates carriage on twin store carriers
** To carry free fall and retarded practice bombs

See page 45 at the below source as the copied table is on par with the Hawk module.....a fail

Source



Aden gun pod is only available on centre pylon, Hawk Story states otherwise, MK82's able to be carried on inner and outer pylon, VEAFAIL's only allow inner pylon, taking shortcuts on the module and I have only just scratched the surface over the last 2 years.

"HOW GOOD IS THE HAWK IN THE NEW UPDATE" said no one ever

Source

Page 13 of 23 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 22 23

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
The pancake chef...
by Mr_Blastman. 05/31/20 06:33 PM
DOSBox/MS-DOS6
by MarkG. 05/31/20 02:14 PM
Question for gun lovers
by Blade_RJ. 05/30/20 02:54 PM
The Last British Destroyer Commander of WWII
by F4UDash4. 05/30/20 12:43 PM
I'm down to one game.....
by PanzerMeyer. 05/29/20 02:19 PM
Would you purchase a flight sim...
by MarkG. 05/28/20 04:33 PM
GAO and the F-35
by Nixer. 05/28/20 02:32 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0