Cockpit mod;
8 Likes
So many aircraft have so many issues that I think the almighty Spaghetti code needs replacing before a lot of issues can actually be addressed
man they should just upgrade the engine atp
i dont want to know how much of the codebase is still there from IL-2
Its pretty apparent the age of the code when you look at things like Heat signatures
do you know what is funny,
Heat signatures are still modeled better than DCS
1 Like
Oh they definitely know. It’s just that to make things accurate we’d need large computing power. Simulations of a plane’s physics take hours to perform, which wouldn’t be great for frame rate. So, as any game, it uses simplified physics, and, when it comes to complex systems such as a plane flying in subsonic and supersonic regimes. While for subsonic the approximations usually are pretty accurate, supersonic flow is quite a lot more complicated and many simplified model that to fail quite quickly above Mach 1.
Remember when planes physically could not reach Mach 1 a few years ago for example.
And the models usually are less accurate at high supersonic speed, or with non simple wing designs, like deltas
Not surprised. They arent even modeled even slightly in war thunder, its largely a bodged placeholder system that just using the thrust figures.
If they made any effort to actually model heat signatures in the game it would be so much better
you wouldnt need to run them in real time
what gaijin could do is to run those simulations to get accurate drag and lift curves and then implement the flightmodel like that
IR and Radar are modeled realy poorly in DCS
for example IRCCM is just a rng value
so every flare has a certain chance to decoy a missile
Radars just have certain values in which they can detect stuff
for example you are in HPRF which enables you to detect targets traveling towards you at 150km
as soon as a target fits those criteria it gets instantly picked up
(they didnt model the radar beam searching for targets)
means even mechanical radars behave more or less like ESA radars
1 Like
It’s not thaat simple.
Let’s say you have drag and lift. What do you do with that. Drag and lift at what angle. In which conditions, speed, temperature (which is one of the annoying thing with supersonic)… Simple example. For a nice 2D wing with a beautiful NACA profil (true for all 2D « infinie length »wings), you can get a very easy relation between lift at zero AOA and lift at any AOA ( 2pi(angle - 0_lift_angle) ). However, it’s only true for smaller AOA values, and only true for 2D wings. But what about delta wings ? Or how about the F4U with 2 dihedral angles ? What interaction to consider, with what, how about vortex generation, airframe deformation (especially under high g forces).
It’s far more complicated than a few simulation, plugging values here and there, and calling it a day.
Actually, AFAIK, the devs do use this type of standard models and work around them, but it’s very complex and everything impacts everything else, so you always end up with approximations bringing more and worse approximations until you get the rafale supersonic drag currently modeled to make it go as fast as it should in the time frame that it should
i know what you mean, but if you have the ability to make a simulation like that you could run multiple instaces at multiple speeds/aoa
well in a perfect world they would have the computaional power to simulate all that stuff
but we areent living in a perfect world tho, thats why it would alot more sense to take a jet and simulate it a 0° aoa and then incerement in steps of 5° all the way to 90° of aoa or something like that
i feel like there are already pretty powerful areodynamic simulations out there, for example:
in my opinion it would certainly be possible for gaijin to make such simulations, but that takes alot of time which means they couldnt keep up with their current update timeline or would need more ppl to make those simulations for the FM
This one turned out really good, I surprised myself. I hope you liked it.
2 Likes
Yeah problem is, that for every single aircraft, you’d need a few months of constant simulation to get all parameters in different conditions. That’s not feasible and mostly a waste of time
Because of the way it works it’s near instant, due to the way the pointing error falls out from a single “correlation” operation, an example of the actual math needed can be found in the following technical report, even if the AASM does it in software instead of by hardware as the report describes;
Further the known physical limits for optical resolution, and the apparent size of the optical aperture could probably produce a fair approximation of the timings for the correction passes based on the given requisite 1-3m^2 CEP criteria, within the terminal basket.
7 Likes
update from your pal, i still think the Rafale is cool
1 Like
7 Likes
as far as i know, emergency limits are not considered for rip G?
I knew the Rafale was overpeforming.
Going to make a bug report now I have found this source.
Every Rafale comes with a 1.2-litre turbocharged petrol engine and two or three electric motors. The Hybrid 200 has two electric motors taking total power to 197bhp, while the PHEV has a third electric motor, four-wheel drive and a 296bhp power output.
9 Likes
Wrong brand )))
Renault Rafale ?
1 Like