PDA

View Full Version : Energy Bleed, Stick Pressures



XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 03:14 AM
Oleg Im wondering why dont all the a/c have simulated stick pressures in alieron rolls, so far the p40 seems like the only plane in the game that seems somewhat realistic in this matters where it bleeds energy

Theres accurate p40 alieron, elevator and rudder stick pressure.

While all the other planes besides the p47s have almost none at all at speeds faster then the p40 can achieve it really doesnt make sense at all.

The la7 and mig3 seem to have accurate elevator stick pressure but zero alieron stick pressure or slight bleed from rolling

while the yaks me262 lagg3 b239 190 109g2 and just about every other plane have almost none at all, you can roll over 1000 times and maintain top speed and you dont redout or blackout

the me262 doing 950kmph straight down can instant do a L and fly on a level.

To me it seems like people are doing the most unrealistic manuvers and the manuevers people are pulling off look so ridiculous and dont bleed E from these stick yank manuvers which cant even be called a jink. I would like to know what you think about this and notice it too, but to me the realism doesnt seem to be there in flight





<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 03:14 AM
Oleg Im wondering why dont all the a/c have simulated stick pressures in alieron rolls, so far the p40 seems like the only plane in the game that seems somewhat realistic in this matters where it bleeds energy

Theres accurate p40 alieron, elevator and rudder stick pressure.

While all the other planes besides the p47s have almost none at all at speeds faster then the p40 can achieve it really doesnt make sense at all.

The la7 and mig3 seem to have accurate elevator stick pressure but zero alieron stick pressure or slight bleed from rolling

while the yaks me262 lagg3 b239 190 109g2 and just about every other plane have almost none at all, you can roll over 1000 times and maintain top speed and you dont redout or blackout

the me262 doing 950kmph straight down can instant do a L and fly on a level.

To me it seems like people are doing the most unrealistic manuvers and the manuevers people are pulling off look so ridiculous and dont bleed E from these stick yank manuvers which cant even be called a jink. I would like to know what you think about this and notice it too, but to me the realism doesnt seem to be there in flight





<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 07:26 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Oleg Im wondering why dont all the a/c have
- simulated stick pressures in alieron rolls, so far
- the p40 seems like the only plane in the game that
- seems somewhat realistic in this matters where it
- bleeds energy
-
Speculation.
- Theres accurate p40 alieron, elevator and rudder
- stick pressure.
-
- While all the other planes besides the p47s have
- almost none at all at speeds faster then the p40 can
- achieve it really doesnt make sense at all.
-
Speculation.
- The la7 and mig3 seem to have accurate elevator
- stick pressure but zero alieron stick pressure or
- slight bleed from rolling
-
Speculation.
- while the yaks me262 lagg3 b239 190 109g2 and just
- about every other plane have almost none at all, you
- can roll over 1000 times and maintain top speed and
- you dont redout or blackout
-
Speculation.

Also a proper roll should not induce much more than +/-1G. It's quite correct that one doesn't black/red out from rolling.

Please prove, by posting a track, that you can roll over 1000 times at top speed.

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 07:51 AM
Common logic suggests a little speed should be bled due to aileron deflection. But how much ?

Look at it this way. If you kick rudder, your plane sideslips. It is the fuselage going sideways through air that causes drag and imminent slowdown, not the rudder itself.

When you push/pull the stick, it is the wings and to a lesser degree the fuselage that causes drag, not elevator itself.

With aileron input there is not much more drag, except, as mentioined - the aileron drag. Of course there is resistance to fuselage rolling, but how much it affects speed is beyond me. Probably minimal.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 08:34 PM
so you tell me a pilot wont black out from 100s of non stop rolls and the blood wont rush to his head, a 35-45 degree seat helps but wearing no g suit it doesnt help that much. Im wanting this game to become accurate and to get rid of the extremely arcadish movements but it seems since more rather have a balanced arcadish sim which I hate and is why i left cfs2 cfs3 but cfs3 did have good stick pressure. In fb you cant get in a unrecoverable dive for example from extreme stick pressure which happens way before breakup speed in reality. In fb you can exceed your max dive speed and loose 1 alieron and one elevator tab and have just about full movement as with them all there. Stick pressure would bring realism back and is really needed Im sure oleg is aware of it since he has a love of wwii aviation.

If you ever flown you now that fast alieron use actually looses effectness somewhat and wwii aircraft unlike todays show competition aircraft that are a less then a quarter of the weight, and have custom huge alierons elevator and rudder move. Im sure oleg knows pilots that speak his language have experience in vintage aircraft and will listen to them.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 08:40 PM
HomeboyWu grab a 190 yak mig3u b239 and test it yourself no need for a track we all know.

A level rolling 190d or 190a9 can outrun any level flying jug from 1000-8000m





<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 09:53 PM
You is wrong, be sure./i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 10:22 PM
Oleg or anyone with flight experience can you respond, seems those with no flight experience think it is untrue

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:30 AM
Any deflected control surface will cause drag.

Any control surface move that results in energy being applied to the plane (can't roll without being pushed/torqued) takes energy and ends up as drag. There is no free energy or there would be perpetual motion possible. Simple physics, every effect has a cost and in flying the cost is drag or fuel.

As to Leadspitter being right about his assertions... I can't say so or not. Is online and offline different? I see many claims about online play that are hard to believe yet so many people say they've seen it in their own as well as other planes.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 08:54 AM
Hi Neal,

- As to Leadspitter being right about his
- assertions... I can't say so or not. Is online and
- offline different? I see many claims about online
- play that are hard to believe yet so many people say
- they've seen it in their own as well as other
- planes.

Online and offline play are no different, other than that your opponents are also flying within the limits of the 'player' flightmodel.

When people are talking about crazy behaviour I would guesstimate that 99.9999999% of the time it's one of the following:

a) creative writing or occasionally, outright knowingly lying
b) server burps
c) lag or other internet weirdness

When someones argument boils down to something they say they saw online with no supporting Ntrk or Trk file to prove it, it should set off your BS alert immediately.

Frankly it wouldn't surprise me if Oleg dumps every single piece user input on in-game behaviour that does not include a track file. As he should - the strange flipside to having such an incredibly anal and fanatical user community is that it has a few people who just love to manufacture 'evidence' and throw it in with the rest.

As to Leadspitters issue, I agree that it's all speculation. Without knowing the innards of the way FB calculates stick deflection, speed bleed, etc, it's hard to say exactly what the issue might be. I agree with him that there seems to be some inconsistency with the way planes control surfaces act on the plane at different speeds, between plane models. I'd suggest that this might be a hard problem to get to the bottom of and point out exactly what's wrong, though. What you see on the screen in terms of stick movement and aileron movement is not actually used by the game to calculate roll rates, etc - it's just a graphical representation of it. FB is not a full physical simulation where you are literally moving a simulated physical control rod connected to a surface to generate plane movement. Beware making judgements as to what is 'right' or 'wrong' based on how you see the controls move at different speeds.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:01 AM
LeadSpitter is on the right track... especially about the P-40... it is the only plane that "locks up" at high speed. Following a Bf-109 (or any a/c for that matter) in a dive and gaining speed and then trying to manouvre is as good as impossible! The aircraft you follow in a dive will pull out of the dive in front of you while your P-40 will pull out of the dive like a B-17 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

It's a fact of game that P-40 is the only a/c behaving like this.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 09:10 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Any deflected control surface will cause drag.
-

Quite right.

- Any control surface move that results in energy
- being applied to the plane (can't roll without being
- pushed/torqued) takes energy and ends up as drag.
- There is no free energy or there would be perpetual
- motion possible. Simple physics, every effect has a
- cost and in flying the cost is drag or fuel.
-

Not relevent as we're talking sustained roll here. There's no energy applied to the plane by torque when the plane is in constant angular velocity roll. It's like when you're flying at level constant max speed, 0% of the engine's energy goes to the plane, while 100% of it goes to the air around.

But if talking about going from 0 roll to max roll then energy is applied (should be "work is done")to the airplane.

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 10:08 AM
RAAF_Edin wrote:
- LeadSpitter is on the right track... especially
- about the P-40... it is the only plane that "locks
- up" at high speed. Following a Bf-109 (or any a/c
- for that matter) in a dive and gaining speed and
- then trying to manouvre is as good as impossible!
- The aircraft you follow in a dive will pull out of
- the dive in front of you while your P-40 will pull
- out of the dive like a B-17 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-
- It's a fact of game that P-40 is the only a/c
- behaving like this.
-

In my experience the BF109E4 does the same - but I need to test it again to be sure. Funny - this is why I love the Emil & the 'Ben Affleck Crate' - they have this heavy feeling which is very challenging. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


S!

M0NS (authorized P39 pyrotechnician)



"Blow up the outside world"

http://www.flugwerk.de/images/01k.jpg
My garage!

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 12:46 PM
when a plane is travelling in a stright line & rolls it is because a control surface is on a deflected angle causing pressure

this will also cause drag



HomeboyWu wrote:
- Not relevent as we're talking sustained roll here.

to sustain a roll a surface needs to be in a deflected state

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 01:42 PM
What is really bizzare is that the REAL P40 had excellent elvator response, and pulling out of high speed dives was one of it's better ACM stratigies......

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 03:19 PM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- when a plane is travelling in a stright line & rolls
- it is because a control surface is on a deflected
- angle causing pressure
-
- this will also cause drag
-
-
-

I really should have quoted better:

- Any control surface move that results in energy
- being applied to the plane (can't roll without being
- pushed/torqued) takes energy and ends up as drag.

The aileron deflection does not take energy and apply it to the plane (in a constant roll case). It takes energy and applies it to the air.

Yes the ailerons need to be kept deflected and will continously cause drag. I understand that THX:P

XyZspineZyX
10-30-2003, 04:50 PM
I agree with Leadspitter. I do not see any speed reduction when deflecting ailerons. Also, the classic sideslip maneuver does not bleed any speed at all! A barrel roll maneuver should bleed more energy than it does to force an overshoot. As is now, cutting throttle, and lowering flaps and adjusting pitch is the only way to force an overshoot. More energy should be bled with aileron and rudder deflection.

http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/insignia/italy/incocca-tende-scaglia.jpg
Saluti!
<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:36 AM
HomeboyWu wrote:
-
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- Any deflected control surface will cause drag.
--
-
- Quite right.
-
-- Any control surface move that results in energy
-- being applied to the plane (can't roll without being
-- pushed/torqued) takes energy and ends up as drag.
-- There is no free energy or there would be perpetual
-- motion possible. Simple physics, every effect has a
-- cost and in flying the cost is drag or fuel.
--
-
- Not relevent as we're talking sustained roll here.
- There's no energy applied to the plane by torque
- when the plane is in constant angular velocity roll.
- It's like when you're flying at level constant max
- speed, 0% of the engine's energy goes to the plane,
- while 100% of it goes to the air around.
-
- But if talking about going from 0 roll to max roll
- then energy is applied (should be "work is done")to
- the airplane.
-

Big almost flat wings being spun around in the air... no drag in a sustained roll? ROFL! Hey, maybe in orbital space but not in the air! It takes less work than starting the roll up but tell me there's an airplane that will keep rolling steadily after the stick is neutralized, not slowing down as momentum is bled off by drag?

Flying level at constant max speed or any speed, the engine has to keep putting in energy to support the weight of the plane. The same plane of any kind with a heavier load will consume more fuel for flying the same distance. Lift is not free! No free lunch and no perpetual motion anythings. I think that the term is 'induced drag' which at top speed for a WWII fighter is "negligible" but only compared to the amount of other forms of drag at very, very high speeds.


Clint... if Leadspitter is talking about planes rolling then it doesn't matter how the stick is modelled, does it? No need to mix in some of the speculations with the initial observation. Yeah, online experiences in viewing other planes has to be taken with a load of salt just as personal accounts do. But that doesn't mean that others can't run tests. As to BS and lies... they happen and have happenned for seeming laughs and FM politics. The worst ones get dropped while some end up being real cases. Some of the latter get fixed and others either can not or do not. We've been here long enough to see it and some of us have seen it for years on many forums.
Still, if you want to say it's all BS then go for it and it's up to you to make a solid case for it. Till then, you're just one of the crowd and only another opinion. It's a lot easier to point out flaws in someones argument and for me it's a lot more fun or usually is. Barring that it's okay to air your doubts. Either way you leave room for rebuttal and finding out you may be wrong or wrong as well. That leaves room for lessons to be learned or points to be made clear that perhaps were not. Calling a post a deliberate lie is something all together different and you better be loaded for whatever you get!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:54 AM
One of the important causes you see such strange maneuvers is not control effectiveness, but way too tight turn radius on all planes.

Most people online never get past 500km/h IAS when flying online (low altitudes too). That speed is very much manageable for all planes, except for some from the '30s, like I-153 or I-16.

Right now all planes turn tighter with around 100m (turn radius). Most of the late war planes have a stall speed of around 160km/h (and more) and therefore a turn radius of more than 300m (some much more). What we see now is that most planes have a turn radius of around 220m.

You can test turn radius this way: start in quick mission builder with La7, at 100m, Crimea map. Turn left to the sea, push throttle to max, wait for speed increase up to 480-490kmh, stay just above the SL, maximum 20-30m alt, then pull the stick back as hard as possible (do no stall/spin the plane) for a 360 degree loop. You may have to be a little bit gentle at the top of the loop, because the speed is small and it's easier to spin the plane. Cut the throttle when you start descending, try keeping the same circle trajectory in the loop (in order to keep the test accurate do not try to make the loop wider by banking to the sides). Use rudder when pulling the plane to avoid spinning it. After you complete the loop record the track, reply and write down the max alt reached in loop, substract the lowest alt in the loop reached in pull out, then divide by 2. Most of the time it will be around 220m, if you tried to make the loop as tight as possible. It shouldn't be tighter than 300-350m though.

This 300m value is for planes with stall speed around 160km/h therefore not accurate for early war planes, like P-40, Emils or Yak1.
Try this test for fighters like La7, P39Q, Bf109G.

Between 1.0 and 1.11 La7 turn radius was enlarged, but it is still bigger than it should. Most other planes had the turn radius from 1.0 unaffected.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/31/0301:59AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:04 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Big almost flat wings being spun around in the
- air... no drag in a sustained roll? ROFL! Hey,
- maybe in orbital space but not in the air! It takes
- less work than starting the roll up but tell me
- there's an airplane that will keep rolling steadily
- after the stick is neutralized, not slowing down as
- momentum is bled off by drag?
-

Can't you read? I already agreed that deflected control surfaces usually cause drag. And deflected ailerons are needed to sustain a roll. Read before you reply.

- Flying level at constant max speed or any speed, the
- engine has to keep putting in energy to support the
- weight of the plane.

Flying at level constant whatever speed (with whatever constant roll), the plane's energies remain constant, therefore no energy transfer (to the plane). All the engine's output goes to the air through whatever drag or heat dissipation there may be. This is not an opinion.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:08 PM
For all planes it is modelled for the 50 lb (or 20, do not remember at the moment) loading on the stick. For all planes - similar force pressure for the stick.
You may even check with known for yiou curves for these planes at different speeds.



LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Oleg Im wondering why dont all the a/c have
- simulated stick pressures in alieron rolls, so far
- the p40 seems like the only plane in the game that
- seems somewhat realistic in this matters where it
- bleeds energy
-
- Theres accurate p40 alieron, elevator and rudder
- stick pressure.
-
- While all the other planes besides the p47s have
- almost none at all at speeds faster then the p40 can
- achieve it really doesnt make sense at all.
-
- The la7 and mig3 seem to have accurate elevator
- stick pressure but zero alieron stick pressure or
- slight bleed from rolling
-
- while the yaks me262 lagg3 b239 190 109g2 and just
- about every other plane have almost none at all, you
- can roll over 1000 times and maintain top speed and
- you dont redout or blackout
-
- the me262 doing 950kmph straight down can instant
- do a L and fly on a level.
-
- To me it seems like people are doing the most
- unrealistic manuvers and the manuevers people are
- pulling off look so ridiculous and dont bleed E from
- these stick yank manuvers which cant even be called
- a jink. I would like to know what you think about
- this and notice it too, but to me the realism doesnt
- seem to be there in flight
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.t
- xt">
- Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't.
- (c) Leadspitter</center>



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:33 PM
What happens as you push the stick sideways? There seems to be a rather poor conceptual model of this among some members of the community, so here's a go at explaining it in a bit of detail.

One aileron goes up, the other goes down. The downgoing one usually goes down a bit less to counter induced yaw, but that's not all that significant here. What is significant is that all of a sudden you have increased the camber and AoA of the outmost segment of one wing (the upgoing wing) while decreasing the camber and AoA of the outmost segment of the other wing (the downgoing wing).

Increased camber and AoA means increased lift. Decreased camber and AoA means decreased lift. Thus, you get a torque couple acting around the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The aircraft starts to roll, with a roll acceleration depending on the magnitude of this force couple and the aircraft's roll inertia.

As the aircraft rolls, one wing starts going up through the air and the other goes down. This will decrease the AoA of the upgoing wing while increasing the AoA oof the downgoing one.

Then we're back to AoA again. Increased AoA still means increased lift. You deflected the aileron up on one wing to decrease the lift, thereby causing it to lower... but now, the AoA of the entire wing has increased increasing the lift this wing generates. Eventually, as the roll rate increases, this increased lift together with the decreased lift on the upgoing wing will create a roll torque cancelling out the roll torque caused by the ailerons. The roll rate will then remain constant. The total lift generated will be about the same as for level flight - equal to the weight of the aircraft.

A deflected control surface usually means increased drag. Not always though. Consider the downgoing wing, where the aileron is deflected upwards. The lift generated is decreased. You cannot generate lift without generating induced drag. Alas, this induced drag will be reduced as well. Pretty soon, the less aerodynamical shape of the wing with aileron deflected will probably more than counter this drag reduction, and the outmost segment of the wing might even begin generating a bit of negative lift - with the induced drag penalty.

The difference in lift on the outmost segments of the wings will also cause a difference in induced drag, and a induced yaw moment which has to be counteracted with rudder. You will also need to use elevator to keep the roll nice and clean. This will of course add drag. All in all, some speed reduction is unavoidable in a roll - but it might not be all that significant, and as the speed goes down, the total drag goes down. Eventually, the aircraft will be able to maintain a speed indefinitely providing it has enough power.

No blacking out from rolling, expect some nausea though if you try to do a hundred in real life for some messed up reason.

What stick pressure has to do with any of this is beyond me.


Cheers,
Fred

"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we are a humble nation, but strong, they will welcome us."
- George W. Bush, during his campaign. No comment.

(Quote brought back by popular demand - RBJ missed it so much he mailed me about it)

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:41 PM
Thanks for replying oleg, But it confused me a little of what you said about the curves.

Do you mean my charts or the input controller curves which I have setup high and my control calibrated in a small cirle to get the most out of the plane. Im just wondering if you will look into it a bit if you have time which Im probally sure you dont.

Is it possible some have 50 on certain control surfaces and others 20?

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 02:24 AM
What I understand from Oleg's post is that some aircraft have 20lb of pressure on the controls surface (when applied in flight) and some 50. Maybe he meant that the pressure tange is from 20 to 50 pounds of pressure... either way he didn't explain what aircraft has what values programmed which is what we would need to see if corresponding flight models are done right indeed.

In particular I wonder about the P-40 but I'm sure I'll never find out. One thing I am pretty sure about is that case with pressure on control surfaces in a P-40 is extreme as that aircraft was well known for very "light" controls at very high speeds... simply contradictory from what's programmed in IL-2FB.

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 09:13 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- You can test turn radius this way: start in quick
- mission builder with La7, at 100m, Crimea map. Turn
- left to the sea, push throttle to max, wait for
- speed increase up to 480-490kmh, stay just above the
- SL, maximum 20-30m alt, then pull the stick back as
- hard as possible (do no stall/spin the plane) for a
- 360 degree loop. You may have to be a little bit
- gentle at the top of the loop, because the speed is
- small and it's easier to spin the plane. Cut the
- throttle when you start descending, try keeping the
- same circle trajectory in the loop (in order to keep
- the test accurate do not try to make the loop wider
- by banking to the sides). Use rudder when pulling
- the plane to avoid spinning it. After you complete
- the loop record the track, reply and write down the
- max alt reached in loop, substract the lowest alt in
- the loop reached in pull out, then divide by 2. Most
- of the time it will be around 220m, if you tried to
- make the loop as tight as possible. It shouldn't be
- tighter than 300-350m though.

I'm pretty sure you can't test the turnradius this way, one of the reasons being the gravity pulling down the aircraft and thereby make your loop more flat, than your intention is.

I guess you have to figure out another way of measuring the turnradius..

rgds