PDA

View Full Version : Flight Model Errors



Buzz04
06-28-2004, 08:22 AM
This topic usually brings up interest in all:

I just finished my annual simulator refresher in a multi-mullion dollar (US), military simulator. It's full-motion, wrap-around visuals, and 100% accurate cockpit model. I'm here to tell you there are flight model errors!

Yes, it's true! Ground handling characteristics are a perpetual problem (and have been for over nine years). The new software pack has changed the 100% flap stall characteristics - they are no longer accurate for the aircraft! Some other minor problems remain as well as the simulator goes through upgrades - malfunctions happen of their own accord.

This real-world simulator only simulates one type of aircraft and a very specific model of that type of aircraft. And it costs milllions.

Please give the developers a break now and then - they've give you about a 100 aircraft to fly at any time you want for under $75. And they patch (and add new aircraft) for free - unlike a real contractor. Minor flight model erros are acceptable and realistic - not every aircraft of every type flies exactly the same.

I enjoy flying just a few of them, but they are more than one type! Thanks to the development team for giving us the best WWII sim with enough flight models to please just about everyone.

(I just wanted to add some positive notes - Oleg and his team rarely get to hear from the guys who are pleased.)

V/R,
Buzz

Buzz04
06-28-2004, 08:22 AM
This topic usually brings up interest in all:

I just finished my annual simulator refresher in a multi-mullion dollar (US), military simulator. It's full-motion, wrap-around visuals, and 100% accurate cockpit model. I'm here to tell you there are flight model errors!

Yes, it's true! Ground handling characteristics are a perpetual problem (and have been for over nine years). The new software pack has changed the 100% flap stall characteristics - they are no longer accurate for the aircraft! Some other minor problems remain as well as the simulator goes through upgrades - malfunctions happen of their own accord.

This real-world simulator only simulates one type of aircraft and a very specific model of that type of aircraft. And it costs milllions.

Please give the developers a break now and then - they've give you about a 100 aircraft to fly at any time you want for under $75. And they patch (and add new aircraft) for free - unlike a real contractor. Minor flight model erros are acceptable and realistic - not every aircraft of every type flies exactly the same.

I enjoy flying just a few of them, but they are more than one type! Thanks to the development team for giving us the best WWII sim with enough flight models to please just about everyone.

(I just wanted to add some positive notes - Oleg and his team rarely get to hear from the guys who are pleased.)

V/R,
Buzz

ELEM
06-28-2004, 08:33 AM
You'll hear no complaints out of me!

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/dhm_787_small.jpg

Aero_Shodanjo
06-28-2004, 08:36 AM
With no intention to start a (furious) debate, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'd say if anyone really wanted to get the most perfect FM (or DM in that case) in any simulator, maybe they should not trying ANY simulator at all.

And get a real plane to fly.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Air Power, ...Its mistery is half its power."

georgeo76
06-28-2004, 08:41 AM
I agree w/ what you say Buzz04, but your argument is flawed.

Commercial standards are always higher than military standards. For example, consumers usually insist that a product actually work before they buy it.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And just because the military pays millions of dollars for 'a system', doesn't correlate to that 'systems' quality. Ever heard the phrase "close enough for government work"?

joeap
06-28-2004, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
I agree w/ what you say Buzz04, but your argument is flawed.

Commercial standards are always higher than military standards. For example, consumers usually insist that a product actually work before they buy it.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And just because the military pays millions of dollars for 'a system', doesn't correlate to that 'systems' quality. Ever heard the phrase "close enough for government work"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reminds me of my lessons with CFS1, which was one of my first combat sims.

LStarosta
06-28-2004, 09:03 AM
Thank you, Buzz!

And no, his argument isn't flawed, in my opinion, because there are civilian commercial simulators with similar purpose and function. They too usually simulate one type of aircraft and are extremely expensive as well. Last time I saw one of those it cost about 75% to rent as much as it cost to rent a Cessna 172 (IFR equipped). Like Buzz said, you pay less than 75 bucks for the ability to fly a TON of different planes so don't bicker and whine if a FM is slightly off. If this doesnt suit you, go fly CFS2 or CFS3, and then you'll realize just how much better IL2 is.

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!

F19_Ob
06-28-2004, 10:15 AM
Alll I can add is ...he he......and thanx! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

horseback
06-28-2004, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
I agree w/ what you say Buzz04, but your argument is flawed.

Commercial standards are always higher than military standards. For example, consumers usually insist that a product actually work before they buy it.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And just because the military pays millions of dollars for 'a system', doesn't correlate to that 'systems' quality. Ever heard the phrase "close enough for government work"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Georgeo,

You ever DO any government work? Every contract is written with clauses that no non-government contractor has to put up with. Half the suppliers out there won't touch government work because the government is a little cavalier about timely payments to small businesses. Projects are rife with waste because the rules are so detailed that one anal-retentive Government Rep can ruin you if he is so inclined at any time. Rule One is that the Government is always right, and you have no economically viable recourse.

I can remember one major Army project about 8 years ago that was going fine for about 10 months until the final proof of concept test at NTC. The Brigade commander decided to put his imprint on the project, and insisted that the 'addresses' for all his units be redone according to his system; our software guys worked frantically to enter the new data in something like a week before the brigade's vehicles got shipped from Ft Hood in Texas to Ft Irwin in California for the big test. Somehow, the brigade staff had failed to include the engineering units in the new and improved system and my company's software engineers caught hell for the first five days of a monthlong test until we realized that while the engineers' radios worked, they still had the original addresses, which were no longer valid, which meant that they got no new orders or communications.

New addresses were devised and installed into the system on the fly, the concept was proven to be good, and even though the powers that be knew who was responsible for the screwup, the general impression among the troops was that my company F'd up the exercise, and I assume the colonel still got his stars. The screwup made its way into the industry press, without ever mentioning that the brigade CO had created the problem or that we fixed it within two days of its identification.

My point is this: if the government customer demands a change RIGHT NOW, without regard for the consequences, you have to give it to them, and deal with the fallout when things don't work out just right. People tend to remember what went wrong more easily than who was responsible in the long term. The natural result has been that it is more important to have a set of lips positioned on the right posterior than it is to do the job right.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944