PDA

View Full Version : Will new 4.0 FMs cure P-38 torque issues?



Feathered_IV
03-20-2005, 03:06 AM
I havent seen any comment on the '38 but I could've easily missed a crucial post somewhere. I'm wondering if anyone in the know can say if this aircraft will have its charicteristics refined further.

VW-IceFire
03-20-2005, 07:58 AM
No one knows because there are no details.

Seeing as the new FM is supposed to be a pre-BOB test and BOB is meant to be the foundation of a new series of simulations from Maddox Games, there is the possibility.

At the very least...it may make the docile stall characteristics of the P-38 come to life.

VFA-195 Snacky
03-20-2005, 04:35 PM
Glad you posted this Feathered because I wondered the same thing when I read about the new 4.0 update. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens, should be interesting.

Bull_dog_
03-20-2005, 07:46 PM
If the torque issues are solved...ohhh I hope they are...I doubt it will be because of the new FM.

I've been flying the Beau alot lately...no torque. If the Lightning is reworked, it will be because Oleg has either had the time or has felt that it was a big enough issue to enough of the community to warrent it...just don't forget the elevator authority/compressibility oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I havent seen any comment on the '38 but I could've easily missed a crucial post somewhere. I'm wondering if anyone in the know can say if this aircraft will have its charicteristics refined further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe!? In that a more complex FM means better fidelity. Fidelity in a flight simulator comes from the flight equations used in the FM. Generally, the more complex the FM, the better performance you are going to get. However, the flight equations (equations of motion) do not make the fight model, they simply set the *limits* on what is and is not possible. In order for the FM to do a good job of simulating the plane, you need to have good parameters (lift-curve slope, drag coefficients, stability derivatives, etc..). In addition, you have to decide if you want to impliment all *aspects* of the flight equations? For example do you want to calculate your lift on each wing independently, or just the lift on the whole wing surface area? The latter method is easier for the PC, less calculations required, but the former would allow you to model such flight dynamics as the "Dutch Roll" modes, stall-spin conditions, and other common effects. But, you have to have good parameters per aircraft, so the plane flies just as realistically as the flight models does! That is to say you could have the best FM in the world, equation wise, but if your parameters are wrong the planes wont fly right.

So, when Oleg said he is giving us a new FM, he means he has added/enabled some more *aspects* of the flight equations. Like that lift per wing or whole surface area thing I mentioned above.. Not saying Oleg's isnt doing that now.. Just an example of how some aspects of the FM equations can be simplified.


NOTE, Oleg didn't say is they went back and re-calculated all 100+ aircraft parameters (lift-curves slopes, drag coefficients, stability derivatives, etc.) That would be a major effort and cost! Which is a guess on my part, but, probally a good one. Im sure some will get tweaked, but there just is not enough time and money to redo them all from scratch imho! But, if anyone could pull it off, it would be Oleg!

So, what we can expect is better fidelity.. But I wouldn't expect planes to be that much different with regards to top speeds, roll rate, climb rates, etc.. In that the same parameters from the old FM will be ported to the new FM.

Again, I dont know if the old FM calculated the lift per wing, Im sure it did, but if it did not, and the new FM does we might see planes like the P38 have a more true to life STALL charteristics due to the better fidelity of the new FM. But that is just a guess on my part, in that I dont know what Oleg has enabled or disable in the old or new FM.

Waldo.Pepper
03-20-2005, 10:26 PM
Not holding my breath on this one.

VFA-195 Snacky
03-20-2005, 11:16 PM
So basically what Tagert is saying is- Wait and see. lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jex_TG
03-21-2005, 08:23 AM
Could you explain the prob with the P38? I was flying it yesterday on HL and really like this plane.

Thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jarink
03-21-2005, 08:47 AM
The problem is that the in-game model of the P-38 exhibits torque, although the actual plane does not (as long as both engines are running at the same speed). This is due to the P-38 having counter-rotating props, which effectively canceled torque. Once you're in the air it's not as noticeable, but it sure is on takeoff and landing.

Just for fun, try flying a P-38 in a quick mission and shut down one engine. It's amazing how well these suckers perform with a mill shut down!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jex_TG
03-21-2005, 09:26 AM
Aah I see. Yes I experience a little bit of torqu on takeoff. Thought it was a bit weird. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Flakenstien
03-21-2005, 09:28 AM
I at first thought there was a major tourqe issue but have figured that it isn't really a issue at all if you know what your doing.
When you start your first engine throttle it up to about 30% and then back down until it is idleing before starting your second engine.
Do the same with the second engine letting it idle down before switching to "select all engines".
Doing this makes certain both engines are running the same RPM, now take off,very little or absolutly no tourqe effect on the runway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Only issue I see is those not knowing how to fly a 38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flakenstien:
Only issue I see is those not knowing how to fly a 38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. I think the posters said Torque problem when they should have said Spin Problem due to Torque. Because there is NO TORQUE problem, as you pointed out.. But some seem to think that counter rotating props means the P38 will NEVER spin.. Which is not true.. As Oleg pointed out.. But.. The entrance of a spin in a P38 does have that *feel* like troque put it there.. The way it kind of *snaps* into the spin.. I half expected to see the P38 *mush* into it.. *fall* into it.. not *snap* into it.. But that is based of reading other peoples and pilots posts.. I have nothing to back up or support that *feeling*. So, it could be cr@p for all I know! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But, I *think* that is what the so called P38 experts/historians are trying to say.. But, they keep confusing Oleg by saying a torque problem instead of a spin due to torque.

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 10:17 AM
I wont mention names but you can ignore the above gibberish. Some never tire of obfuscating the issue by their need for egocentric pretentious postings. Rather than a pedant you are more of pretend-ant. You know who you are! I think.."wait and see" is appropriate. Oleg didnt say he was putting the new FM in all the planes. What i think you are going to find is only the New planes will have the pre- BoB FM. The developers know, we can only guess, obviosly.

BTW is that prononced Flakenstine or Flakensteen? just kidding! LOL. still laughing BD

Equilizer
03-21-2005, 10:42 AM
It would make more sense that the global FM calculations were adjusted to "pre-BOB" FM, rather than select planes having their parameters altered to give them the "pre-BOB" FM.

The FM itself is global, each plane only has parameters that go into the FM calculations.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-21-2005, 10:50 AM
Kinda like the question "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?"...the world may never know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

VF-2_John_Banks
03-21-2005, 11:05 AM
I had several emai lexchanges with Oleg about that "issue".

First of all, what we are experiencing isn't a "torque" effect, like when you accelerate and the plane starts to head to the left or right, which the P-38 definitely doesn't in this sim, nor does it show any torque effects while acceleration/ decelleration in the air.

The effect in question is, to quote Oleg, a "tendency to roll to the right". <------ Which isn't torque! As far as i understood his explanations, it's not a problem based in the
P-38's FM itself. Anyway, we will see what the new 4.0 FM has to offer.

Btw, ever noticed that when using the brakes on the ground (like after you've landed), most if not all planes have a tendency to drive to the right? That also happens in the P-38. I asked Oleg about it and his response was a bit weird to say the least. The reason for that is the way they build maps and how they were put into the game. I don't really understand the logic behind that statement but i trust Oleg in this case, as he is built this fine sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I wont mention names but you can ignore the above gibberish. Some never tire of obfuscating the issue by their need for egocentric pretentious postings. Rather than a pedant you are more of pretend-ant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now.. now.. now.. Don't be so hard on yourself! We forgive you! So, is this self assesment apology part of a 12 step program or something?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
You know who you are! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He said looking into a mirror.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I think.."wait and see" is appropriate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oleg didn't say he was putting the new FM in all the planes. What i think you are going to find is only the New planes will have the pre- BoB FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. but your wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
The developers know, we can only guess, obviosly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some guess.. Some have educated guesses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW is that prononced Flakenstine or Flakensteen? just kidding! LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just kid

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
still laughing BD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like a personal problem?

p1ngu666
03-21-2005, 12:05 PM
try doing a turn at low level, back off the power, and when close stall, slam the throttle open...

try p38, and a 109 (late one, lots of power)

p38 should have a marked advantage in handling in that type of manover...

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 02:54 PM
Unlike the pedagogic, pedantic, sermonizing sycophant who will remain nameless, I dont claim to understand the "FM". LOL, unless you have access to the code your just guessing too. The one who has access to the code is Oleg. Now, He said the only plane in the game I-185 has the new coding at this time as a beta. So its (FM) not global as some would suggest. He also said to put in the coding for all the planes would be too much for AEP/PF--- too much data and too much beta testing. Those are his words. not mine. I'm smart enough NOT to say that all the planes have a simple FM algorithm (LIKE THE NAMELESS ONE)*. They dont. And if anyone knew two squirts about coding for a flight sim wouldnt presume to know either. Oleg stated he was working on Inertia or "initerial" sic* and groung handling. He was working on solving the phenom of "stick stirring" to give planes a better, more realistic sense of motion, inertia / moving mass. But who knows. Who knows how he is coding torque. What John_Banks posted is correct but what p1ngu666 is correct also. My feeling in flight torque isnt modeled very well in all/any of the sim's planes. They all have very little torque. IRL pilots were contantly trimming the plan to compenstate for changes in lift, wind and torque, etc. most single planes accellerate in a staight line with minimal torque affects (except the P51). Watch Zeno's vid of the P38 stall and do stall test yourself. Olegs P38 inaccuraely spins/snaps/rolls in a stall. Ok if its not torque as in real life, its something resembling torque. who cares. I think P-38 fans would like to pull the bird around without worring about a spin, like in the FW190 or P40. LOL. Ok nameless one..pick my post apart sententce by sentence in insert an insipid comment. Love sarcasm. Cant wait.. Ok, im done being bored, back to work..... BD

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 02:58 PM
Unlike the pedagogic, pedantic, sermonizing sycophant who will remain nameless, I dont claim to understand the "FM". LOL, unless you have access to the code your just guessing too. The one who has access to the code is Oleg. Now, He said the only plane in the game I-185 has the new coding at this time as a beta. So its (FM) not global as some would suggest. He also said to put in the coding for all the planes would be too much for AEP/PF--- too much data and too much beta testing. Those are his words. not mine. I'm smart enough NOT to say that all the planes have a simple FM algorithm (LIKE THE NAMELESS ONE)*. They dont. And if anyone knew two squirts about coding for a flight sim wouldnt presume to know either. Oleg stated he was working on Inertia or "initerial" sic* and groung handling. He was working on solving the phenom of "stick stirring" to give planes a better, more realistic sense of motion, inertia / moving mass. But who knows. Who knows how he is coding torque. What John_Banks posted is correct but what p1ngu666 is correct also. My feeling in flight torque isnt modeled very well in all/any of the sim's planes. They all have very little torque. IRL pilots were contantly trimming the plan to compenstate for changes in lift, wind and torque, etc. most single planes accellerate in a staight line with minimal torque affects (except the P51). Watch Zeno's vid of the P38 stall and do stall test yourself. Olegs P38 inaccuraely spins/snaps/rolls in a stall. Ok if its not torque as in real life, its something resembling torque. who cares. I think P-38 fans would like to pull the bird around without being worried about a spin to earth, like in the FW190 or P40. LOL. Ok nameless one..pick my post apart sententce by sentence in insert an insipid comment. Love sarcasm. Cant wait.. Ok, im done being bored, back to work..... BD

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-21-2005, 03:20 PM
Maybe the recoil will be reduced. Yak which is extremely lighter armed with 1x20mm and 2x12.7mm has no noticable recoil.

MEGILE
03-21-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg ~
Zero torgue if similar RPM on P-38s is present in any versions of AEP-PF.... Plerase check yourself and don't repeat others.
For this is enough to look how the plane start on the runway, taxinig and at the take off and don't have any such effects like many others.. This just one test that to look it, however there is possible to see it in many other tests and compare with others.
Just due to this fact already - the _torgue zero_ effect has no changes in new FM for P-38...

That to get more torgue effect of separately working engines (say one switched off) of two or more engines planes more precise that now or in new FM you will need to wait BoB, because not all things of the new code is possible to include in the old code.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oleg ~

P-38 has better than any other 2 engine aircraft stall charactersitics, better than FW or even better or similar to Bf109... but it doesn't means that it will not go in a spin. Just for the sample for you - gliges (without engine) also go in a spin....Isn't it??
And it doesn't means also that P-38 would be better than any aircraft of WWII on stall. This would be totally wrong... Real comparison in trials one VS other (not in recals of pilots, but in special experiments that was done for evaluations of aircraft in WWII time) show that real picture is way different than tell some of the pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Unlike the pedagogic, pedantic, sermonizing sycophant who will remain nameless, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man.. I hope this is like step 11 or 12 of that 12 step program.. Because these kinds of self evaluation outburst are a little worrisome, but, we are here for you! Chin Up!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I dont claim to understand the "FM". LOL, unless you have access to the code your just guessing too. The one who has access to the code is Oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't recall claiming to understand Oleg's FM *code*, let alone understand every little aspect of flight modeling.. All I said is the math that makes up a flight model is no big secret! It has been around for years and years. How to implement the *math* into *code*, that is *personal* and where the *art* comes in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Now, He said the only plane in the game I-185 has the new coding at this time as a beta. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Link? So, your saying that the current I-185 in the current version has the new BoB FM? Guess I missed that post? That our your making it up? Or didn't understand what Oleg said. The link/post that most of us are commenting on is here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3041012492

Note, he did not single out the I-185

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
So its (FM) not global as some would suggest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be clear, I might expect that certain planes like a twin vs. a single engine, or a jet vs. a prop might have a slightly different implementation of the FM equations, but prop for prop, you only *need* one! Now, if you want to make a separate one for each aircraft, I guess you could, but it would mean you really don't understand the FM equations imho. But, until you provide a link/post to where Oleg said the current I-185 has the new BoB FM, then I doubt what you saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
He also said to put in the coding for all the planes would be too much for AEP/PF--- too much data and too much beta testing. Those are his words. not mine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This must be a new post.. Or a very old one.. In that we are talking about what Oleg said here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3041012492

Note, he did not single out the I-185

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I'm smart enough NOT to say that all the planes have a simple FM algorithm (LIKE THE NAMELESS ONE)*. They don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope part of that 12 step program includes a point where you cut back on the sauce? Because nobody here ever said the FM is a *simple* algorithm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And if anyone knew two squirts about coding for a flight sim wouldn't presume to know either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, the *math* is no secret, the *code* is personal, what part of that are you having trouble with?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Oleg stated he was working on Inertia or "initerial" sic* and groung handling. He was working on solving the phenom of "stick stirring" to give planes a better, more realistic sense of motion, inertia / moving mass. But who knows. Who knows how he is coding torque. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, only the *code* writer know how he is going to *code* up the *math* but that does not change the fact that the math is the same.. if you code it in C/C++, Fortran, Basic, etc.. Many ways to *code* the *math*.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
What John_Banks posted is correct but what p1ngu666 is correct also. My feeling in flight torque isnt modeled very well in all/any of the sim's planes. They all have very little torque. IRL pilots were contantly trimming the plan to compenstate for changes in lift, wind and torque, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Constantly Trimming? Only if your constantly changing speed and or in a storm where the wind is changing constantly.. At which point you would probally forget trying to trim for wind and just hang on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
most single planes accellerate in a staight line with minimal torque affects (except the P51). Watch Zeno's vid of the P38 stall and do stall test yourself. Olegs P38 inaccuraely spins/snaps/rolls in a stall. Ok if its not torque as in real life, its something resembling torque. who cares. I think P-38 fans would like to pull the bird around without worring about a spin, like in the FW190 or P40. LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is a neat theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Ok nameless one..pick my post apart sententce by sentence in insert an insipid comment. Love sarcasm. Cant wait.. Ok, im done being bored, back to work..... BD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Done.

PS nice doulbe post.. that 12 step is working wonders!!

p1ngu666
03-21-2005, 05:07 PM
hm also need to add me163, and the jets too, which maybe should have a tiny bit of torque or rotational effect?

those planes should be "balanced" so power movements shouldnt upset the plane so much vs a single engine fighter, where torque or rotaional stuff would suddenly increase. maybe we will havetobe careful with 109 and spitfire take off soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Equilizer
03-21-2005, 05:40 PM
I don't know what you're talking about Blackdog, but to not go the route of a global FM calculation set with which the planes' "perfomance figures" are plugged into would be assinine. It would be re-inventing the wheel 200+ times.

I'm fairly certain you don't have any idea about what you are talking about.

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 06:49 PM
Tagert, who said i was talking about you! LOL. You do crack me up though. And if your going to be sarcastic, try being clever and demonstrate that you are more then just a frustrated ole schoolteacher with neurotic need to be the Forum Monitor. It is humorous to watch you in your predicable postings. You are like "Pavlov's dog."

BTW; Oleg talked about the I 185 in his postings on the CFS3 forum.

Equalizer. 1. Did you even read my post? 2.Do you have any programming experience in Flight Simulators? 3.Are you a Developer? Of course not.
you are making assumtions based on something about "reinventing the wheel". You must have gone to the same public school as Tagert. LOL. Shame. Just what this thread needs. More idiot wind.

BTW; I never said that the Dev. team has a new, different, unique, FM algorithm for each plane. Anyway.. go back to school after you read my post. I was repeating what Oleg stated. I think "new" FM Oleg is mentions is connotative, evidential, and indicative of a different FM. A*s
///Jeesh im sure im wasting my time schooling you.

Megile: very good posting. Thanks. But, if you really want to know about the P38 stall characterics, go to Zeno's they have the official training film. Its not just 1000 actual pilot's opinion, Lockheed testers and hundred of witness accounts, its also real video of the P38 stalling. Oleg is using bad data. That's fine. its his game. Who cares, really. Im out of here. later

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert, who said i was talking about you! LOL. You do crack me up though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is what.. step 7 of your 12 step? Just after denil? Glad I could help!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And if your going to be sarcastic, try being clever and demonstrate that you are more then just a frustrated ole schoolteacher with neurotic need to be the Forum Monitor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I must have struck a nerve? Look I can see that yor getting all flustered from me proving you wrong time after time.. But dont kill the messanger, look at how much you have learned from me today! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
It is humorous to watch you in your predicable postings. You are like "Pavlov's dog." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least Im in the light once in awhile.. Your clearly in the dark.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Im out of here. later <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The true sign of a man who just realised he is wrong, but not man enogh to admit it.

Oh, and just so you know, I did notice that you did not provide any link to what you *claimed* Oleg said about the FM per plane stuff.. I knew you were full of it. Carry on.

Spectre-63
03-21-2005, 07:10 PM
Those who say that the P-38 has no torque issues need to perform a very simple test: taxi with one engine. There are numerous P-38 videos showing the aircraft doing exactly that. Try it in FB/AEP/PF and see how much success you have.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spectre-63:
Those who say that the P-38 has no torque issues need to perform a very simple test: taxi with one engine. There are numerous P-38 videos showing the aircraft doing exactly that. Try it in FB/AEP/PF and see how much success you have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That could be a problem with the ground model, or some other aspect of simulaion.. Got an example that includes flying?

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 09:18 PM
Tagert. Good boy. Good boy. Here's a bone. pet pet. LOL.. you are so trained. HeeeeeeeHeee. You say, "Got an example that includes flying?"..You are so funny! What would you do with it? lol. Im rotgl. Well you are familiar with the 12 step programs.. that tells me something about you. lol. really..cant wait for the next jewel. Better than the comedy channel.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert. Good boy. Good boy. Here's a bone. pet pet. LOL.. you are so trained. HeeeeeeeHeee. You say, "Got an example that includes flying?"..You are so funny! What would you do with it? lol. Im rotgl. Well you are familiar with the 12 step programs.. that tells me something about you. lol. really..cant wait for the next jewel. Better than the comedy channel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

JR_Greenhorn
03-21-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Unlike the pedagogic, pedantic, sermonizing sycophant who will remain nameless, I dont claim to understand the "FM". LOL, unless you have access to the code your just guessing too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What kind of person digs words like those out of a thesaurus, only to use the incorrect form of "you€re" in the next sentence? It must be a nervous habit: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
And if your going to be sarcastic, try being clever and demonstrate that you are more th<span class="ev_code_GREY">a</span>n just a frustrated ole schoolteacher with <span class="ev_code_GREY">a</span> neurotic need to be the Forum Monitor. It is humorous to watch you in your predic<span class="ev_code_GREY">t</span>able postings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Anyway, wasn't Oleg's reference to the I-185 related to the BoB-style texturing technique, and not its FM?

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 10:32 PM
Look Tagert.. you have a friend. Thats sweet. No Greenhorn.. those are real college words. So, you meet Tag in his 12 step program? Cheers BD

JR_Greenhorn
03-21-2005, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
No Greenhorn.. those are real college words. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, hopefully I'll learn to use words like that when I grow up and go to the community college!

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 12:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Look Tagert.. you have a friend. Thats sweet. No Greenhorn.. those are real college words. So, you meet Tag in his 12 step program? Cheers BD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

Equilizer
03-22-2005, 07:11 AM
You have issues Blackdog, and I do have programming experience. It doesn't have to be flight sim to realise when you have constants across the board, how a plane accelerates, how gravity effects a plane, how a plane moves through the "atmosphere", you are going to have a global set of rules for that which allows each plane's unique performance data to be input into these global constants to create the flight model.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Fact is, you aren't repeating what Oleg said. You are misinterpreting it and representing it as Oleg's words. You haven't provided one quote by him at all.

VF-2_John_Banks
03-22-2005, 09:36 AM
I never understood all the hype about the "global" FM. As if it is a banned 4 letter word or that it means, that a sim is inferior in it's modelling of the FMs.

From what i understood so far about flightsims in general and what Oleg said during the last years and what i've also read from developers of other sims, there has to be a "global" part in a flight sim. The "global" FM is to a flight sim what the laws of physic are to our universe. Without that, no flightmodel would work in the game. A programmer has to put the basic laws into the code, so that the plane specific FMs work or interact as they should. Where is the sense in having the best data available for each plane, if there isn't a "global" definition of gravity or drag in relation to altitude, shape of objects...etc. All these things have to be global and are somewhat part of the "individual" FMs, as these two parts are necessary, in order to get something plausible.

I never understood why some people deny to accept that flightsims have a "global" aspect in their FMs. That doesn't mean anything is half a$$ed or bad. It's just the way it has to be done.

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-2_John_Banks:
I never understood all the hype about the "global" FM. As if it is a banned 4 letter word or that it means, that a sim is inferior in it's modelling of the FMs.

From what i understood so far about flightsims in general and what Oleg said during the last years and what i've also read from developers of other sims, there has to be a "global" part in a flight sim. The "global" FM is to a flight sim what the laws of physic are to our universe. Without that, no flightmodel would work in the game. A programmer has to put the basic laws into the code, so that the plane specific FMs work or interact as they should. Where is the sense in having the best data available for each plane, if there isn't a "global" definition of gravity or drag in relation to altitude, shape of objects...etc. All these things have to be global and are somewhat part of the "individual" FMs, as these two parts are necessary, in order to get something plausible.

I never understood why some people deny to accept that flightsims have a "global" aspect in their FMs. That doesn't mean anything is half a$$ed or bad. It's just the way it has to be done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Take F=ma for example.. That *math* can be used in many different ways to define a unique FORCE based off different MASS and ACCELERATIONS. On earth, the VARIABLE "m" can take on many different values, and the CONSTANT "a" does not change (well, it does, but that is another story). So, using the SAME MATH you can have many different values.

The same is true for the *math* of the FM! The math does not have to change from plane to plane, just the values you put into the math.

As for *coding* the *math* that depends of the programmer, there are a million ways to skin that cat.. Some good, some bad. In that some may save PC cycle, and some may waist PC cycles. But it does not change the basic *math* of it all... Unless you coded it wrong!

Hendley
03-22-2005, 10:29 AM
*scratches head*

Wow, I think Tagert just explained in a really gibberish sort of way that if you put different numbers in a formula, the answer might be different...

arjisme
03-22-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW; Oleg talked about the I 185 in his postings on the CFS3 forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No link? Please provide one. I'd like to see what exactly you are talking about.

Gibbage1
03-22-2005, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:


Anyway, wasn't Oleg's reference to the I-185 related to the BoB-style texturing technique, and not its FM? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Only part of BoB in the I-185 is the way the cockpit looks and was done.

Gibbage1
03-22-2005, 01:14 PM
You know the P-38 has my attention big time.

Most of the issues we complain about has to do with the engine limitations. When Oleg made IL2, he was only going to have the IL2 flyable and did not program any extentions for many of the functions the P-38 needs.

#1, multi-engine support. This was "hashed" in for FB, but its still not 100%.

#2, He never thought he would have a P-38 in the game, so he never built the engine to support torque.

#3, High alt performance is a BIG issue.

From what I understand, all aircraft in IL2 are given values, and use those values to fly in the same world govern by the same rules. Thats why every patch seams to change every aircraft. Something in the world changed. Weather it be gravity, air density or whatever variables Oleg has. So all aircraft fallow the same set of rules. All aircraft have torque (some more then others). During the beta of AEP, this was one of my bug writeups but Oleg said he would not give the P-38 no torque because of limitations of the engine. But he did say BoB will not have this limitation. We can only hope that adding BoB's FM into IL2 is going to help. I think it will since the only real possible way to make all aircraft fallow BoB's FM is to make the world fallow BoB's rules.

Personally I am excited to see how differant the FM will be. I hope the P-38 no longer goes into compressability at low altitudes (again, limit of FM) and I hope there are more then the standard "snap" stall in the global FM. I also hope high altitude performance is simulated well in the new FM. I hope the engine can calculate the extra air moving over the flaps from the prop wash, making them more effective. All these things will help the P-38. But you still wont turn fight a Zero in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
03-22-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
*scratches head*

Wow, I think Tagert just explained in a really gibberish sort of way that if you put different numbers in a formula, the answer might be different... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He He

Airmail109
03-22-2005, 02:02 PM
http://lightsout.onestop.net/idontknow.jpg

DIRTY-MAC
03-22-2005, 02:43 PM
HA HA! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif



FYI, 49FG (New Guinea) first encountered the Nick on 2 Sept. 1943 while escorting B-26s to attack shipping off Cape Glouster. B-17s bombed the JAAF airfield at Cape Glouster in a coordinated attack to try to keep the hornets in their hive. Fifteen P-38s tried to cover both the B-26s (on the deck) and B-17s (at 8,000 ft.), by flying stacked from 7,000 ft. to 15,000 ft. The B-17s endured light flak until they turned seaward after the bomb run. They then radioed that they were under attack by twin-engined fighters.
Squadron leader Gerry Johnson, at 15,000 ft., spotted a B-17 under attack by what he identified as a Dinah. He and his two wingmen, Theron Price and Grover Fanning (the three forming blue flight), dove on it as it broke off its attack and dived away. The P-38s reeled in the Ki-45 and all three fired on it, leaving it spiraling down trailing heavy black smoke. It disappeared into the clouds hugging the low mountains surrounding the bay.

Yellow flight leader Peter Alger and his wingman Ray Love went after another Nick attacking a B-17. This one did not dive away but attempted to out-turn the P-38s. Alger easily turned inside the Nick and set an engine afire. Love fired a long burst into the fuselage. This Nick was seen to crash into the bay.

Grover Fanning, witnessing the crash and sensing a Kodak moment, throttled back and dropped down to photograph the oil slick and floating wreckage. He mistakenly thought this was the Nick he had fired on.

While he was aiming his Brownie, a Nick fixed on his six and began lobbing glowing tennis balls at him. Fanning fire-walled the throttles of his P-38 and pulled up into a fast shallow climb, easily outpacing the Nick. The Ki-45 driver tried to follow, but as soon as Fanning had opened the distance between them, he chopped his left throttle and stood his Lightning on its wingtip as he hauled it around in one of those incredible turns a skilled pilot could make a P-38 execute. Suddenly, the Nick was faced not with a fleeing fighter but one coming at him head-on. The Japanese pilot broke left in a tight 180 and headed for the protection of the flak around his airfield. He didn't quite make it. Fanning ran him down and blasted him out of the sky at point-blank range, the Ki-45 crashing in a ball of fire at the end of the runway. Fanning flat-hatted down the length of the Jap runway at well over 300 mph through a storm of small-arms fire, leaving a terrific wake of spinning dust that led orbiting P-38 pilots observing the action to believe he had crashed.

Price and Johnson in the meantime had tangled with a fourth Nick, leaving it tumbling, apparently out of control, and streaming black smoke as it disappeared into the clouds surrounding the mountains.

The Ki-45 was no match for the P-38. Always wondered why the Japanese didn't turn it into a ground attack plane, something like the Beaufighter. With that 37mm pom-pom it could have done some serious damage.

[Actually, they did exactly that in China, after the 81st Chutai's first, disastrous encounter with the Flying Tigers over Guilin in June 1942, using it against trains especially. - Dan]

Blackdog5555
03-22-2005, 07:45 PM
Good reading!

EnGaurde
03-22-2005, 08:37 PM
turn on a wingtip?

a nice read, but always the quotes that indicate an previously accepted aircraft can do impossible things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

now the whiners will thrust this in everyones face screaming with their eyes shut and fists clenched about how it "proves" that the p38 can outturn a dog chasing its own tail.

i wonder what that definition of "...on a wingtip" means.

Hoarmurath
03-22-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
stood his Lightning on its wingtip as he hauled it around in one of those incredible turns a skilled pilot could make a P-38 execute. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can't do it, there are two solutions. The sim is wrong, or you are not skilled.

If anybody else can do it in the sim, there is only one solution left.

I can do it.

EnGaurde
03-22-2005, 10:35 PM
*hearty, HEARTY laughter*

come up with a track of this "wingtip" turn showing the p38s on the spot turning ability, and i'll stop wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes and nod in admiration.

but be warned, o skilfull one, that'd better be my idea of a wingtip turn otherwise my Mighty Hammer of STFU will be waiting...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JR_Greenhorn
03-22-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
...Mighty Hammer of STFU... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't by chance play RPGs, do you?

EnGaurde
03-22-2005, 10:55 PM
baaah haha you'd think so.

but no, i just tried to slip into a character our obelisk friend might recognise? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

go that agile as f@ck p38....

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
*scratches head*

Wow, I think Tagert just explained in a really gibberish sort of way that if you put different numbers in a formula, the answer might be different... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gibberish to some that realise it.. But clearly needed to break it down, step by step, for some peole here that DONT seem to reaise that an FM is nothing more than a forumula that different values can be pluged into, thus differnt asnwer. Some seem to think there is a whole differnt set of math for each plane in the game.. There isnt, just differnet *numbers* put into a *forumla*.

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Good reading! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

VFA-195 Snacky
03-23-2005, 12:18 AM
Well it took a while to get through Tagert and the dog guy's hijacking of the thread but found the info I was looking for.

Thanks for your input Gib that explained a lot and keeping fingers crossed.

Blackdog5555
03-23-2005, 12:37 PM
Tagert...You and your girl friends do keep me lauging. Thank you. Cheers ///LOL BD

Airmail109
03-23-2005, 05:04 PM
Tagert.......

http://lightsout.onestop.net/blah.jpg

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert...You and your girl friends do keep me lauging. Thank you. Cheers ///LOL BD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
Tagert.......

http://lightsout.onestop.net/blah.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, Im sorry Aimail, Are you still operating under the false impression that I give a rats a$$ about what you think? My, bad, I thought I told you that allready? Anyway, please update yourslef! Thanks!

Blackdog5555
03-23-2005, 11:13 PM
Tagert...Good boy, Good Good boy, Sit.. beg. pet, pet..ok here's your cookie. now go way. LOL.. and Aimail01...good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert...Good boy, Good Good boy, Sit.. beg. pet, pet..ok here's your cookie. now go way. LOL.. and Aimail01...good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

Blackdog5555
03-24-2005, 11:32 AM
I feel like the puppet master. ok, one more cookie Tagert, but that is your last one.

Liquid-Koshed
03-24-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert...Good boy, Good Good boy, Sit.. beg. pet, pet..ok here's your cookie. now go way. LOL.. and Aimail01...good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------------------------------------
the way i understand it is fm is changed for all aircraft then tweaked for each aircraft so its a bit of both.
old quote from oleg:

Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"
this was don by changes in FM formulas for all aircraft at once.
So the specifications for optima climb are not changed, but changed in critial modes of climb.

So it isn't just for Coupel of carrier based aircraft but for all in the sim.

We willl evaluate with F4 nd for some reports F6F... We can here in office take off from moving carrier with full loadout ....
It seems some users - not.

Anyway if we got the bug there with several aircraft - we will correct it in future in 3.04, but it will be not early than 3 weeks from now.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">this was don by changes in FM formulas for all aircraft at once.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Anyway if we got the bug there with several aircraft - we will correct it in future in 3.04, </span>

not trying to be clever but this is how i understood fm changes to be implemented?

I wonder how the new fm will affect carrier take offs its already been corrected twice , seeing as the new fm is for bob i wonder how much time has been spent getting this area correct again.

Gibbage1
03-24-2005, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liquid-Koshed:

not trying to be clever but this is how i understood fm changes to be implemented?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there are some global changes, and some aircraft specification changes. Remember the Spitfire overheating/underheating? Every time thats changed, it seams to change ALL aircraft heating. I think that is because Oleg changes the air temp in the world, or air temp at altitudes and not just changing the values for the Spitfires cooling system. There are global values such as gravity, air viscosity, temp, and other things that will greatly effect how all aircraft perform in that world. My guess is that BoB has more values and ranges then IL2. Instead of having a few layers of air density, there are more layers so performance loss as you climb will be more gradual and not in incramens. There may be things like more stall configurations. Right now we only have 1 stall. Snap stall's. BoB could have a better stall "system" then the basic one we have now.

FM in programming is not defining how an aircraft will fly, but how it will fly in the world its given. On planet Earth, there are many enviornments and each one makes the aircraft perform TOTALLY differant.

TAGERT.
03-24-2005, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I feel like the puppet master. ok, one more cookie Tagert, but that is your last one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?

TAGERT.
03-24-2005, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Liquid-Koshed:
the way i understand it is fm is changed for all aircraft then tweaked for each aircraft so its a bit of both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I and others are saying, but, not Blackdog5555, who has gone as far as to claim that her read a post by Oleg that said there was a seperate FM for each plane and that the I185 is the only plane that has it now. But when pressed to provide the link.. He switched to personal attacks. I guess that is what people do where he comes from, when they realise they made a mistake? In that it takes a man to admit he is wrong.. I just didnt realise there was a place where only women lived?

Blackdog5555
03-24-2005, 10:45 PM
Tagert..no cookie for you now..LOL..how old are you? do your parents know you are using their computer? And I thought you were a closet case, what do you know about woman? BTW. complete mis-quote funny boy. So just to stop you...
/////Ok your right Tag, all planes have the same flight model. The new FM is the same as the old FM and the pre-BoB is the same as them both. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif LOL happy now..You are the comedy channel. ROTGL,,really

TAGERT.
03-24-2005, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Tagert..no cookie for you now..LOL..how old are you? do your parents know you are using their computer? And I thought you were a closet case, what do you know about woman? BTW. complete mis-quote funny boy. So just to stop you...
/////Ok your right Tag, all planes have the same flight model. The new FM is the same as the old FM and the pre-BoB is the same as them both. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif LOL happy now..You are the comedy channel. ROTGL,,really <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Say, I noticed that you still have not provided that link to where you said Oleg said the new FM is per plane and currently only on the I-185. Does that mean you were wrong? Or just stupid? Or just lying when you said that? by the way, isnt it past your bed time isgrime?