New flight model (FM) and damage model (DM)

[gorzasty]

Hello!

Why does Korea have such a drastically modified FM and DM compared to GB? In GB, everything was maintained as realistically as possible I've heard. Meanwhile, in Korea, FM is completely different, for example, a P-51. DM is also a completely different experience. Most 0,5 guns  destroy the target after the first hit, while in GB, sometimes a full magazine wasn't enough to bring down an enemy aircraft. It's all very strange. Just to be clear. Korea is much closer to DCS in FM, and that suits me perfectly.

[brickcommander]

50 cals are broken in Great Battles, that is actually fairly well known. Overal damage models have geen improved in every way.

 

As far as flight models, the Korea models are more high fidelity, but, to be honest, in most regimes of flight it is almost identical. Only at the extremes of the flight emvelope shpuld the difference be noticable.

[Dash,Polder]

Spending some time learning the High Velocity Rockets gives one a whole new appreciation for the physics, that is if you actually want to hit anything.  Try level flight in a rocket loaded P-51, stomp in full rudder either way, and let rip a rocket.  They're fin stabilized rockets, any side slip and they go sidewinder on you in the other direction, with full rudder they end up wobbling about 20 degrees off course counter rudder, which makes it really easy to see the effects of fin stabilization. 

You have to plan your attacks, take drift into account when planning your approach, have perfect trim with no side slip, and have consistent dive angles and speeds with correct site depression.  You can't use rudder on the last stage of approach for any final corrections or it's game over.  It's impressive, they made them so good you must pilot your plane to get on target this time around.  

In Great battles you just pointed the sight on target and squeeze, didn't matter how many G you were under, what angles, or how much slip.  I'm loving the challenge, takes some real piloting to be effective with strike.  And that's just with the slower more controllable F-51, the jets give you even less leeway with their higher speeds.  I begin to see why they still deployed so many props front line yet during that war.

Kudo's team IL-2 on the depth you put into this portion of the game, it's a real gem.

[Gunfreak]

One could argue the .05s are too effective vs the MG15, which often reported to be hard to down even with the M3s in the Sabre

 However the .50 has been very under preforming in GB and far worse in DCS, Where .50 preform worse than .303 would do in real life. So the .50s seem correct in most cases and it might be the MG15 not having good enough damage modeling. 

When it comes to flight model. Players are already throwing the F80 into some crazy dance moves that would cause death of the pilot and exploding planes in real life.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, gorzasty said:

Hello!

Why does Korea have such a drastically modified FM and DM compared to GB? In GB, everything was maintained as realistically as possible I've heard. Meanwhile, in Korea, FM is completely different, for example, a P-51. DM is also a completely different experience. Most 0,5 guns  destroy the target after the first hit, while in GB, sometimes a full magazine wasn't enough to bring down an enemy aircraft. It's all very strange. Just to be clear. Korea is much closer to DCS in FM, and that suits me perfectly.

The 0.50 calibre machine guns:

- Are usually M3 (except in the P-51)... which means they have a higher rate of fire. They're also usually mounted in the nose (except in the P-51), which means they have less convergence issues. Overall, this should do something like double the effective firepower of a F-80/F-84/F-86 compared to an F-51D. Of course, that doesn't explain the difference between the P-51D and the F-51D!

- By the Korean War the use of the M23 round was widespread. This had a much larger bursting charge (similar to a UB machine gun). The new damage model also takes into account incendiary effects... which increases the effective firepower of heavy machine guns.

- The damage model of the target is much more detailed. This reduces the 'averaging' effect that weakened machine guns (where multiple hits to the same hitbox were required to have an effect, rather than modelling multiple smaller hitboxes which can each be destroyed with less rounds).

As for the flight model:

- the entire control system logic has been changed to give the joystick a more direct interaction with the control surfaces (this is probably the most noticeable change).

- In addition, the fidelity of flight models has been increased.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

When it comes to flight model. Players are already throwing the F80 into some crazy dance moves that would cause death of the pilot and exploding planes in real life.

Any videos of this?

[Tvrdi]

I think the FM and DM are much better than they were in GB. The planes feel a bit heavier, and jets even more so. Flaps can jam, and aircraft can fall apart if you're not careful. All of that was sadly missing in GB. That's one of the reasons I always preferred DCS over GB.

The cockpits finally look great, with much more detail. The clouds are better, and the terrain is a huge improvement. It's still not quite at DCS level, but the airbases feel alive and much more realistic. The sounds are excellent as well—another area where GB was seriously behind modern flight sims.

Overall, I'm very satisfied, especially considering we're still in Early Access.

I haven't tried bombing yet, but our bomber pilots are reporting that bombs can now damage targets even if they land nearby. That was one of the most unrealistic aspects of GB, where you often had to score a direct hit on a tank to do any meaningful damage. The ground explosion effects are now the best I've seen in any flight sim. Aircraft damage modeling is also very impressive.

Visually, I think the game looks best with DLSS and other upscaling features turned off, and sharpening filter ON.

I only hope that one day we'll get a Pacific theater running on this engine, with even better visuals and effects.

I don't yet know how the game performs with large numbers of AI aircraft—another area where GB struggled—but I played one co-op mission with a lot of B-29 bombers, and everything ran smoothly.

 

And regarding the .50 cals, I think they're much more realistic now. Machine guns and cannons in real life were far more effective than they were in the old GB. DCS got this mostly right, and I think Korea has come very close as well. Every gun camera video I've seen seems to support that. Aircraft were often brought down by surprisingly short bursts, especially when vital components were hit.

Edited June 28 by Tvrdi

[Avimimus]

22 minutes ago, Tvrdi said:

Flaps can jam, and aircraft can fall apart if you're not careful. All of that was sadly missing in GB. That's one of the reasons I always preferred DCS over GB.

I agree with most of what you write - but this? Ah... we clearly are treating our aircraft differently - you and I.

I seem to recall jamming flaps, losing control surfaces, and having aircraft break up on me in Great Battles on numerous occasions... (and not just the Typhoon, Ar-234B, or Nieuport N.17)! I think I've produced structural failures in basically everything I've flown.

Of course, part of that was seeing if I could take them supersonic (including, but not limited to, the Fokker E.III)... as well as more reasonable goes - such as trying to dive bomb in the U-2VS etc.

[AndreiTomescu]

question: i've tried the Mustang in Korea. It seems to me a different aircraft! So, the question is: which "version" is more accurate to the reality ? Can't say anything about the jets, it's the first time i fly one. 

Funny fact: if i crash, usually the game crashes to desktop. So the game does like that guy with the marmosets wanted: max realism: if you crash, you crash for good ! 🙂 🙂  

[Avimimus]

I'd assume Korea is more accurate... if for no other reason - that I find myself thinking much more like a real pilot when flying in it.

9 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Funny fact: if i crash, usually the game crashes to desktop. So the game does like that guy with the marmosets wanted: max realism: if you crash, you crash for good ! 🙂 🙂  

You should submit the crash logs to tech support! I'm sure that isn't as designed.

[Tvrdi]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I agree with most of what you write - but this? Ah... we clearly are treating our aircraft differently - you and I.

I seem to recall jamming flaps, losing control surfaces, and having aircraft break up on me in Great Battles on numerous occasions... (and not just the Typhoon, Ar-234B, or Nieuport N.17)! I think I've produced structural failures in basically everything I've flown.

Of course, part of that was seeing if I could take them supersonic (including, but not limited to, the Fokker E.III)... as well as more reasonable goes - such as trying to dive bomb in the U-2VS etc.

Well for some time it was a case in yaks but ok.  Regarding now in Korea, you can jamm them but you really need to use them for a longer period in turns to jamm them but I think it still should be more easily to jamm them specially if going faster. To be honest I only got a msg I need to retract my flaps.

I partially retract my statement regarding flight model of prop planes specifically...I don't seem much more convincing, they still respond very well to commands (though only tried SP normal mode with them)...maybe I'm wrong. Jets are much better and more convincing (heavier).

Edited June 28 by Tvrdi

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The 0.50 calibre machine guns:

- Are usually M3 (except in the P-51)... which means they have a higher rate of fire. They're also usually mounted in the nose (except in the P-51), which means they have less convergence issues. Overall, this should do something like double the effective firepower of a F-80/F-84/F-86 compared to an F-51D. Of course, that doesn't explain the difference between the P-51D and the F-51D!

- By the Korean War the use of the M23 round was widespread. This had a much larger bursting charge (similar to a UB machine gun). The new damage model also takes into account incendiary effects... which increases the effective firepower of heavy machine guns.

- The damage model of the target is much more detailed. This reduces the 'averaging' effect that weakened machine guns (where multiple hits to the same hitbox were required to have an effect, rather than modelling multiple smaller hitboxes which can each be destroyed with less rounds).

As for the flight model:

- the entire control system logic has been changed to give the joystick a more direct interaction with the control surfaces (this is probably the most noticeable change).

- In addition, the fidelity of flight models has been increased.

 

 

Any videos of this?

I've seen even more extreme, but this gives an example, that's not how 50s jets move, that's how super light 10+ G modern acrobatic aircraft move, aircraft that weighs less than a big motorcycle, not a many ton heavy 50s jet
 

 

[Avimimus]

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I've seen even more extreme, but this gives an example, that's not how 50s jets move, that's how super light 10+ G modern acrobatic aircraft move, aircraft that weighs less than a big motorcycle, not a many ton heavy 50s jet

Thanks! I appreciate it.

The F-80C had hydraulically boosted controls which made the roll rate 11 times faster than it would have been otherwise (135 degrees per second rather than 12)!

So the F-80 had about 85% of the roll rate of a Fw-190 and more than twice the roll rate of a typical Spitfire (and about 1.5 times the roll rate of a clip winged Spitfire).

This meant that it go go inverted in something like 1.5 seconds. The F-84E also has boosted ailerons if I recall.

So the roll rate is probably accurate - the question I suspect is more likely the acceleration in pitch in those manoeuvres... which is more of a matter of longitudinal stability... a different question.

[Dusty926]

“It’s old and heavy” is a trope that needs to die - Just because it has weight and came from yesteryear, does not inherently mean boat handling. Some of these planes were nippy, fast, responsive, controllable, unstable, etc. Air, amusingly, can make up for weight if you’re going fast enough. 
It reminds me of people who say the Ju-52 takes off far too quickly, not understanding just the sheer amount of lift those colossal wings generate.

 

Old =/= Boat

Heavy =/= Sluggish

[Red_Dragon]

6 часов назад, Avimimus сказал:

The 0.50 calibre machine guns:

- Are usually M3 (except in the P-51)... which means they have a higher rate of fire. They're also usually mounted in the nose (except in the P-51), which means they have less convergence issues. Overall, this should do something like double the effective firepower of a F-80/F-84/F-86 compared to an F-51D. Of course, that doesn't explain the difference between the P-51D and the F-51D!

 

I left a message about this in another thread (Flight and damage model physics).  Now in Korea, the power of 50 calories is almost equal to the capabilities of a combination of two 23 mm and one 37 mm or even more powerful! A Mustang in Korea can destroy a B29 in a short burst of 1/4 sec. If you think this is realistic, Im sorry I think you're ignoring the facts. To be honest, I suspect that there is some kind of bug or critical error. I did a lot of tests, and every time MiG 15 or B29 was hit, white smoke was released first, black smoke a few seconds later, and fire appeared after another 5 or a little more seconds. I didn't see much variety here, the same pattern with even very short burst. This is surprising, but the Mustang EASILY knocks down the B29. The Germans needed the Hornesse, the USSR needed the MiG 15 with its 37 mm. But M2 (and still M3, since this is not 37 or 57 mm) is Ok vs B29?

PS By the way. I am also confused by the clearly exaggerated effect of cannons and machine guns such as the Yak 9 and MiG15 on static aircraft on the ground. Just a few hits leave a literally burnt spot from the plane. I haven't had time to check the effects in flight yet.

Edited June 28 by Red_Dragon

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Thanks! I appreciate it.

The F-80C had hydraulically boosted controls which made the roll rate 11 times faster than it would have been otherwise (135 degrees per second rather than 12)!

So the F-80 had about 85% of the roll rate of a Fw-190 and more than twice the roll rate of a typical Spitfire (and about 1.5 times the roll rate of a clip winged Spitfire).

This meant that it go go inverted in something like 1.5 seconds. The F-84E also has boosted ailerons if I recall.

So the roll rate is probably accurate - the question I suspect is more likely the acceleration in pitch in those manoeuvres... which is more of a matter of longitudinal stability... a different question.

As i said I've seen more extreme. I was diving after one in a MiG and it basically made itself into a gyroscop. Rolling and thumbeling in all directions. Along all 3d dimensional axis. I was recording. But Korea keeps hard crashing my PC when i exit. So it means i lose my obs recording as it corrupts it also corrupts the last replay recording.

[Avimimus]

I will try to replicate! See if I can produce similar manoeuvres

P.S. Good luck on finding out why your copy is crashing - mine has been stable so far.

[Gunfreak]

6 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I will try to replicate! See if I can produce similar manoeuvres

P.S. Good luck on finding out why your copy is crashing - mine has been stable so far.

It claims it has something to do with a DLL file, that should only be relevant when using Oasis drivers for old Windows Mixed Reality headsets like G2, I'm using pimax and so shouldn't have anything to do with me, I'll try and use steamvr, to see if that avoids the crash, if it does then at least I've narrowed it down to something related to openxr runtime.

Edited June 28 by Gunfreak

[AndreiTomescu]

dunno where to post this, so here it goes:

- Shooting Star exams, the ground attack test.

- after hitting some vehicles with the cluster bombs, the vehicles from the column's head got Ferrari engines and speed up like in Forza Horizon! Not to worry, got them with the .50 guns. It's nice to see that the rocket-locomotive issue from the GB has a decent successor ! 🙂 🙂 Tried this 3 times, it was the same. What i found cool was that the dust risen by the speeding trucks was significantly larger.

The P-80 is such a wonderful plane!  Really love it. I'm curios how the P-84 is, but i'm taking them one at a time.

Do you guys have any idea how to make those friendly/enemy icons to stay off ? I have to turn them off every time (Ctrl-H). It's like my Civic's lane departure setting! 🙂 

Have to say that, despite being clearly a....work in progress (good thing they postponed the release, in this state the critics would have obliterated the game) the game is clearly a shift towards the "serious sim" compared to GB. I'm starting to wonder how i'm gonna get back there , except for FC. The new FM seems much more "authentic", indeed. Avimimus is right. 

Also, during the air combat test i have noticed that the "ace" AI performs different maneuvers, and that the annoying "head on sniper" AI efficency is no more.

We're on the good track here.

[Gavrick]

19 часов назад, Gunfreak сказал:

As i said I've seen more extreme. I was diving after one in a MiG and it basically made itself into a gyroscop. Rolling and thumbeling in all directions.

What you are describing resembles dynamic roll coupling (the English term for it, or aeroinertial rotation in Russian). Indeed, this was encountered on jet aircraft when there was a large distribution of masses — a "heavy nose" with armament and a "heavy tail" with the engine. So...

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Gavrick said:

What you are describing resembles dynamic roll coupling (the English term for it, or aeroinertial rotation in Russian). Indeed, this was encountered on jet aircraft when there was a large distribution of masses — a "heavy nose" with armament and a "heavy tail" with the engine. So...

Ah, yes. I suppose this is the same phenomena we saw with the Mig-3 (more pronounced in Il-2 1946, but still present in GB)?

I did run some tests the other day - and I suspect part of it is simply that the F-80C has surprisingly good spin recovery... and is unstable enough that one can get it to 'detach' from forward flight. So one can start to enter a spin/tumble, and then recover from that spin before it fully develops.

@Gavrick - It occurs to me that one limit on this tactic would be potential engine damage. I've noticed that engine flameouts do happen when I pull these manoeuvres. However, I suspect that the brief high angles of attack (along multiple axes) of the intake during such rapid maneouvres might be undermodeled - and doing so in real life might cause the engine to stall or cause engine damage.

If players have to restart the engine after such a manoeuvre, they'd be less likely to use it frequently.

[Dash,Polder]

Its a centrifugal engine, meaning it pulls air in from any direction, you can't disrupt air flow on it except by plugging the intakes.  Not true with the F-86 though, it's an axial flow and depends on one direction constant smooth continuous air flows.

Witness the two pressure doors top sides the fuselage, should it get short they'll pop open and feed.

[Avimimus]

9 minutes ago, Dash,Polder said:

Its a centrifugal engine, meaning it pulls air in from any direction, you can't disrupt air flow on it except by plugging the intakes.  Not true with the F-86 though, it's an axial flow and depends on one direction constant smooth continuous air flows.

Witness the two pressure doors top sides the fuselage, should it get short they'll pop open and feed.

Oh yeah! I hadn't thought of that!

We're still talking about some pretty severe pressure fluctuations... but I suppose it might cause a few of the combustion chambers to misfire but wouldn't do that much?

 

[Czech693]

I was initally having the sim lock-up on trying to exit.  It was in the third folder down in the drive.  I moved it up to the initial opening page and it stopped locking up.  Don't know why.

[Avimimus]

I'd be really interested if the developers (or anyone with stick experience in an actual P-51) could weigh in on this:

I suppose I'm most curious about the spin dynamics, but the overall longitudinal stability and responsiveness is also interesting.

[Tvrdi]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'd be really interested if the developers (or anyone with stick experience in an actual P-51) could weigh in on this:

I suppose I'm most curious about the spin dynamics, but the overall longitudinal stability and responsiveness is also interesting.

This just confirms my fears that the new FM won't be much better than the one in the last game. First thing I noticed both Mig15 and Sabre are far more forgiving on the stick than in DCS. In DCS you really feel the controls are much less responsve at speeds. On example Mig15 is almost dead on roll at very high speed.

Edited June 30 by Tvrdi