PDA

View Full Version : FM of untested planes are wrong- this counter-argument makes sense



johann63
03-12-2004, 11:09 AM
I never real thought about this issue of "you just cant include planes that were only on the boards in WWII and never flown, and get any realistic FM"


These other posts make me feel Oleg has done a stunning job, once again, to add good realism to a virtual computer fighter simulation.

posted 11-03-04 07:28
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
So, since, according to you guys, it's not possible to implement a realistic FM for a plane if it has never flown before, that must thereby mean that modern aerospace design techniques which include flight testing in software only (you know - a sim) and fixes and redesigns long before any parts are ever made, is totally inaccurate. Wow. Scary thought. Almost makes ya wanna stay away from all planes then, doesn't it? lol



==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wonder how many people here have flown in the Boeing 777? Been in service since 95 and was completely designed on computers. AFAIK most of the major flaws in the deign were fixed before it was built, and only minor ones were found after flying it for the first time.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/sitemap.html


Like BlitzPig said, if we have the technology to build and flight test an airplane virutally, why can't we extrapolate the FM of a 50 year old warbird?

BlitzPig_johann

johann63
03-12-2004, 11:09 AM
I never real thought about this issue of "you just cant include planes that were only on the boards in WWII and never flown, and get any realistic FM"


These other posts make me feel Oleg has done a stunning job, once again, to add good realism to a virtual computer fighter simulation.

posted 11-03-04 07:28
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
So, since, according to you guys, it's not possible to implement a realistic FM for a plane if it has never flown before, that must thereby mean that modern aerospace design techniques which include flight testing in software only (you know - a sim) and fixes and redesigns long before any parts are ever made, is totally inaccurate. Wow. Scary thought. Almost makes ya wanna stay away from all planes then, doesn't it? lol



==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wonder how many people here have flown in the Boeing 777? Been in service since 95 and was completely designed on computers. AFAIK most of the major flaws in the deign were fixed before it was built, and only minor ones were found after flying it for the first time.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/sitemap.html


Like BlitzPig said, if we have the technology to build and flight test an airplane virutally, why can't we extrapolate the FM of a 50 year old warbird?

BlitzPig_johann

Bearcat99
03-12-2004, 11:12 AM
I think all the FMs in FB are top notch. Im no engineer so icant say with certainty..but I think Oleg knows more than most of us and I would thingk that the FMs in FB are 95-100% dead on. Especially when compared to other sims...no contest.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

georgeo76
03-12-2004, 11:26 AM
I'm not a big fan of the whole "luft'46" concept. Much of the German technology was simply infeasible (if not in design, then in implementation). Any machine that's not battle tested cannot be considered a weapon. I *do* enjoy flying these aircraft, and I *do* marvel at the late-war German state-of-the-art. But speculation about how these advanced machines could have had on the course of the war or against one another is frivolous.

Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

johann63
03-12-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
I'm not a big fan of the whole "luft'46" concept. Much of the German technology was simply infeasible (if not in design, then in implementation). Any machine that's not battle tested cannot be considered a weapon. I *do* enjoy flying these aircraft, and I *do* marvel at the late-war German state-of-the-art. But speculation about how these advanced machines could have had on the course of the war or against one another is frivolous.

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Any machine that's not battle tested cannot be considered a weapon."

I guess thats the argument in my post, ahh what about all of the US fighter testing over the last ten years??

"But speculation about how these advanced machines could have had on the course of the war or against one another is frivolous."

I guess thats always an issue but irrelevant to this post in my opinion.

BlitzPig_johann

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-12-2004, 11:38 AM
Then don't fly them.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

georgeo76
03-12-2004, 11:54 AM
We agree johann. A computer simulation is the most appropriate place to explore theoretical flight performance. My point is that battle effectiveness is a much more complicated than flight models. Too complicated IMO to be quantified in a video game.

Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

Aaron_GT
03-12-2004, 12:05 PM
In theory it is possible tu
take one of the Luft 46
designs and simulate it to
create enough information
to produce a fairly
accurate FM. However for
something like a 777 a 500
processor beowulf would be
de rigeur, plus the software
isn't cheap.

johann63
03-12-2004, 04:32 PM
well I guess that is a valid point Georgeo76 about battle effectiveness, that will be a debate in this game for a long time. An true too Aaron the sims used for this big birds is note quite the same as this one.

BlitzPig_johann

p1ngu666
03-12-2004, 04:37 PM
gotta agree with aaron

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2004, 04:39 PM
World War 1 flight sim is where this may be most useful.

Nobody here, at the ubi.com, can define "Battle Effectiveness," which is why they have not tried. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the FM are good, simmers provide Battle Effectivness.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif