PDA

View Full Version : Future flight sims.....



Sturmvogel66
02-17-2004, 12:10 PM
I have always wondered what they will be like...I mean, besides the normal basics in a flight sim, what will the graphics be like, the AI, the flight model. Will they ever be accurate? I have also wondered how possible it would be to make a flight sim so encompassing that it included every plane, from every theatre, from 1936-1945....Obviously this is a WW2 flight sim, the ones I like best. I would love to have a game that provided historical accuracy, very close to real flight models, every immersive goody you could think of, and to top it off, every plane flown from 1936 to 1945 as flyable. I know it would be a big undertaking, but the way I see it, in a few years time, machines will be able to handle the IL-2 FB type engine perfectly at full res, and full graphics, and that way, this all encompassing sim could keep the "not so taxing" graphics so that it can include much much more. How possible do you guys think it is? I just like to dream I guess.

Sturmvogel66
02-17-2004, 12:10 PM
I have always wondered what they will be like...I mean, besides the normal basics in a flight sim, what will the graphics be like, the AI, the flight model. Will they ever be accurate? I have also wondered how possible it would be to make a flight sim so encompassing that it included every plane, from every theatre, from 1936-1945....Obviously this is a WW2 flight sim, the ones I like best. I would love to have a game that provided historical accuracy, very close to real flight models, every immersive goody you could think of, and to top it off, every plane flown from 1936 to 1945 as flyable. I know it would be a big undertaking, but the way I see it, in a few years time, machines will be able to handle the IL-2 FB type engine perfectly at full res, and full graphics, and that way, this all encompassing sim could keep the "not so taxing" graphics so that it can include much much more. How possible do you guys think it is? I just like to dream I guess.

georgeo76
02-17-2004, 12:17 PM
With the exception of the CFS series, each new Sim seems to be better than the last. Flight sims should become better looking and more accurate as hardware improves.

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/buck2.gif
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. "
Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

Sturmvogel66
02-17-2004, 12:26 PM
That is one thing I thought was good about the CFS series. It was possible for the community to make more theatres and planes possible, but that also opened things up like cheating, and altering the flight models. I jsut want to have a decent looking flight sim, that has every plane from WW2 in it, along with ever theatre, is that too much to ask? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

arcadeace
02-17-2004, 12:26 PM
I get a small idea with my FS2004. The graphics generator is superior to FB, cities and scenery with high detail can be seen at considerable distance. Also, dynamic weather contributes a lot.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

Capt_Haddock
02-17-2004, 12:51 PM
And with far less flyable planes...

The more complex they become the more research they'll need to be accurate, and the harder it'll be to have unique and obscure planes.

That's the real bottleneck.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

SG1_Tte.Costa
02-17-2004, 01:07 PM
S. All Gents!

Have you watch the movie "1945"?
Thats what I would like to see... A flight sim with that quality, and I think is not far away in the future...

Saludos SG1_Costa

Vista, suerte y al toro.

bird_brain
02-17-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmvogel66:
I jsut want to have a decent looking flight sim, that has every plane from WW2 in it, along with ever theatre, is that too much to ask? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
****

Is that all? Maybe in another 5 years that is what we will have...IL2 Sturmovik, All The Battles http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://hstrial-jyarbrough.homestead.com/Rarey1.jpg
**** The Hell Hawks Campaign is available @ ****
http://hstrial-jyarbrough.homestead.com/Files.html

ASH at S-MART
02-17-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmvogel66:
I have always wondered what they will be like...I mean, besides the normal basics in a flight sim, what will the graphics be like, the AI, the flight model. Will they ever be accurate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for graphics.. it is like a cold war arms race.. The min you come out with new hardware that can do more.. Thus enabling the sim makers to put 50 aircraft in the air instead of 5.. The sim makers op to put more DETAILED aircraft in the air instead of more at the CURRENT level of DETAIL

As for AI.. I don't see any end in that.. it is wide open and still more of an ART form than a SCIENCE.. But that is because I don't have the first idea of how they code that stuff up!;

As for flight models being accurate.. First you would have to define to me what your definition of accurate is.. In that for the most part they are as accurate as they can be! The *math* of flight modeling is not big secret! The parameters that define the aircraft and feed into the math of the flight model are hard to come by.. and in some cases don't even exist for WWII aircraft.. At which point the sim maker has to take a WAG at it.. Which is also a source of errors that end up in a patch.. The last part that is usually a little easier to come by, but not all ways is flight data.. i.e. speed at alt, climb rates, i.e. the real measured values of aircraft.. Problem is that kind of data does not exist for every alt and or configuration of the aircraft.. Thus once again a WAG has to be made for the missing data points.. And also a source of errors that end up in a patch.

Last but not least we have to remember that a simulation is just that.. It will NEVER be real! Even if we had the MATRIX base of the neck inputs it would not be real!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmvogel66:
I have also wondered how possible it would be to make a flight sim so encompassing that it included every plane, from every theatre, from 1936-1945.... Obviously this is a WW2 flight sim, the ones I like best. I would love to have a game that provided historical accuracy, very close to real flight models, every immersive goody you could think of, and to top it off, every plane flown from 1936 to 1945 as flyable. I know it would be a big undertaking, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>An economic improbability really! Unless you don't mind a crap sim! Simply put, given a fixed amount of time and money.. The more you try to do the less you will be able to do on each one. In short, take BF1942 for example.. They try to do it all! What they ended up with is something that does it all.. but does not do any one thing GREAT!! I would rather see a sim do 25 aircraft GREAT then 250 aircraft SO SO!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmvogel66:
but the way I see it, in a few years time, machines will be able to handle the IL-2 FB type engine perfectly at full res, and full graphics, and that way, this all encompassing sim could keep the "not so taxing" graphics so that it can include much much more. How possible do you guys think it is? I just like to dream I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The hardware will be able to handle it.. if thing were kept at todays standard of detail.. but as I first pointed out, they don't! So, what we will see in the future is everything getting a little better as eye candy gets a lot better.. but the number of aircraft in the sky at any one time is about thirtyish.. I hope someone does what EAW did years ago.. Go with 2 year old graphics engine.. and put more aircraft in the sky.. In that SOME DAY I would like to see a formation of 100+ B17's flying along with 30+ escorts being attacked by 40+ fighters... That is what I hope and dream of.. In that I don't need the aircraft so detailed that I can see the color of the pilots eyes or the threads on the screws holding the seat to the floor.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-17-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
And with far less flyable planes...

The more complex they become the more research they'll need to be accurate, and the harder it'll be to have unique and obscure planes.

That's the real bottleneck.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wonder however that in the future the physics model will be accurate enough that good aeronautical data and a bit of extrapolation will give you the flight model without any extra work. It'll just be calculated and done by the physics engine. I wonder if the future of flight sims will be based on how good your physics engine is...FM's and DM's would just be a natural extension of that.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Bearcat99
02-17-2004, 02:13 PM
If you look at the evolution of flight sims from 1994 to 2004 you can get some idea if you take into consideration the way the technology explodes. Just 5 years ago a video card like a 9000Pro 128 would have been top of the line. Today it is not even budget.....it's bargain basement. I think in 5 years we will have CGI quality graphics...... 64 bit systems will be common by then and we will probably be bordering on 128 bit systems..or even 256 who knows. I think in the near future we will have 3.2KHZ FSB (Athalon 64s are already 1.6K) , 12+GHZ CPUs, 512MB video cards, 2G RAM...something faster than DDR... 400G HDs, 21MP digital cameras.... I could go on and on.... but you get the picture.. I think flight sims in the near future will be better all around. I can only imagine what BoB will be like...knowing OM's dedication to quality it will be a landmark sim like IL2 was.

<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/)

ASH at S-MART
02-17-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
And with far less flyable planes...

The more complex they become the more research they'll need to be accurate, and the harder it'll be to have unique and obscure planes.

That's the real bottleneck.

I wonder however that in the future the physics model will be accurate enough that good aeronautical data and a bit of extrapolation will give you the flight model without any extra work. It'll just be calculated and done by the physics engine. I wonder if the future of flight sims will be based on how good your physics engine is...FM's and DM's would just be a natural extension of that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm no expert, but I work with guys who are.. And from what I understand the *math* of flight modeling is not big secret! The *math* of the flight model is the same for every aircraft.. It has been around for years! Some of the sim makers turn some aspects of it off and on.. But what makes one aircraft different from another is the parameters (coefficients) that feed into the *math* of the flight model... That is to say there is not a different flight model for each aircraft.. Which leads us to the parameters, the parameters that *define* the aircraft are hard to come by.. and in some cases don't exist for WWII aircraft!! At which point the sim maker has to take a WAG at it..

When we get a patch that changes the way an aircraft flys it is usually due to a change in the WAG parameter not the *math* of the flight model

For example

y = C*x + 10

Now aircraft #1 might have a C value equal to 2 and aircraft #2 might have a C value equal to 3, therefore at any given "x" the "y" will be different between the two aircraft, but the *math* i.e. equations has not changed

Another thing that makes it hard to model aircraft is the lack of test flight data i.e. speed at alt, climb rates, etc.. The real measured values of aircraft.. Problem is if that data even exists.. it usually is at just one or two altitudes at a certain type of aircraft configuration (i.e. fuel load, ammo, etc). Thus once again a WAG has to be made for the missing data points.. And also a source of errors that end up in a patch.

There is a lot of room for error between the WAG of the parameters and the WAG of the flight tests! It is a constant tweaking back and forth.. In that someone might find some new flight data for a given aircraft which forces a change in the WAG(s) and thus a patch!

So the flight models are not becoming more complex.. unless you consider the enabling of something that was turned off before.. Thus no need for more research to be accurate.. Thus no more of a bottle neck then what they have now.. There will allways be that need to tweak the WAG's to make it macth up better with flight data..

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

BaldieJr
02-17-2004, 02:26 PM
The future of flight-sims will be available in 2 weeks.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Capt_Haddock
02-17-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
So the flight models are not becoming more complex.. unless you consider the enabling of something that was turned off before.. Thus no need for more research to be accurate.. Thus no more of a bottle neck then what they have now.. There will allways be that need to tweak the WAG's to make it macth up better with flight data..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't talking of flight models, but 3D models http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Fligh Model will be the easy part. The real problem will be to actually model in 3D those planes and cockpits with an increasing level of detail.
Of course you have all the information you'll ever need to make the usual P-51s, Spits and the lot. But what about the less familiar planes? That's the real problem.

It's hard enough to model a cockpit for FB with the current level of detail. A couple of blurred old pictures are far from enough. We already have planes that'll never be flyable (like the Su-2) just because there's no detailed information on them, and things won't get better unles they dig out every obscure aeroplane from a distant pit in the Russian tundra.

We'll get incredible Spits, Corsairs, Mustangs and the likes, but Arado-69s? D-370s? Spad-51s? Bu-133s?, HS-123s? forget it.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

Sturmvogel66
02-17-2004, 05:06 PM
Why is it every plane made flyable has to be exactly perfect in regards to the cockpit references? I mean, yes, it is nice knowing that the developers took the time to do their research and the attention detail is astounding, but with planes like the Spad 51, D-370, Arado 69, and the Bu-133, I wouldn't mind if the cockpits were just based on any info at all, and they were essentially just a good guess. That would be good enough for me, I mean it would be better to have the plane flyable than not at all. Just my opinion. There is no doubt I would like all the planes that are flyable to have historic cockpits, but sometimes exceptions have to be made.

Mike_Green
02-17-2004, 05:48 PM
AI is an area with a lot of potential for development in my view. I'd like to see stuff like AI balancing objectives continually to produce behaviour(most straighforwardly kill/survive), more co-operation between AI and the human pilot, with a richer set of instructions and AI acting on instructions intelligently (e.g. asking for clarificaction and further instructions), decision making made from realistically constrained information input (i.e. no more seeing through clouds) and an ability to learn from experience. In fact I would predict that the best AI behaviour results from teaching a computer model from the behaviour of real pilots.

I know nothing at all about the algorithms used by current combat flight sims, but would be curious to know how it's done currently. The 'canned' AI routines of FB (for instance once AI is in going home or landing mode, it is completely oblivious to the presence of enemy aircraft) are a long way behind the game's extraordinary realism in other respects.

Previously known round these parts as mikeyg007

Chuck_Older
02-17-2004, 05:50 PM
I remember how impressed I was with Aces of the Pacific.

Then I boot up FB.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

That was what, 12 years ago? A dozen years, and if you put the two programs on PCs side by side, it would be, oh, I don't know, incredible to realise that innovation is just coming faster and faster now, and that generation gap between the two software titles of only 12 years from '92 to 2004 will only take about 5 years to duplicate now, if technology DOESN'T take another giant leap forward, which it has every reason to.

Imagine comparing FB to a sim from 5 years in the future, and FB takes AotP's place on the comparison, if things develop s-l-o-w-l-y. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash

ASH at S-MART
02-17-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
I wasn't talking of flight models, but 3D models<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, shoot, my bad, I didnt mean to include your quote in there, I got it mixxed in with VW-IceFire post about FM's.. Ill go back and edit that part of your post out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
The Fligh Model will be the easy part. The real problem will be to actually model in 3D those planes and cockpits with an increasing level of detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends on your definition of easy.. Once you finish a 3D cockpit, it is pretty much done.. Where as with a FM whre you only have bit's an peaces of the parameters and flight data to check it.. validating the WAG's can go on for ever.. Even after months of beta testing a team of beta testers can miss something.. That and new flight data can send you back to the beggining and have to start the WAG testing all over again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
Of course you have all the information you'll ever need to make the usual P-51s, Spits and the lot. But what about the less familiar planes? That's the real problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally agree! As I pointed out, some of the parameters just dont exist.. let alone test flight data to check it by.. At which point you are stuck.. Unless someone does a modern wind tunnel test of a model.. or PC model to extrapolate the paramters from.. And I dont see anyone going to that expence.. Not for a game anyways!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But.. as time goes by, comercial version of such things might become common place?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
It's hard enough to model a cockpit for FB with the current level of detail. A couple of blurred old pictures are far from enough. We already have planes that'll never be flyable (like the Su-2) just because there's no detailed information on them, and things won't get better unles they dig out every obscure aeroplane from a distant pit in the Russian tundra.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is sad if the lack of a true cockpit is keeping us from flying an aircraft they have parameters for and test flight data! I would be more than willing to have a BEST GUESS cockpit used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
We'll get incredible Spits, Corsairs, Mustangs and the likes, but Arado-69s? D-370s? Spad-51s? Bu-133s?, HS-123s? forget it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, if no parameters exist to feed the FM.. and no flight data exists to test the FM.. Then yes, we are SOL! But, if they have enough to model the FM and test it.. then just WAG the cockpit!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Im all for actual and detailed cockpits.. but if that is all that is standing in the way of me flying those aircraft.. Give me a WAG cockpit!!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Gibbage1
02-17-2004, 06:19 PM
I agree. Even with IL2's standards, it still takes a team to do anything more comples then a standard fighter in a month or two. Oleg invited me to do some models for BoB but I turned down once he showed me a few screenshots of what his team is working on. Thats more then a job for 1 man.

Time is a constant, and the more detail you put into an aircraft, the more time it takes. The more time 1 aircraft takes, the less aircraft you can work on in a given time frame. Unless you add more people to your team. That increases cost in man hours, not to mention software seats, computers, and so on. Also increases the complexity of the overall engine, and then you need more programmer time. Its an ugly hairball. Now the sim market is limited, and that means funds are also. So you can pay for all those extra people to work on a lot of aircraft.

This leads to less aircraft that look better. Also the more details you have on an aircraft, the more you lower your market share because your bringing the system requirements up, and that kills a portion of your potentian users in your already limited market. So you need to balance things out like detail, scalability, time, and market. Its all complex and a pain in the ***. We would not have this sort of problem if the flight sim market was as big as the FPS market. Then you have a HUGE user base with the top-of-the-line computers. Then not only can you afford all these graphics and aircraft, but the bulk of the target users can play it.

But its not all bad. Once the FPS market brakes out tools and technology, it trickles down to everyone, including Sims. You should soon start to see Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 graphics in flight sims. If you want an example of graphical glory, and what is possible today, download Far Cry and take a look! The lighting, water, and shaders are simply amazing!!! Stuff like rust has depth on a flat surface, and the lighting is astonishing! With this technology, we could have aircraft with a level of detail never thought possible. Such things like REAL panel lines and rivits is possible on a 3000 polygon model. That solvs scalability for older systems, and gives you the eye candy for people that have the computer to handle it.

The future of flight sims can only get better. Well as long as MS is not at anothe CFS =( CFS3 was a huge step-back from CFS2 in many ways.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
And with far less flyable planes...

The more complex they become the more research they'll need to be accurate, and the harder it'll be to have unique and obscure planes.

That's the real bottleneck.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bearcat99
02-17-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmvogel66:
Why is it every plane made flyable has to be exactly perfect in regards to the cockpit references? I mean, yes, it is nice knowing that the developers took the time to do their research and the attention detail is astounding, but with planes like the Spad 51, D-370, Arado 69, and the Bu-133, I wouldn't mind if the cockpits were just based on any info at all, and they were essentially just a good guess. That would be good enough for me, I mean it would be better to have the plane flyable than not at all. Just my opinion. There is no doubt I would like all the planes that are flyable to have historic cockpits, but sometimes exceptions have to be made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing like going into a sim for a bit and then looking in a book to see that the developer got it right... it really nice to know they take the time.

<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/)

VMF-Blaze_UG
02-17-2004, 06:40 PM
I've been simming since the really old days.... Commadore 64 and I don't really remember what the game was. It was the WW1 Theater, The graphics were the old DOS Green and it took about 10 minutes to load up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But you know the excitement and the fun were there then just as now And I still enjoy that exhileration of being able to shoot a plane down, But weve really come a long way since then and not just with graphics but there are so many options offered its truley amazing!!

Blaze

http://home.comcast.net/~h.walther/blazesig.gif

Flamin_Squirrel
02-17-2004, 08:48 PM
I dont think we have to worry long term about being able to create more real flightsims. As fightsims get better, so do the tools to make them.

As IceFire says, one day you wont put in a few equations and fudge the cooeficients for each plane till you get a reasonable approximation... One day you'll just put in a planes dimensions and the materials its made of, throw it into a vitual airspace and it wont just follow a simple mathmatical function, it will actualy *fly*.

ASH at S-MART
02-17-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
As IceFire says, one day you wont put in a few equations and fudge the cooeficients for each plane till you get a reasonable approximation... One day you'll just put in a planes dimensions and the materials its made of, throw it into a vitual airspace and it wont just follow a simple mathmatical function, it will actualy *fly*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well your right about it not being a *simple* mathmatical function! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I indicated earlier.. aerospace does have tools where you put in the planes dimensions and materials.. where one of the things they can get out are the parameters used in the FM's.. But they don't run in real time.. no where near real time.. And the things they are looking for.. like frame stresses, CG, etc.. are not necessary for the FM's.. just the results of said testing.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

BlackHawkLeader
02-17-2004, 11:43 PM
Although I am a mad IL-2/FB Fan, I must confess that Lock on modern Air Combat is probably the best flight Sim currently available when it comes to realistic flight models, mission editing and creating capability, and for Online combat in a bigger war theatre created in the Mission editor.

In fact I have become so immersed in Online Play with others who have barely tweaking the mission editor to its full capabilities, I nearly forgot IL-2 FB existed.
Sure I will be purchasing the Aces Add on for FB, but I wont be using it until I master the Mission Editor in Lock On.

Imagine joining a Server hosting Lock On in the Hyper lobby as you would a DF server in IL-2FB.
However unlike Il-2Fb this server has armoured units locked in Battle moving firing at each other, with Naval ships moving into the area to offer Air Support to impact on the ground Battle ( the Human Multiplayers).
Lets throw in a few Ai attack Helicopters moving accross the battle area to spice things up.
You wont see anything like that in a DF server in FB.
You need to fly a Coop in FB to accomplish that.
For you other IL-2/FB fans that are wondering about the future of Air Combat Sims.
Today I started building my first comprhensive Virtual Online Battle field, I started with a group of individualy edited MI USA Tanks moving to a defensive positions off road after driving along the road for a few miles to what I will have as a front line area.
Then saved and played back observing through outside views.
Imagine my surprise when a civilian Bus just suddenly showed up driving along the road !!!!
Then in the distance I noticed a freight train moving along the rail line that crossed the road further down.
This sim is way ahead in so many ways.

Take a look at what is already going on in Lock On Modern Air Combat already today.

Hey I was a mad prop head, totaly anti jet too.

Not anymore!

[This message was edited by BlackHawkLeader on Tue February 17 2004 at 11:02 PM.]

Chuck_Older
02-18-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-Blaze_UG:
I've been simming since the really old days.... Commadore 64 and I don't really remember what the game was. It was the WW1 Theater, The graphics were the old DOS Green and it took about 10 minutes to load up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was that by any chance Red Baron?

*****************************
from the Hundred Years war to the Crimea, from the lance and the musket and the Roman spear, to all of the men who have stood with no fear, in the service of the King~ Clash