|
skooma512 posted:Did they even want to fly the planes? I'm assuming that they had already flown all the planes, got bored, and then decided the best way to deal with that would be to dream up all kinds of poo poo they could do and then demand the devs implement them because "it would be so easy".
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:- All battle damage to your airplane should be tracked and incorporated into the model, so if you got shot in the tail, the plane should grow a metal patch where the bullet hit and it would remain there for the rest of the campaign. Paint would also realistically chip and weather Okay, but this part's cool. At least the battle damage part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It was on the banana forums way back when so I doubt you can find it any more. I seem to remember the pilot model files wound up being absolutely enormous, due in part to the fans calling out for increasingly high res textures. Plus folks complained that the pilots looked "too Slavic" and needed remodeling Christ, that game was an absolute mess. It's amazing what Team Fusion were able to do to improve it over the years, though I'm sure the increase in processing power since 2011 helped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:This kind of poo poo is why I'm not upset when the sim developer ignores most of the community requests. They should make an effort to fix things that are obviously broken, but if they start to go down the rabbit hole of implementing what people ask for, it's suicide. I'd rather try to fix the strings and the trees myself and let them focus on making a good engine that runs smoothly and reliably, which is the one thing that all these spergs never seem to care about I don't think people realize or care how bad it makes them look when they cry and whine when a new bug pops up instead of matter-of-factly stating the bug that happens with constructive information on what their circumstances were. Can't imagine a dev really wants to put effort into a bug when someone screams that the game is useless and a waste of money when the AP wobbles a bit from side to side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 07:05
|
|
|
Oh I just remembered another thing about CLOD: the Spitfire negative-G behavior. When the game came out, within days people were howling on the forums that the Spitfire's engine cut out way too early under negative G loads, and it was ruining their flying. It was obvious how wrong it was because these people had been flying virtual Spitfires for years and no other flight sim had ever screwed it up this badly! Some of the posters probably had more hours in simulated Spitfires than any real pilot in history had in the real plane! How could the developers make such a stupid and obvious mistake!!! ...then after a week or so the devs made a post that documented how they had hired an actual survivor Spitfire and had the pilot take it up and perform negative-G maneuvers with recording instruments aboard, and they'd used the data to make by far the most accurate Spitfire ever simulated. Every other game was wrong. Oops
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
Wait they tried to kill an old man by making him do maneuvers that would kill his engine? Those monsters!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 10:15
|
|
|
Nothing wrong will going full sim nerd, but the moment they start to take professional pride in flying fake airplanes as though it means their opinion is worth a drat, 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
Shipon posted:I don't think people realize or care how bad it makes them look when they cry and whine when a new bug pops up instead of matter-of-factly stating the bug that happens with constructive information on what their circumstances were. Can't imagine a dev really wants to put effort into a bug when someone screams that the game is useless and a waste of money when the AP wobbles a bit from side to side. holy poo poo thinking any of this matters also incredible thinking that half of these bugs require any sort of “constructive information”, even though it does exist in the bug tracker they’re professionals and presumably have an ounce of pride in their sim and want it to be right. that may be too big of an assumption but just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Oh I just remembered another thing about CLOD: the Spitfire negative-G behavior. When the game came out, within days people were howling on the forums that the Spitfire's engine cut out way too early under negative G loads, and it was ruining their flying. It was obvious how wrong it was because these people had been flying virtual Spitfires for years and no other flight sim had ever screwed it up this badly! Some of the posters probably had more hours in simulated Spitfires than any real pilot in history had in the real plane! How could the developers make such a stupid and obvious mistake!!! Sim nerds get way too far up their own asses. When multiple sims do the same wrong thing, they start thinking it must be real. Racing sims used to have slippery as hell tires and people assumed that must be realistic because it's hard to drive. Then a sim would come out and people complain about the cars being on rails and the cars are too easy to drive, so they must be fake. Hard to drive means it's real. And then the devs bring up how they spent a bunch of time modeling how tires actually behave, and they hired an actual professional driver who has driven most of these cars in real life and he says it's good. People don't realize that GT cars are supposed to be easy to drive. They are mostly driven by rich amateurs who want drive car fast, so they have lots of assists that keep the rich customer alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
vanisher posted:The X-Plane handbook is really helpful, but remember MSFS hasn't brought all this functionality to their G1000. In the other thread some people found this useful and I hope you do too friend. Thanks for that! I find it interesting (maybe I shouldn't) that there is a game like this released, with a tremendous amount of complexity (accurate or not) and literally zero documentation on how to use a lot of the more detailed features.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
It's a simulator, so the documentation is the PHAK, the FAR/AIM, the AFH, and the airplane's POH. All are available online. I agree that the game could use some more tutorials, though, especially on basic stuff like pattern entries, airspaces, and VFR radio nav.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
I've been looking around for Flight Simulator benchmarks on the new Zen 3 processors, and haven't found much. This is the best I've found. Looks like the 5600x is probably the best processor for Flight Simulator. Seems to be a little faster than the 10600k, and going off of other games there will probably be very little difference between the 5600x and the higher-end models.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
pyrotek posted:I've been looking around for Flight Simulator benchmarks on the new Zen 3 processors, and haven't found much. This is the best I've found. The 5800X should be similar since they are both the same chip, but the 5600 has two of the cores disabled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
pyrotek posted:I've been looking around for Flight Simulator benchmarks on the new Zen 3 processors, and haven't found much. This is the best I've found. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=iZBIeM2zE-I at about 2:15 mark has a chart. Basically unless dx12 brings a lot of multi threading to the table 5600x is really good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
They said they only want DX12 for ray tracing and not for performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:They said they only want DX12 for ray tracing and not for performance. Flight sim devs not caring about performance???
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
I have a 3900X and MainThread is locked at about ~15ms per frame, 62.5fps equivalent. Right now I'm GPU bound because I have a 1060, but assuming you throw all the graphics and CPU power in the world at it, MainThread will remain your bottleneck. A liquid nitrogen cooled core whatever drawing three times the power of my 3900X might get 30% more single-core performance, maybe 90fps tops, and that's it. Personally I would be completely fine with 60fps -- anything above 40, really, since this isn't a twitch shooter and that's where my display's VRR kicks in -- but yeah nobody on the planet is getting more than 90fps at any resolution until they optimize MainThread or split its load. skooma512 posted:They said they only want DX12 for ray tracing and not for performance. No! Ray tracing is bullshit! They should add DX12 for DLSS, which would be a massive and obvious boost to performance at high resolutions! Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Sim nerds get way too far up their own asses. When multiple sims do the same wrong thing, they start thinking it must be real. Racing sims used to have slippery as hell tires and people assumed that must be realistic because it's hard to drive. Then a sim would come out and people complain about the cars being on rails and the cars are too easy to drive, so they must be fake. Hard to drive means it's real. And then the devs bring up how they spent a bunch of time modeling how tires actually behave, and they hired an actual professional driver who has driven most of these cars in real life and he says it's good. The whole “real ≡ hard” crowd infests every sim crowd. If there was ever anything that needed to be purged with fire to instantly create a five-fold increase in quality for everyone, that's the prime target.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:And then the devs bring up how they spent a bunch of time modeling how tires actually behave, and they hired an actual professional driver who has driven most of these cars in real life and he says it's good. Every payware plane always says it was tested and proven accurate by a real pilot experienced with said plane. You can have two version of the same plane that feel really different but both were testified as being accurate by a real pilot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Richard Burns Rally is torture compared to Dirt Rally, so naturally that's the one that is assumed to be extremely realistic. Ever driven a car in a straight line on gravel roads? Literally impossible. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
lobsterminator posted:Every payware plane always says it was tested and proven accurate by a real pilot experienced with said plane. You can have two version of the same plane that feel really different but both were testified as being accurate by a real pilot. FWIW you can also have two versions of the same plane in real life that feel really different from one another, especially at the edge of the envelope like the stall or the landing flare. One of the 152s I fly tends to float in the flare for a nice long time, and will not break in the stall unless you really abruptly pull the yoke back. Another one thunks down quickly and snaps over the edge when you just hold the nose at 30 degrees with the power out. It's just the subtleties of each specific airframe and configuration. One plane consistently burns about 5% more fuel per hour for a given power setting than the other. Shrug. The majority of the "REALISM performance mods" that I am seeing already for FS2020 just say "adjusted to better match POH values" and I'd put money down that the people writing the mods have not actually flown a plane in real life because nothing actually matches the POH exactly in real life anyway. When I tried out the 152 in FS2020 it didn't behave exactly like the one that I fly most often. But I checked out the speeds and performance a bit and concluded that it basically flies like one with a brand new engine, hitting optimum figures in all circumstances. That's perfectly fine and any good pilot can adjust their flying to accommodate for the specifics of the airframe. I think the spergs just don't have the experience to know what qualifies as "wrong" and what is within the range of normal variation. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:That goddamn TTS. Listening to the AI try to pronounce the Spanish airlines is especially hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It's a simulator, so the documentation is the PHAK, the FAR/AIM, the AFH, and the airplane's POH. All are available online. The King Air doesn't even have the correct manufacturer's glass cockpit in it, to say nothing of its utter brokenness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I think the spergs just don't have the experience to know what qualifies as "wrong" and what is within the range of normal variation. There is a big difference between flying a real small airplane and a simulator on your computer screen. Reality has an awful lot of variation to it that aren't modelled by a computer, no matter how sophisticated the model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:No! Ray tracing is bullshit! They should add DX12 for DLSS, which would be a massive and obvious boost to performance at high resolutions!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
Does anyone have their flight sim gear on one of those purpose-built metal rigs that keep everything nice and solid? My Logitech Pro Flight pedals keep sliding around and it would be nice to not have to connect the yoke/throttle to the desk whenever I wanted to play. I've seen a couple of them on Amazon buy they're all pretty pricey, however it looks like they make the same type of thing for sim racing but they're a gently caress ton cheaper. Does anyone use one of the racing ones to save a buck? Is there any jank getting Flight Sim poo poo mounted to one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
sigher posted:Does anyone have their flight sim gear on one of those purpose-built metal rigs that keep everything nice and solid? My Logitech Pro Flight pedals keep sliding around and it would be nice to not have to connect the yoke/throttle to the desk whenever I wanted to play. I've seen a couple of them on Amazon buy they're all pretty pricey, however it looks like they make the same type of thing for sim racing but they're a gently caress ton cheaper. Does anyone use one of the racing ones to save a buck? Is there any jank getting Flight Sim poo poo mounted to one? What i did with my rudder pedals was put on some of those rubberized pads underneath to keep them from sliding around. Works remarkably well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 13:47
|
|
|
sigher posted:Does anyone have their flight sim gear on one of those purpose-built metal rigs that keep everything nice and solid? My Logitech Pro Flight pedals keep sliding around and it would be nice to not have to connect the yoke/throttle to the desk whenever I wanted to play. I've seen a couple of them on Amazon buy they're all pretty pricey, however it looks like they make the same type of thing for sim racing but they're a gently caress ton cheaper. Does anyone use one of the racing ones to save a buck? Is there any jank getting Flight Sim poo poo mounted to one? I’m in the middle of building a custom 80/20 Dual-purpose flight sim/racing rig. Once I get it nearer to done (waiting on parts) I’ll post some pics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
sigher posted:Does anyone have their flight sim gear on one of those purpose-built metal rigs that keep everything nice and solid? My Logitech Pro Flight pedals keep sliding around and it would be nice to not have to connect the yoke/throttle to the desk whenever I wanted to play. I've seen a couple of them on Amazon buy they're all pretty pricey, however it looks like they make the same type of thing for sim racing but they're a gently caress ton cheaper. Does anyone use one of the racing ones to save a buck? Is there any jank getting Flight Sim poo poo mounted to one? I had a Wheel Stand Pro with my Warthog on it and it was quite nice and very sturdy. I gave it to a friend and now have a set of those clamp mounts that hang off the side of your desk and they are nice too. I bought the premade ones because I'm lazy but I have seen people say they can put together the same thing for a lot cheaper with just the parts. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I’m in the middle of building a custom 80/20 Dual-purpose flight sim/racing rig. Once I get it nearer to done (waiting on parts) I’ll post some pics. This is exactly what I want to do as well. Well, or buy one. What are you planning to do for pedals? And monitors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Sim nerds get way too far up their own asses. When multiple sims do the same wrong thing, they start thinking it must be real. Racing sims used to have slippery as hell tires and people assumed that must be realistic because it's hard to drive. Then a sim would come out and people complain about the cars being on rails and the cars are too easy to drive, so they must be fake. Hard to drive means it's real. And then the devs bring up how they spent a bunch of time modeling how tires actually behave, and they hired an actual professional driver who has driven most of these cars in real life and he says it's good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:This is what annoyed me about the hate Project CARS got for their physics. Anything Ian Bell got is probably warranted, but everything else? If you have Ben Collins, which does do professional racing and stunt driving in movies, saying it's good enough, then GTPlanet can go gently caress itself. He was also the stig. He's probably driven more cars than nearly every other person on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
That reminds me randomly that I saw a Jaguar driving aggressively on the 101 the other day with license plate SF STIG and I was just like lol what a loving tool
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing your sim anecdotes. When browsing sim forums, I sometimes think I'm taking crazy pills considering the takes that your getting. I think the worst forums I've ever been to were actually the War Thunder forums, where you get the holy trinity of hard = realistic, obsession about source lawyering whether a plane had a 16 or 18 s circle time, and unapologetic Nazi glorification. People were melting down over the fact that when a bullet struck your engine, the game would roll a dice to determine whether your engine was damaged, instead of accurately modeling the bullet trajectory through the engine cover and various components. No, nevermind, I think actually the worst people were the ones throwing WW2 pilot accounts at each other to argue plane specs behind the comma. Regarding realism = hard, I think the first thing that went through my head when touching the controls of a sail plane was "Oh, it's so pleasant and nice, it practically flies itself". Gamers have a weird obsession with making things harder than they are, and if you correct that, they feel invalidated in their monster skills. Lord Stimperor fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:People were melting down over the fact that when a bullet struck your engine, the game would roll a dice to determine whether your engine was damaged, instead of accurately modeling the bullet trajectory through the engine cover and various components. Oh yeah this is a real big one. One of the things that CLOD was supposed to implement -- don't know if they actually did, but it would help explain the lovely performance -- was a complete physically simulated engine model. All 16 pistons running on their conrods, valves opening and closing, fuel going in and exhaust coming out, air going into the supercharger, yada yada. The idea being that if you were shot in the engine, yes, the bullet would damage specific components and create ~~realistic~~ engine failures, like power loss because a cylinder was punched open or oil pressure dropping because a line was cut, as opposed to just rolling a die and failing some subsystems which is IMMERSION BREAKING and I CAN TOTALLY TELL. agh get hosed
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
That sounds like a really neat idea. Simulate the parts of an actual engine, throw some incoming damage at it and observe how the model responds. Of course if you're not pants on head retarded, you would then take the data from that observation and make a chart with % outcomes and run the actual game with that. Because you don't need a real time simulation of every cell in Adam Jensen's robopancreas to accurately model how each candy bar he ingests progresses him on the path towards diabetes. Bedurndurn fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Nov 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
And I bet the model you come up with would have an extremely close correlation with the one that you wrote by dividing the engine into half a dozen hitboxes, looking at what components lie in each one, and making your best guess as to what would fail if bullets hit in that area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Oh yeah this is a real big one. One of the things that CLOD was supposed to implement -- don't know if they actually did, but it would help explain the lovely performance -- was a complete physically simulated engine model. All 16 pistons running on their conrods, valves opening and closing, fuel going in and exhaust coming out, air going into the supercharger, yada yada. The idea being that if you were shot in the engine, yes, the bullet would damage specific components and create ~~realistic~~ engine failures, like power loss because a cylinder was punched open or oil pressure dropping because a line was cut, as opposed to just rolling a die and failing some subsystems which is IMMERSION BREAKING and I CAN TOTALLY TELL. …would this be a bad time to post the latest Eagle Dynamics blog post? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Oh yeah this is a real big one. One of the things that CLOD was supposed to implement -- don't know if they actually did, but it would help explain the lovely performance -- was a complete physically simulated engine model. All 16 pistons running on their conrods, valves opening and closing, fuel going in and exhaust coming out, air going into the supercharger, yada yada. The idea being that if you were shot in the engine, yes, the bullet would damage specific components and create ~~realistic~~ engine failures, like power loss because a cylinder was punched open or oil pressure dropping because a line was cut, as opposed to just rolling a die and failing some subsystems which is IMMERSION BREAKING and I CAN TOTALLY TELL. lmao all these fuckers must now be debating on the Star Citizen forums
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Oh yeah this is a real big one. One of the things that CLOD was supposed to implement -- don't know if they actually did, but it would help explain the lovely performance -- was a complete physically simulated engine model. All 16 pistons running on their conrods, valves opening and closing, fuel going in and exhaust coming out, air going into the supercharger, yada yada. The idea being that if you were shot in the engine, yes, the bullet would damage specific components and create ~~realistic~~ engine failures, like power loss because a cylinder was punched open or oil pressure dropping because a line was cut, as opposed to just rolling a die and failing some subsystems which is IMMERSION BREAKING and I CAN TOTALLY TELL. Is there any literature or research of damage suffered to engines historically? I'd imagine it's easy enough to just randomly choose between: - engine is fine - engine is running slower - engine doesn't work at all when you get hit, and that'd closely enough match what it was like if an engine got hit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 23:33
|
|
