PDA

View Full Version : Accuracy of FMs and DMs in PF



initjust
01-28-2005, 02:08 AM
Much has been said of the accuracy of the FMs and DMs in PF.

Since I have no personal experience flying any of the aircraft represented in PF I have no idea how accurate they are or are not.

I have a couple of questions, and I am not asking to try and start any kind of war nor do I want this to spin into a flame fest of any kind.

My questions are:

1. What mechanism/methodology/criteria does 1C use to develop the FMs and DMs for PF?
2. How is the performance of the FMs and DMs measured, once they are developed, to determine how accurately they represent the performance of the real aircraft when used in the game?

If anyone has any direct knowledge of how this is done I would be interested to know.

initjust
01-28-2005, 02:08 AM
Much has been said of the accuracy of the FMs and DMs in PF.

Since I have no personal experience flying any of the aircraft represented in PF I have no idea how accurate they are or are not.

I have a couple of questions, and I am not asking to try and start any kind of war nor do I want this to spin into a flame fest of any kind.

My questions are:

1. What mechanism/methodology/criteria does 1C use to develop the FMs and DMs for PF?
2. How is the performance of the FMs and DMs measured, once they are developed, to determine how accurately they represent the performance of the real aircraft when used in the game?

If anyone has any direct knowledge of how this is done I would be interested to know.

SeaFireLIV
01-28-2005, 02:12 AM
Is it me, or is this a whine by stealth... ? I hope not.

initjust
01-28-2005, 02:17 AM
It must be you because I sincerely want to know.

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 02:18 AM
generally its accepted that , . . . . . the Hamsters in the VVS planes treadmills seem to be less prone to overheating

this is why the american ones like it where its colder (higher) . . . .

go figure

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 02:20 AM
CFS4 was scrapped , but i hear they were hoping to discover these secrets too & emulate them . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
If anyone has any direct knowledge of how this is done I would be interested to know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kind of like a American reverse-engineering job on a Russian product

but the faithfull dwindled & the cause faltered

initjust
01-28-2005, 02:22 AM
"generally its accepted that , . . . . . the Hamsters in the VVS planes treadmills seem to be less prone to overheating

but the american ones like it where its colder (higher) . . . ."

And what does this mean?

WOLFMondo
01-28-2005, 02:29 AM
It means the hamsters in the US planes tread mills are wearing down jackets and have heated boots.

cwojackson
01-28-2005, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And what does this mean? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They don't know.

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 02:37 AM
oooh look WOLFMondo , they are ganging up . . . . .

AtomicRunt
01-28-2005, 02:43 AM
Let me help ya out SeaFire..I've known Init long before IL-2(the original) was released. Those would be "real" questions. I convinced Init that this was "the game" as far as on-line "gaming sims" went years ago. And I apoligize if this game has fallen short Init. I think most are here because we simply love warbirds of that era. I would like to see some real answers to those questions also. But I see this is going nowhere fast as usual.

cwojackson
01-28-2005, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AtomicRunt:
Let me help ya out SeaFire..I've known Init long before IL-2(the original) was released. Those would be "real" questions. I convinced Init that this was "the game" as far as on-line "gaming sims" went years ago. And I apoligize if this game has fallen short Init. I think most are here because we simply love warbirds of that era. I would like to see some real answers to those questions also. But I see this is going nowhere fast as usual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice icon and nice photo.

peteuplink
01-28-2005, 03:29 AM
I saw nothing wrong with the questions, either. I too would like to know how Oleg and Co. developed the FMs and DMs.

WOLFMondo
01-28-2005, 03:38 AM
AFAIK Oleg uses real factory and test & assessment data for the FM's and DM's as pilot accounts are unreliable sources of information regarding accurate performance.

I think his rodent work needs some attention though. The Guinea pigs in the wildcat need a kick in the butt and get on with raising the gear themselves.

ElAurens
01-28-2005, 05:45 AM
The flight models are based on the best case test numbers for USAF, British, German, and I presume Japanese aircraft, and from Official VVS test numbers for the Russian aircraft. If my memory serves me correctly. Also remember that Oleg was/is an aeronautical engineer, and does have great knowledge of the inner ways of aircraft. And, there are at lest two real world pilots of WW2 aircraft that have been (as I recall) used to evaluate as well.

FMs are not table based, as in the CFS series, nor are there "hitbox" damage models.

Does this answer your question?

initjust
01-28-2005, 08:39 AM
AR,

No need for you to apologize for anything. And to be honest, I am kind of (well not really) surprised by the responses of a couple here to my honest question.

Thanks EL for your input.

I have no idea how the MS product FMs were modeled and I have no vested interest in either method I am simply trying to understand how 1C does it.

You have indicated that 1C does not use table based FMs nor 'hitboxes' for DMs and that Oleg is/was an aeronautical engineer. I can accept that.

But this does not really answer my questions, and I'm not trying to be negative here.

To focus on the DM for a moment. OK, 1C doesn't use 'hitboxes' (and I don't know if 'hitboxes' are a good way or a bad way to model damage) so what do they use to determine at what point a projectile comes into contact with a piece of the ac? And then, after it does, how do they determine how much damage it does to the parts(s) it impacts?

It seems to me that they must use some method of establishing the dimensions of the parts of the ac and then some method of determining how durable the part(s) is/are. Then there must be some method they use to establish the destructive power of each different type of projectile. Once they have both of these they can then determine how much damage is being done to a given part based on how many rounds of a given armament impact in/on the part(s) in question.

If they don't use some type of 'box' to do this what do they use? For example, how does the DM in PF know when a round has hit a wingtip? a pilot? a rudder?

It seem to me that they must have some way of sizing the 'area' of these parts and it seems like there must be a definite boundry between a rudder and a vert stab since hitting a vert stab would have a different negative impact on the performance of the ac than hitting the rudder would. So, how do they do it if they don't use some type of "box" method?

A 'hitbox' scheme where the parts of the ac have a width, height and length and a set number of 'life' points and each round of each type of armament has a fixed destructive power seems to me to be a fairly good way to determine when a round impacts a part and how much it damages that part.

Now for the FM. 1C doesn't use a 'table based' FM. So, what is a 'table based FM' and what does 1C use? And, how do they test it, once it is in the game, to validate/verify that it meets the 'best case test numbers' they used to design it?

Now for those of you who feel the need to add meaningless drivel to this thread. Please go ahead since it does provide a modicum of humor and a good deal of insight into your personality and character.

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
My questions are:

1. What mechanism/methodology/criteria does 1C use to develop the FMs and DMs for PF?
2. How is the performance of the FMs and DMs measured, once they are developed, to determine how accurately they represent the performance of the real aircraft when used in the game?

If anyone has any direct knowledge of how this is done I would be interested to know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No direct knowledge of how Oleg does it, but working in aerospace I have had the opertunity to see how it is generally done.

Answer #1a: As for FM's there is typically only one.. think of it like an *math* equation.. What makes it act like a P51 or a Fw190 depends on the numbers you put into the equation. For example f(x) = 2*x+5, where for a P51 x = 2 and for a Fw190 x = 4. Thus P51 = 2*2+5 = 4+5 = 9, Fw190 = 2*4+5 = 8+5 = 13. Below the speed of sound the *math* of the FM is pretty good.. Above the speed of sound they have different *math* for that.. Sense all of the aircraft in IL2-PF operate well below the speed of sound they only need the one set of *math*

Answer #1b: As for DM's that one is most likly a big Wild A$$ Guess (WAG) in that there is no *test flight* data to look at.. Test Pilots are funny in that they dont like people shooting at them while they are flying thus nearly imposable to tell what would happen when 13 .50 cal rounds strike you left wing tip.. That is to say it is hard to come up with some *math* equation to describe it. So, the *math* they come up with is a WAG and is most likly based on pilot comments on how well thier plane took damage.. Which is silly really.. statistics wise, in that you never hear from the pilots who died when one .50 cal hit thier wing. So to argue about DM's is silly.. because it is silly from the get go.

Answer #2a: Once the FM is developed.. Or should I say all the numbers that go into the FM are developed you can test the FM to see how well it simulates the real world aircraft by comparing the results of the FM to the results of some real world data. Simple right? Actually it aint.. In that alot of that real world data does not exist for every situation (alt, speed, configuration, etc) let alone for every aircraft. This is why you will see alot of guys (like myself) asking where is the data to back up your statement.. In that we get alot of guys posting in here stateing the FM is porked for such and such plane.. with nothing presented as prooof buth there boyhood *feelings* that the P51 should be the best airplane in ever situation.. Because that is what it said on the box of the model they build back in 1978 and that is what it says on the history channel every 2nd tuesday of the month.

Answer #2b: Due to the WAG going in, it is a WAG going out.

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
AR,

No need for you to apologize for anything. And to be honest, I am kind of (well not really) surprised by the responses of a couple here to my honest question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
nor should you be

im getting more & more sick of the sly ****ging off that obvious CFS fans are posting

so now i dont respond with anything but sarcasm or joking towards those posters

Stiglr
01-28-2005, 12:36 PM
I have some doubts that IL-2 doesn't use tables, myself.

I mean, we have seen so many instances of universal changes totally dismantling any semblance of realism in the flight models. What would cause such carnage in a majority of the planes, or render certain planes with temporary UFO status?

Seems to me that a "real physics-based" FM would stand up well to universal changes to "the gravity", or "Altitude band X" or "Phenomenon Y" without creating such odd anamolies.

What about the need to "do something to the modelling" to enable planes to take off and land on CVs? Isn't a stall speed a pretty cut and dried physics phenomenon, at least for landing? I can see the takeoff problem of not having 35 - 40 knots of wind over the deck...but apparently this kludge was needed for trapping too...

Finally, what about the fabled "IL-2 hard ceiling", where your altimeter just stops, although your visual experience tells you you're still struggling upwards at a few more meters/minute?

No way to "prove" this, it's just a nagging feeling in the gut.

cwojackson
01-28-2005, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have some doubts that IL-2 doesn't use tables, myself.

I mean, we have seen so many instances of universal changes totally dismantling any semblance of realism in the flight models. What would cause such carnage in a majority of the planes, or render certain planes with temporary UFO status?

Seems to me that a "real physics-based" FM would stand up well to universal changes to "the gravity", or "Altitude band X" or "Phenomenon Y" without creating such odd anamolies.

What about the need to "do something to the modelling" to enable planes to take off and land on CVs? Isn't a stall speed a pretty cut and dried physics phenomenon, at least for landing? I can see the takeoff problem of not having 35 - 40 knots of wind over the deck...but apparently this kludge was needed for trapping too...

Finally, what about the fabled "IL-2 hard ceiling", where your altimeter just stops, although your visual experience tells you you're still struggling upwards at a few more meters/minute?

No way to "prove" this, it's just a nagging feeling in the gut. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I reinstalled the whole series plus updates when I bought PF. Even though I was in a hurry to attack English battleships at Pearl Harbor with a torpedo carrying A-20, I tried some of the aircraft out from original install to final...some of the flight characteristics went through impressive changes.

initjust
01-28-2005, 01:03 PM
Well Badsight I suppose if you can't tolerate an honest search for information you can always choose to not read this thread.

On the other hand, if your focus is to find things to be offended by then by all means continue proving you have nothing but meaningless drivel to contribute. As I said it reveals a lot about your character.

Bearcat99
01-28-2005, 01:13 PM
Everything El said...... and as far as hit boxes..... they are areas of a model where if a profectile hits it it counts as a hit.... but it is a pretty wide area.... Im sure FB uses hit boxs.... or something similar.. its just that the boxs are much much smaller. Remember in CFS1 when if you got witnin a few feet of a plane you blew up? Collision bubbles.... similar to hit boxes.

I dont know exactly how Oleg and 1C come up with the models.. but like El said it isnt table based..... not in the traditional sense anyway... I have never flown a real warbird.. or even a real Cessna.. solo, but from what I havebeen told by people who have... and a few WW2 & Korean pilots who fly this sim... this sim is more accurate than it's competitors.

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
Well Badsight I suppose if you can't tolerate an honest search for information you can always choose to not read this thread.

On the other hand, if your focus is to find things to be offended by then by all means continue proving you have nothing but meaningless drivel to contribute. As I said it reveals a lot about your character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh yea . . . . like what i post reflects who i am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

lose the CFS ego dude

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have some doubts that IL-2 doesn't use tables, myself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More accurately put, you *feel* that IL2 doesn't use tables. Only because you don't understand what is implied by table based FM. traditionally a table base FM means the motion equations are not be calculated in real time.. They are pre calculated and the results put into a lookup *table*. That is how they use to do it back in the AOTP, AOE, SWOTL, RB1, CYAC, etc days. Good thing about doing it that way is it does not demand much from the processor.. And back in the 10MHz 286 days that meant a lot. Bad thing is you can not calculate every value for every situation (alt, speed, etc) thus there is a lot of round off and averaging which makes the table based flight sim feel very un-dynamic as if it is riding on rails. Microprose's Pacific Air War 1942 was the first mainstream PC flight sim to switch from table based to a calculating the motion (total force) equations in real time. This gives more fidelity to the feel.. very dynamic.. you can ride between the rails. As for *tables* every sim has some form of table lookup.. For the total force type it would be the coefficients that feed into the standard FM equation and then calculated.. Where as the table base would just look up the result of the equation that was pre calculated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I mean, we have seen so many instances of universal changes totally dismantling any semblance of realism in the flight models. What would cause such carnage in a majority of the planes, or render certain planes with temporary UFO status? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How long have you been flying sims? One would think that you would at least have the basics down by now? But I digress. If I change the equation that all planes use (aka the FM) than it would effect all aircraft.. If I only change the coefficients that get loaded into that equation for a certain type of plan then I would only effect that one aircraft. For example, lets look at the following equation

f(x) = 2.5Ӕ"C" + 3Ӕ(x)

Where x is alt and C is the coefficient per aircraft. Now in version 1.00 the P51 had a "C" value of 2.0 and the Fw190 had a "C" value of 3.0. Therefore in version 1.00 the results at an altitude of 100ft is...

P51: f(100) = 2.5Ӕ"2.0" + 3Ӕ(100) = 5.00 + 300.00 = 305.00
190: f(100) = 2.5Ӕ"3.0" + 3Ӕ(100) = 7.50 + 300.00 = 307.50

Now in version 1.01 they found a bug in the FM of the P51 and changed the "C" value from 2.0 to 2.1. Now note the FM equation has NOT changed, just the coefficient for the P51, Which results in only changing the way the P51 flys, in that the Fw190 has the same values at 100ft that it did in version 1.00 i.e.

P51: f(100) = 2.5Ӕ"2.1" + 3Ӕ(100) = 5.25 + 300.00 = 305.25 &lt;= changed
190: f(100) = 2.5Ӕ"3.0" + 3Ӕ(100) = 7.50 + 300.00 = 307.50 &lt;= NO change

Now in version 1.02 they found a bug in the FM equation itself, which changed the 2.5 to 2.3. Now note the FM equation has changed, but the coefficients for both planes remain the same, which changed the value for both (all) planes i.e.

P51: f(100) = 2.3Ӕ"2.1" + 3Ӕ(100) = 4.83 + 300.00 = 304.83 &lt;= changed
190: f(100) = 2.3Ӕ"3.0" + 3Ӕ(100) = 6.90 + 300.00 = 306.90 &lt;= changed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Seems to me that a "real physics-based" FM would stand up well to universal changes to "the gravity", or "Altitude band X" or "Phenomenon Y" without creating such odd anamolies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First thing to note here is you have presented nothing to support your claims of UFO, unless you consider your *feelings* as some kind of proof, secondly your lack of understanding of the basics does explain some of your outlandish claims.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
What about the need to "do something to the modelling" to enable planes to take off and land on CVs? Isn't a stall speed a pretty cut and dried physics phenomenon, at least for landing? I can see the takeoff problem of not having 35 - 40 knots of wind over the deck...but apparently this kludge was needed for trapping too... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You assume the stall speed is in error now.. You present no proof of it.. You also assume it is in error now and not before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Finally, what about the fabled "IL-2 hard ceiling", where your altimeter just stops, although your visual experience tells you you're still struggling upwards at a few more meters/minute? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you don't have the coefficients for those alts, it makes it hard to simulate. There are a lot of holes in the FM's that have to be filled with BEST GUESS values in that they don't exist. Which in turn means it will require a lot of tweaking along the way in that no team of beta testers will catch everything

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
No way to "prove" this, it's just a nagging feeling in the gut. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the one and only true thing you have said all year.

Stiglr
01-28-2005, 04:41 PM
Well, to use your own figures against you, ya @sshat, it would seem that the physics regarding aerodynamics and flight are well known and proven.... so then, why does the Maddox team have to keep futzing with it? How come one style of fighting (turn 'n burn) is favored over another (boom & zoom) due to the Oleg system's failure to get energy bleed right? It isn't because the earth's gravitational pull has changed; and plane weights should be pretty much set in stone and "proofed" against error. So, what is it, then? Could it be that "Earth Physics 101" doesn't gibe with his modeling of the planes? How come it works with some planes and not others?

Now, to be fair, I did freely admit that I didn't have enough information or understanding to flat out say I think it's a fact that the models are using tables or anything of that nature. But, of course, fanboi that you are, you come right out and try to flatten somebody for daring even suggest Oleg's modeling is less than 100% correct and above reproach.

Why don't you limit your rantings to whimpering for your cannon Corsair? Or better yet, dedicate yourself to improving your flying skills so you can kill with the 6 x .50 cal version, like most of the Corsair's pilots did.

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, to use your own figures against you, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
ya @sshat, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL.. I love it when I bring you to tears!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
it would seem that the physics regarding aerodynamics and flight are well known and proven.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Proven? The math of them is well understood, if that is what you mean by proving?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
so then, why does the Maddox team have to keep futzing with it? Could it be that "Earth Physics 101" doesn't gibe with his modeling of the planes? How come it works with _some_ planes and not others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are new! Reason is those coefficient I alluded to in that well understood FM math above are not in some book somewhere for you to download. They have to be calculated.. Once calculate put into that well understood math to see if they match the actual test flight data... On that note, there are a lot of hole in the flight data.. Which makes it hard to calculate those coefficients.. As new information becomes aval, those coefficients are tweak to make the FM act more like the real world data. Pretty simple once you understand how it works.. Thus answering your question and proving that you failed in using my own figures against me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Now, to be fair, I _did_ freely admit that I didn't have enough information or understanding to flat out say I think it's a _fact_ that the models are using tables or anything of that nature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You using the word fair.. now that is funny!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, of course, fanboi that you are, you come right out and try to flatten somebody for daring even _suggest_ Oleg's modeling is less than 100% correct and above reproach. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You are upset arnt you! God.. that is like the cherry on top of it all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Why don't you limit your rantings to whimpering for your cannon Corsair? Or better yet, dedicate yourself to improving your flying skills so you can kill with the 6 x .50 cal version, like most of the Corsair's pilots did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Deal.. but only if your promis to limit your rantings and whimpering about Targetware in this forum.

P.S. A little OT here but I was wondering when you going to change your aviator picture again? I don't like the current one as much as your last one! In that you last one.. The guy looked confident, chin up, facing the wind.. Where this current one.. The guy kind of looks a little tarded.. with that tail between the legs, just pi$$ed on the rug, waiting to get his nose rubbed in it look. Where you gettings these pictures? Tards-r-us? If you need a link to some cool aviator pictures PM me I can send you a few.

initjust
01-28-2005, 05:08 PM
"like what i post reflects who i am"

From your own mouth.

Stiglr
01-28-2005, 05:10 PM
Note, YOU brought up the "T" word, not I.

I only trod that out when a good comparison is apt. You're the one trying to use it as a "out of left field" zinger.

I like my new avatar, and that's all that matters. But, if you'd consider dumping that dopey, '40s farm boy golly-gee-shucks poster, I'll meet ya halfway.

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Note, YOU brought up the "T" word, not I.

I only trod that out when a good comparison is apt. You're the one trying to use it as a "out of left field" zinger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I dont know what is funnier.. you saying it.. or you beliving what you said?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I like my new avatar, and that's all that matters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. very true.. I guess some guys are into that doe eyed pud look.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, if you'd consider dumping that dopey, '40s farm boy golly-gee-shucks poster, I'll meet ya halfway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Promise? Ill look fer a new one tonight!

All that aside, no need to thank me for educating you on the whole FM thing.. I didnt do it for you as much as I did it for everyone that has to read your rants.. But, I will miss the good laughs I get from you clueless statments wrt all that.. Assuming you actually apply what you learned here today.

initjust
01-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Hey AR,

You were correct in your original observation.

It is beginning to look like this thread will soon be spun up and go rocketing off in an unwanted direction.

I am almost sorry I asked the questions. So much for trying to get an understanding of how things really work here.

On a positive note I do wish thank those who did answer, in a constructive way, with information.

LEXX_Luthor
01-28-2005, 05:39 PM
We are fairly certain Oleg uses hit boxes, small boxes for each part and all tied together to build a structure of hit boxes for a whole plane. How small the boxes are and what is modeled or represented is not known for certain but some who have experience in paying deep attention to damage may get some clues. Not sure though.

Oleg's FMs are at least not entirely table based. The math of aerodynamics is well known but supercomputers working on F~22 can't get 100% accuracy, so an AMD or Intel giving maybe 90% accuracy is not bad for a 40$ PC game.

Oleg can't reveal his programming methods because the competition is Desperate to get it. Same with Oleg's sources of aircraft flight data much of which he paid money to get because today alot of old plane data is found in private hands. A good example I saw recently was an article on the upward firing cannon of Me~163. A surviving example of this cannon is owned by a private collecter who wished not to be identified in the article.

Programming methods take time and money to develop, and sources of information cost money and social connections deep inside the aviation world that even money can't buy. This stuff can't be given away to any amatuer gamer/modeller or flight sim competitor who asks, as we see, here, at the ubi.com

sulla04
01-28-2005, 06:42 PM
Also the FMs are very source contingent.Example is a KI-84 its top speed when teseted in the US was 427mpf,faster than a mustang at the same altitude.Now the problem is that the Japanese #'s are much lower don't qoute me but I believe 387mph.The differential was caused by the inferior aviation fuel that the Japanese had to use.Now I have about 15 books on WW2 warbirds and I beleive they are at about 60-40 for the 427mph.So does !C use the "real" #s as in Japanese or do they make an even playing field with all planes using high octane aviation fuel.

Badsight.
01-28-2005, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sulla04:
Now the problem is that the Japanese #'s are much lower don't qoute me but I believe 387mph.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Japanese firms often under-reported the performance of their A/C
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sulla04:
The differential was caused by the inferior aviation fuel that the Japanese had to use... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the way fuel was used in the US tests wouldnt have helped the power of the motor , running probably but without mods it would have been as powerfull as the japanese run it as

initjust
01-28-2005, 09:59 PM
Lexx,

Thank you for the information you provided. It is very informative and I appreciate it.

It certainly makes sense that the DM uses 'hit boxes'. The key, I suppose, is the number, size and positioning of the 'hitboxes'.

I was reasonably sure that there had to be some form of box type approach but I wasn't certain. Now I am. Thank you.

The FM is still a bit unclear but that may simply be because I haven't got head around what has been said here.

Does the 'equation' used take into account differing airfoil shapes and other aerodynamic considerations that vary from aircraft to aircraft?

I also understand what you have said regarding where Oleg gets his source data for the FMs.

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
Does the 'equation' used take into account differing airfoil shapes and other aerodynamic considerations that vary from aircraft to aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm,yes and no, that is to say it is not like they are simulating the wind flowing over the wings in real time.. Thus the shape does not mater in that sense.. But the wing area and such would be rolled up into the coeficients along with other aspects of the plane.

some AEROSPACE FMs do that.. but it is very complex.. takes hours of PC time to simulate a few min of flight. So it is not going to work for a real time fligh sim like this.. there was a sim a few years back.. I think it was called fly.. It claimed to do it that way.. But the equations were simplified way down and it could only do one aircraft at a time.. No AI no nuttin.. Just you and the plane.. I think it was an acrobatic sim?

TAGERT.
01-28-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Japanese firms often under-reported the performance of their A/C <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And just what would be the purpose of doing that? And just what are you basing that statment on?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
the way fuel was used in the US tests wouldnt have helped the power of the motor, running probably but without mods it would have been as powerfull as the japanese run it as <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive.. What is that statement based on?

LEXX_Luthor
01-28-2005, 11:05 PM
Thanks.
Initjust:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FM is still a bit unclear... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ya, for mee too.

Edit...ya and what Tag said, we have to simulate FM for every AI plane in a mission.


I'm pretty sure there is no simple FM "equation" going on here. I don't know how much "math" the sim uses, but just plugging numbers into equations can lead to mathematical simulation disaster if you are not intimately familiar with the behavior of functions or algorithms. In my limited math I had, I know a function can work to simulate what you want for one part of the domain of a function, but elsewhere can break down or diverge from what you wish to simulate, and you need another formula or something, and you need to know the conditions when your function works for you and when it won't. Math is NOT real life airplanes.

IL~2 was originally designed to simulate one very slow single engine low altitude ground attack monoplane with high FM, DM, and DM grafix modding (and not too much torque I imagine), and its pretty cool they managed to extended the sim to 100+ planes including what are supposed to be high torque fighters, twin engine fighter~bombers, jets, Biplanes, and stuff like TB~3 carrying I~16s.

A basic game engine designed for simming the IL~2 alone is not what you want to start with if you plan on adding all the Fancy fast high power stuff. BoB is going to be a different story I imagine.

Here is how I figure it. Back when Oleg decided to go Flight Sim, he knew that in his natvie country of Russia, the most Famous and well known plane of WW2 was the IL~2 (contrast with the most Famous WW2 planes in Britian and USA). So he Chose to simulate the IL~2 and not what we westerners would consider the "obvious" Russian Choices of La or Yak.

Oleg has only one full time FM programmer working, at least up until recently as far as I know. This is a small operation, and its astonishing what they created even before they opened FB to 3rd Party modders like at netwings.

Stiglr
01-28-2005, 11:24 PM
Well, if Oleg was trying to model a very slow Sturmo, he certainly failed at the attempt...

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, if Oleg was trying to model a _very slow_ Sturmo, he certainly failed at the attempt... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure that comming from you it has sent Oleg to some dark corner of dispare... "Stigr does not approve.. what shall I do? Boo Hoo"

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I'm pretty sure there is no simple FM "equation" going on here. I don't know how much "math" the sim uses, but just plugging numbers into equations can lead to mathematical simulation disaster if you are not intimately familiar with the behavior of functions or algorithms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But they are very familiar with them.. They have been around for years and years.. First one I saw was writen in fortran.. and ran on cards. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
In my limited math I had, I know a function can work to simulate what you want for one part of the domain of a function, but elsewhere can break down or diverge from what you wish to simulate, and you need another formula or something, and you need to know the conditions when your function works for you and when it won't. Math is NOT real life airplanes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you just described is what I was told about above and below the speed of sound simulation.. Once you exceed that you would have to switch to some differen FM math code.. I also think that might play into the high alt thing too.. but not sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
IL~2 was originally designed to simulate one very slow single engine low altitude ground attack monoplane with high FM, DM, and DM grafix modding (and not too much torque I imagine), and its pretty cool they managed to extended the sim to 100+ planes including what are _supposed to be_ high torque fighters, twin engine fighter~bombers, jets, Biplanes, and stuff like TB~3 carrying I~16s. A basic game engine designed for simming the IL~2 alone is not what you want to start with if you plan on adding all the Fancy fast high power stuff. BoB is going to be a different story I imagine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From what I understand, the math is pretty much the same from zero up to speed of sound. So, what makes or breaks a FM is how well they coded up what they understand of the math.. And the data they feed into it.. aka coeficients.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Here is how I figure it. Back when Oleg decided to go Flight Sim, he knew that in his natvie country of Russia, the most Famous and well known plane of WW2 was the IL~2 (contrast with the most Famous WW2 planes in Britian and USA). So he Chose to simulate the IL~2 and not what we westerners would consider the "obvious" Russian Choices of La or Yak.

Oleg has only one full time FM programmer working, at least up until recently as far as I know. This is a small operation, and its astonishing what they created even before they opened FB to 3rd Party modders like at netwings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which makes sense.. you dont need a team of FM coders.. In that the code (math) is the same for all (maybe dif for multi engines) all that changes is the data you gather to put into it.. That is the hard part.. The next hard part is TESTING it to ensure those coeficients produce numbers close to actual numbers.

peteuplink
01-29-2005, 05:27 AM
While I don't doubt that the FMS and DMS of both the IL2/PF series and the CFS series are very good. The fact remains that these are not military grade flight simulations made with huge budgets and teams of analysts studying the flight dynamics of each aircraft to get it as accurate as possible.

These are simulations made specifically to be run on home computers, and are designed and programmed on quite low budgets with very tight deadlines. Because of this there are always going to be small errors in the FM's and DM's.

Luckily though, Oleg and Co. don't rest on their laurels and do continue to support the sims with new patches to improve any errors in the FM's and DM's.

Bearcat99
01-29-2005, 05:55 AM
How can you say CFS and IL2/PF in he same sentence using the same adjective? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

peteuplink
01-29-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
How can you say CFS and IL2/PF in he same sentence using the same adjective? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy. I just typed on my keyboard and it happened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sulla04
01-29-2005, 07:27 AM
Two things.1st the KI-84 top speed issue comes right from the US airforce testing,and the explanation was the one I gave.The Japanese after 42 were forced to use low grade oil for everything it was even a problem with their ships lower combustion etc.I think that any real world pilot would would agree the worse the mixture the worse the engines specs.2nd the simulators that the different armed forces use at least in the US are very expensive but not very hightech.The last ones I saw were in 2002 and made commercial ones look and fly great.Full spectrum warrior for the xbox has the marine training inclued in it and I believe it was the marines who bought into tacops.The first army one was based on doom about a year after it was relesed.I know there was a commercial sim that was bought by the airforce but I can't remember the name.Australia just bought a sim fot their army from a last year release of a wargame.

peteuplink
01-29-2005, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sulla04:
Two things.1st the KI-84 top speed issue comes right from the US airforce testing,and the explanation was the one I gave.The Japanese after 42 were forced to use low grade oil for everything it was even a problem with their ships lower combustion etc.I think that any real world pilot would would agree the worse the mixture the worse the engines specs.2nd the simulators that the different armed forces use at least in the US are very expensive but not very hightech.The last ones I saw were in 2002 and made commercial ones look and fly great.Full spectrum warrior for the xbox has the marine training inclued in it and I believe it was the marines who bought into tacops.The first army one was based on doom about a year after it was relesed.I know there was a commercial sim that was bought by the airforce but I can't remember the name.Australia just bought a sim fot their army from a last year release of a wargame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know for a certain that the US Navy used to hand out copies of M$ Flight Sim to new recruits for practising maneuvers in their own time. And that they had to complete 27 hours under PC based flight simulator conditions before they were allowed near a proper military grade sim. They may still do, but I'm not sure. I had a friend who was a pilot in the US Navy, but I've not heard from him for some time.

I was alos told that while it's good practise for the recruits, the simulation is no match in terms of realism for the military grade simulators, and should NEVER be used as a substitute for such hardware. And alos while Military simulations are very accurate, they are still no match for the real thing, and a pilot who has a lot of hours in a simulator would not neccesarily be able to jump into the cockpit of a plane and fly it.

If you're referring to the fact that some Military Flight sims don't look quite as realistic as PC based sims graphically, then I have to agree. But the fact is they aren't there to look good, they're only designed so a pilot can learn manuevers and tactics in safety, without getting shot at or killed because of a mistake.

Aaron_GT
01-29-2005, 11:20 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"I mean, we have seen so many instances of universal changes totally dismantling any semblance of realism in the flight models. What would cause such carnage in a majority of the planes, or render certain planes with temporary UFO status?"

As an example X-Plane doesn't use tables and uses finite element analysis. However the FM loop gets updated from time to time and this affects the way planes behave. In a similar way I presume that the FM code in the IL2 series has to account for forces on various parts of the plane and no doubt it has to simplify it (even more so than X-Plane does, since there are more planes to cope with) to make it tractable in the time and CPU power allowed. Oleg has basically said that simplifications are used. What I suspect happens is that there are tweaks in this simplifications which will lead to different results for a particular set of inputs.

In other words rather than using the exact aerodynamic equations you use something that gives you a result with little computation that is right for 99% of flight situations. You then have 'canned' behaviour for the rest to save on processing power. At some point later you might realise that your simplifications aren't quite as correct as you thought, or perhaps a different bit of C++ code will improve the speed at which the calculations are done and allow you to extend them to cover 99.5% of flight behaviour. It seems that some of the stall behaviour has become a bit more realistic of late, which supports this theory.

But then the problem is that the parameters that each plane uses to interact with these equations may need to be tweaked. With a large number of planes in the sim that is potentially a lot of tweaking. I think Oleg's team isn't big enough to cross evert i and dot every t

The answer might be to not change the FM equations, but if you discover a bug in the FM equations do you correct the bug (and then reparamterise every aircraft) or try to work around the bug by fudging some of the parameters for some planes. Tough call.

Aaron_GT
01-29-2005, 11:22 AM
Tagert: good set of analogies used when discussing things with Stiglr. We are thinking along the same lines.

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
I know for a certain that the US Navy used to hand out copies of M$ Flight Sim to new recruits for practising maneuvers in their own time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maneuvers in the sense of moving from one point to the next.. aka navagating.. Not maneuvers as in combat flight training. MS Fligt Sim is very good at training you howe to fly NAV wise.. And that is about it.

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
The fact remains that these are not military grade flight simulations made with huge budgets and teams of analysts studying the flight dynamics of each aircraft to get it as accurate as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger.. the FACT here is the only big difference between the two is the resorses in gathering and analizing the coeficents that go into the full force equatioins of flight (aka math of it all).. But the full force equations are basically the same... Cept for the thing I pointed out eariler.. once you go past the speed of sound you need new math.. something IL2-PF does not have to worry about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
These are simulations made specifically to be run on home computers, and are designed and programmed on quite low budgets with very tight deadlines. Because of this there are always going to be small errors in the FM's and DM's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The math of the full force equations of flight are not all that intence.. Modern PC's can performe them easily. It is comming up with the right coeficeints that will cause the errors

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
Luckily though, Oleg and Co. don't rest on their laurels and do continue to support the sims with new patches to improve any errors in the FM's and DM's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.. Something that some folks like Stigler dont understand just yet.. Mostly because they have no basic understanding of what it takes in the first place.

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert: good set of analogies used when discussing things with Stiglr. We are thinking along the same lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. Stiglr needs it broke down to that level.. I only wish I had a cryon to draw it for him to make him feel more at home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

initjust
01-29-2005, 01:55 PM
I appreciate all the good information that has been posted here. It is most informative for me.

For the most part this has remained a very positive and 'civil' thread (apart for some apparent on-going personality conflicts between a couple of the posters).

I was also hoping that it would not degrade into a "this sim is better than that sim" p!ss!ing contest and for the most part, with only a couple of exceptions, that has been the case.

Thanks again for the good info.

VF-3Thunderboy
01-29-2005, 04:54 PM
No flight sims address torque and P-factor,at this moment, Thats one thing EVERYONE should cry about to make sure it gets into the new BOB sim. For those interested in realism. And wind, etc... If you were dissapointed with this sim init, you guys should be making alot more noise now, before the bob beta comes out.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you're referring to the fact that some Military Flight sims don't look quite as realistic as PC based sims graphically, then I have to agree. But the fact is they aren't there to look good, they're only designed so a pilot can learn manuevers and tactics in safety, without getting shot at or killed because of a mistake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its also used to screen out potential pilots.
I think you get 3 tries in the Airforce in the real basic instrument simulator, when they throw all the emergencies at you, if you fail that real bad and they dont like you, you get to shine shoes or something.

carguy_
01-29-2005, 05:33 PM
Oh my how can anyone let this thread go on!?The guy must be nuts if he thinks forum users know how the FM,DM gets implemented in the game.The topic is flame-bound BE SURE!

That is:"I demand data how you build the sim so I can find a way to attack you".

Do a research,genius!

Completely out of reality,why a guy who wants modified DM,FMs,his knowledge is a mere % of Oleg`s team questions those feature.That`s a real circus act!

Bottom line is that IL2 presents best FM,DM second to NONE.BoB will be better,let IL2 go for heaven`s sake!

There is NO contribution made from you whiners to help Oleg so simply be silent.


"I don`t care if the guy writes millins of lines of code.I still don`t like it!".

Well,DEAL with it or just start making your own sim.See you like in 10 years!

initjust
01-29-2005, 05:52 PM
Well, carguy, you are certainly doing your part to spin this thread into the toilet.

As I said before, if an honest search for information offends you feel free to not read this thread.

Besides, based on several other threads on this forum there appear to be several who seem to know a bit about this topic.

Who here wants modified FMs and DMs? I certainly have not made any such comment or expressed any such notion. That is something that you have brought into this particular thread.

But again, as I also said before, feel free to keep posting here and reveal your personality and character.

initjust
01-29-2005, 05:58 PM
Thunderboy,

Been there, done that re the wind and weather and atmosphere to the point that there is really no point in bringing it up any more.

If BOB includes such then that will certainly be a good thing. However, since I am only interested in the PTO it remains to be seen whether or not the anticipated features of BOB will be brought into the PTO.

carguy_
01-29-2005, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, carguy, you are certainly doing your part to spin this thread into the toilet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn`t it belong there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As I said before, if an honest search for information offends you feel free to not read this thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honest search for info?Well let me start off by saying you won`t be able to gather any valuable data by putting up the thread.People who you gather your info from are known for their 'biased' opinions about the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who here wants modified FMs and DMs? I certainly have not made any such comment or expressed any such notion. That is something that you have brought into this particular thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ofcourse you don`t!Who would say such a gruesome thing?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But again, as I also said before, feel free to keep posting here and reveal your personality and character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bet I will.Nothing here you done ranting have contributed to the case.You don`t know anything about stuff that had been happening here for the last 3 years.Instead of thinking it over you open a Pandora can just for fun.Because nothing else can rise from this.

My personality and character is ok,thank you.Trolling practice is what you should think about.

initjust
01-29-2005, 06:33 PM
As I said, if this thread is such a bother to you it is totally within your control to NOT read it.

Please show me where I have made any comment regarding modifying FMs and DMs.

If the thought of gathering information and thereby becoming informed is an obscure concept for you and offends your sensitivities perhaps you should consider avoiding the same.

Stiglr
01-29-2005, 06:34 PM
Thunderboy wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No flight sims address torque and P-factor, at this moment... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Uh, no, wrong. Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) does both. You certainly notice significant amounts of torque on take off (er, partially because the ground effect is NOT yet finished, so the effect is probably a bit too dramatic) and in the air, and P-factor also comes into play as well.

initjust
01-29-2005, 06:36 PM
And, for what it is worth, which I'm sure is not much to you since you seem to know it all, I bought IL2 when it was first available and have been visiting this forum for a bit longer than you may think you know.

But again, show me more of your character please.

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Uh, no, wrong. http://www.targetware.net does both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So does IL2-PF

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You certainly notice significant amounts of torque on take off (er, partially because the ground effect is NOT yet finished, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only reason it is significant is because ground effects are STILL not implmented yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
so the effect is probably a bit _too_ dramatic) and in the air, and P-factor also comes into play as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. Might be due to something else they have not implimented yet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stiglr
01-29-2005, 10:02 PM
Which torque are you referring to? That "kewl" little wingdip when you turn the engine on? That's just a eye candy trick.

When you should feel the torque is when you try to run the engine full up on the runway, and if you don't flip your plane on its back, you should end up running off one side of the strip. The proper way to do it is to pour the coals to it quite a bit slower and more gradual, so that you can keep the rolling path straight.

In IL-2, you feel NONE of those effects at all. You can simply throw the throttle full on, push the stick forward for the tail to come up, and rudder authority works identically to the left as well as the right; in short, no effects of torque or P-factor at all.

VF-3Thunderboy
01-29-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe.. Might be due to something else they have not implimented yet!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it was said above, and actually on SimHQ a long time ago,Avhistory Bear pointed out that there was only one flight model "type" and that the add-ons were all built onto this system.Thats why they may not perform at altitude, etc. The 1% Planes from 2.79 incorporated a high altitude capability, and it was a big deal to get the #'s right from what I remember.

From what was said before, proper torque CANNOT be input into this sim.

Im not sure if CFS3 acheved this or not, I dont think it did.

This is a totally relevant question as "accuracy" in DPs and FM's is WHAT THE SIM IS ALL ABOUT. its not a car game, or a UFO game, it a WW2 FLIGHT SIM. We all want it as accurate as it can be, and so do the UBI team, its just a matter of how long it takes to get there.


That being said, I have added more accurate DPs to the 1% aircraft, like Corsair oil coolers, some major engine parts, weakened boom structure on the P-38 (One cannon shell and it fell apart"- Japanese ace etc. )Cant do that in ILL2 Sturm or PF

ILL2 Sturmikov, PF guys dont get to play with the DP's or FM's. Which brings a point about accuracy:

Can you take down an ILL2 Sturmikov by hitting it in the RADIATOR underneath the engine, causing engine to everheat?

That was Hartmanns favorite technique from his book I believe.

I can do that in CFS2.

Is the P-39 a trick to handle? My 1% one is, I adjusted the center of gravity to give it very "unforgiving" performance. As was once said, "You just had to move the stick a quarter inch too much , and it was all over"...

That is why REALISM is important... HISTORICAL ACCURACY!11 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
01-29-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Which torque are you referring to? That "kewl" little wingdip when you turn the engine on? That's just a eye candy trick. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that ice caspades like feel you get as you slide all over the place.. Which is unlike IL2PF's troque effect you get where you have to apply oposite rudder to keep it going straight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
When you should feel the torque is when you try to run the engine full up on the runway, and if you don't flip your plane on its back, you should end up running off one side of the strip. The proper way to do it is to pour the coals to it quite a bit slower and more gradual, so that you can keep the rolling path straight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, Targetware needs to do something asap with regards to their ground modeling.. anything is better than none at all.. What is taking them so long?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
In IL-2, you feel NONE of those effects at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You can simply throw the throttle full on, push the stick forward for the tail to come up, and rudder authority works identically to the left as well as the right; in short, _no_ effects of torque or P-factor at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. One thing for sure.. IL2PF's ground modle is not perfect.. But it is better than Targetware's. But, when you conser that these are flight sims and not NASCAR sims I dont really mind so much.. TAXI is such a small part of air combat.. I would rather see both spend their time and money on other things.. Which seems to be the mind set over at Targetware.. In that it has been well over a year now and still no ground model.. Good or Bad.. They should have something.

Badsight.
01-29-2005, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
Can you take down an ILL2 Sturmikov by hitting it in the RADIATOR underneath the engine, causing engine to everheat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
its my favourite way to take down IL2's in FB

Longjocks
01-29-2005, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
If the thought of gathering information and thereby becoming informed is an obscure concept for you and offends your sensitivities perhaps you should consider avoiding the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's pretty much what I was thinking. I remember back in the old days when it was normal to ask questions about things one didn't understand. Of course we could read a book, but what if we couldn't afford that book or it wasn't in the library? Well, we'd ask someone in the know. Maybe someone with experience in the field or a teacher. Now, why that idea seems to be shunned when translated into the medium of the Internet and forums is beyond me.

What I'm interested in with the hitbox idea is the way penetration is calculated. So Box B, being enveloped by Box A, will be hit;

A) only if Box A's 'hitpoints' are reduced to zero, or...

B) if Box A's 'armour value' is exceeded by the projectile's 'penetration value' (combination of angle, speed, ammo type)?

RocketDog
01-30-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
If BOB includes such then that will certainly be a good thing. However, since I am only interested in the PTO it remains to be seen whether or not the anticipated features of BOB will be brought into the PTO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sort of comment always strikes me as very odd. I've seen several US posters say they won't buy BoB because they are "not interested in it", presumably because it doesn't feature Americans. I find it odd because I would have thought that most aviation enthusiasts would have bought any decent flight sim going. I know I do. I even bought CFS3. Twice. After all, the cost of any game is such a tiny fraction of the cost of the PC that you need to run the things.

But if you are really determined to ignore all WWII aviation outside the PTO, then I am afraid you are likely to have a long wait for the BoB engine to be brought to bear on that particular theatre. PF has had a luke-warm reception, partly because of some things inherent to the theatre (long mission distances and boring scenery) and partly because of the aggressive copyright policies of some US companies (hence problems with using particular ships and aircraft). These issues won't go away for a BoB-based PF, so it is probably going to get put some way down the development chain - I guess after the Med, Western Europe and the Eastern Front have been (re)visited.

Regards,

RocketDog.

cwojackson
01-30-2005, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
If BOB includes such then that will certainly be a good thing. However, since I am only interested in the PTO it remains to be seen whether or not the anticipated features of BOB will be brought into the PTO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sort of comment always strikes me as very odd. I've seen several US posters say they won't buy BoB because they are "not interested in it", presumably because it doesn't feature Americans. I find it odd because I would have thought that most aviation enthusiasts would have bought any decent flight sim going. I know I do. I even bought CFS3. Twice. After all, the cost of any game is such a tiny fraction of the cost of the PC that you need to run the things.

But if you are really determined to ignore all WWII aviation outside the PTO, then I am afraid you are likely to have a long wait for the BoB engine to be brought to bear on that particular theatre. PF has had a luke-warm reception, partly because of some things inherent to the theatre (long mission distances and boring scenery) and partly because of the aggressive copyright policies of some US companies (hence problems with using particular ships and aircraft). These issues won't go away for a BoB-based PF, so it is probably going to get put some way down the development chain - I guess after the Med, Western Europe and the Eastern Front have been (re)visited.

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is it really that unusual. I recall looking at threads on this forum when the potential development of a Pacific theather and/or BoB were being discussed.

There were a lot of people who said that they had no interest in the Pacific theater and were only interested in BoB or the Med.

peteuplink
01-30-2005, 03:27 AM
If Targetware is supposed to be the only one that simulates P-Factor and Torque. Then how come IL2 and PF have a setting in the difficulty menu for turning it on and off? And when it's on it makes a significant difference to the handling of the AC.

Also there are al least 4 other sims I can mention, that have adjusters in the realism menus for setting the amount of Torque and P-Factor. I won't mention their names here (I keep getting told off for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), but 3 of them have the word Combat in the title, of which one is a PTO sim and one is a civil aviation sim.

Badsight.
01-30-2005, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
If Targetware is supposed to be the only one that simulates P-Factor and Torque. Then how come IL2 and PF have a setting in the difficulty menu for turning it on and off? . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FB/PF doesnt

stalls & spins is not P-Factor & Torque

& yes , Targetware is the only CFS that i have tried that did a stand out job of simulating it

WOLFMondo
01-30-2005, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

In IL-2, you feel NONE of those effects at all. You can simply throw the throttle full on, push the stick forward for the tail to come up, and rudder authority works identically to the left as well as the right; in short, _no_ effects of torque or P-factor at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, heres your challenge:
Get a F4U, take of from a carrier, use no trim or joystick input apart from pushing the stick forward and see what happens.

Challenge no.2
Get a P47, take off with no trim or stick forces other than those you say you need and tell me that plane keeps a straight line up the run way when taking off.

Challenge no.3
Land with that P47 (if you didn't hit anything taking off with no rudder trim :P) without any rudder.

Repeat 2 and 3 with a FW190D9.

peteuplink
01-30-2005, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by peteuplink:
If Targetware is supposed to be the only one that simulates P-Factor and Torque. Then how come IL2 and PF have a setting in the difficulty menu for turning it on and off? . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
FB/PF doesnt

stalls & spins is not P-Factor & Torque

& yes , Targetware is the only CFS that i have tried that did a stand out job of simulating it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what p-factor and torque are, and I know what stalls and spins are. Cheers for pointing it out though.

What I was asking is; if TW is supposed to be the only sim that simulates torque and p-factor, then how come IL2 has settings in the realism menu for turning off torque? And also how come other sims have it as well? What do these buttons do if torque and p-factor isn't being simulated, are they just there to look nice and pretty when you click them and they light up?

Aaron_GT
01-30-2005, 04:59 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"When you should feel the torque is when you try to run the engine full up on the runway, and if you don't flip your plane on its back, you should end up running off one side of the strip. The proper way to do it is to pour the coals to it quite a bit slower and more gradual, so that you can keep the rolling path straight."

These effects were very apparent in the first IL2 demo. It seems to have been toned down since then, but I would presume that the code is still there in some shape or other.

Also SDOE seems to model these effects, as does X plane.

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 11:17 AM
Someone asked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Targetware is supposed to be the only one that simulates P-Factor and Torque. Then how come IL2 and PF have a setting in the difficulty menu for turning it on and off? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said TW was the only sim to simulate these effects. I was merely correcting someone who said that no sim does.

As for torque being present in IL-2 and toned down, that I will agree with. But, why was it "toned down"? Not to be accurate, but to be forgiving. That's not simulation, that's low-fi gaming.

Someone also mentioned using the "shoot the radiator" trick on IL-2s. I can cheerfully acknowledge that it DOES work in this sim. I've caused IL-2s to go down with only MGs (they didn't go down right away, mind you, but they eventually smoked up, lost engine power and crashed).

TAGERT.
01-30-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I never said TW was the _only_ sim to simulate these effects. I was merely correcting someone who said that _no_ sim does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Convently leaving out others in a weak attempt to give the impression that Targetware is the only one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for torque being present in IL-2 and toned down, that I will agree with. But, why was it "toned down"? Not to be accurate, but to be forgiving. That's not simulation, that's low-fi gaming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your basic problem is this.. You *feel* that more dificult equals more real.. Which is why you USE TO think Targetwares ground modling is more realstic.. At least until someone pointed out to you (in a previous thread) that Targetware does not even have ground modeling code yet.. If ever.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Someone also mentioned using the "shoot the radiator" trick on IL-2s. I can cheerfully acknowledge that it DOES work in this sim. I've caused IL-2s to go down with only MGs (they didn't go down right away, mind you, but they eventually smoked up, lost engine power and crashed). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quick.. someone check the temp in he11 quick! My guess zero!

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 12:47 PM
No, Tagert, once again your vision is clouded by your fanboi inability to simply be critical.

I have NEVER said that "more difficult = more real". In fact, this is the big problem I see with so called "full switch/full real", where the end result is more difficult than it should be; and as such is just as poor a simulation as "too easy".

Also see my numerous posts on icons for proof of this. I don't think icons are "more realistic" than not seeing them, but, given the problems with graphics, monitors and such, they produce the most realistic results, IMO, hence, better simulation, so I advocate their use, provided they are designed to appear within realistic parameters, and provide the "proper" level of "visual" information in letter form.

You also needn't search for that thermometer in Hades. You'll note that I do give Oleg and teams props where they deserve them. But, I point out problems where I see them as well. THAT, I think is the difference between us: you can't see *any* faults with IL-2, and assume that if Oleg releases it, it must be perfect. One needs only look at how drastically the numerous patches have changed things for certain planes (more so than changing things across the board for all planes) to know that this is an incorrect assumption.

Also, no one had to "point out to me" that Targetware's ground modeling is not yet finished and implemented. I've known that for a long time from my many face to face discussions with the guy who codes the sim, thank you.

TAGERT.
01-30-2005, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
No, Tagert, once again your vision is clouded by your fanboi inability to simply be critical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, only clouded vision here is yours.. In that you (and others) have said on several occasions that Targetware torque modeling is better than IL2PF because it is more difficult to fly. Key thing to note about those statements by you and yours is they never provide anything to back up.. let alone prove those statements. In short those statements are based solely on your feelings.. And your feelings are based on your expectations.. And most non-real pilots EXPECT it to be harder than it is. But don't take my word on it.. Here is a excerpt from rec.aviation.simlators post by Robert Dorset on the topic of "realism" in a flight simulator.. And it describes you and yours to a "T".

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

A third issue is perception, and the intent of the game as an entertainment product. For example, pilots realize that airplanes are essentially very easy to fly and land: non-pilots may expect them to be horrifyingly complex to fly, given a lot of the mystique surrounding aviation, a lot of which has been enthusiastically promoted by pilots themselves. :-)

All retail flight simulators are just games, and, to some degree, help shape and feed off the perceptions of their users. So if the users expect an F-16 to be almost impossible to fly, an F-16 simulator that IS almost impossible to fly wouldn't disappoint anyone except real pilots. Conversely, a simulator that is actually easy to fly might disappoint game-players as too easy, or "arcade-ish," because it IS too realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 01:42 PM
It's got nothing to do with "being more difficult to fly", and you can't quote me anywhere as having said that.

I merely used the example that, if you would gun a real taildragger's throttle, you'd find yourself on your back and in flames, whereas in IL-2 you're likely to be headed blithely down the runway.

It is not *that* difficult to add rudder to counter torque, nor is it that hard to more gradually build up speed intead of gunning the engine; you just have to realize that it needs doing and mind what you're doing.

The fact is that this sim "dumbs the effect down" to please people who don't want to bother to learn these facts of aircraft handling, and Targetware models the effect to a greater degree of fidelity (and, to be fair, it remains yet to be seen what effect the ground will have when that effect is fully implemented there).

SeaFireLIV
01-30-2005, 01:44 PM
Hmm, TAGERT. vs Stiglr... This is going to be good.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
01-30-2005, 01:46 PM
Ever taken off in the P40B, C, or Tomahawk?

Don't tell me there is no torque modelling. You cannot "gun" the throttle in them on T.O.

Same for the I 153 and I 16.

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 01:46 PM
Going to be good? We go at it on almost every subject, it seems.

TAGERT.
01-30-2005, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's got nothing to do with "being more difficult to fly", and you can't quote me anywhere as having said that.

I merely used the example that, if you would gun a real taildragger's throttle, you'd find yourself on your back and in flames, whereas in IL-2 you're likely to be headed blithely down the runway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Blithely.. LOL! The only thing funnier here than you not understanding the basics is your unfounded statments.. As for ground model.. At least IL2PF has a one!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It is not *that* difficult to add rudder to counter torque, nor is it that hard to more gradually build up speed intead of gunning the engine; you just have to realize that it needs doing and mind what you're doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A perfect example of a non-pilot expecting them to be horrifyingly complex.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The fact is that this sim "dumbs the effect down" to please people who don't want to bother to learn these facts of aircraft handling, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fact is you have presented nothing here or anywhere to state it as fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
and Targetware models the effect to a greater degree of fidelity <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true, in that as you even noted, they dont even have a ground model.. Talk about dumbing down!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(and, to be fair, it remains yet to be seen what effect the ground will have when that effect is fully implemented there). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If ever

Stiglr
01-30-2005, 02:49 PM
Actually, it does have a ground model.... it's just not refined yet, so torque has an overstated effect. Also, collisions with ground items are toggled off, so as not to produce too many accidents. Of course, it's still beta, and freely admits that not everything works properly.

I find it a rubbery lesson in logic how you can twist my description of "relative difficulty" in advaning a throttle with "horrifyingly complex". But, then, that's your usual tact: distort and change the subject.

TAGERT.
01-30-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Actually, it does have a ground model.... it's just not refined yet, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Refined.. is that LATIN for MIA? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
so torque has an overstated effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That explains the overstated effect on the ground.. but what else is.. how did you say it? Not refined yet that causes them to bounce around in the air?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, collisions with ground items are toggled off, so as not to produce too many accidents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank god or no one would get off the groun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Of course, it's still beta, and freely admits that not everything works properly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, is that the majic word? Actully useing the exuse of "not done" yet or "beta" is just a weak imho.. How many years has Targetware been out? At least a year and a half?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I find it a rubbery lesson in logic how you can twist my description of "relative difficulty" in advaning a throttle with "horrifyingly complex". But, then, that's your usual tact: distort and change the subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I find it a rubery lesson in logic how you can come in here and complain about IL2PF ground modle with regards to torque and in the same breath tought Targetware as some base line that all sims should be judge by.. It is a base line.. a very low one imho.

Longjocks
01-30-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Ok, heres your challenge:
Get a F4U, take of from a carrier, use no trim or joystick input apart from pushing the stick forward and see what happens.

Challenge no.2
Get a P47, take off with no trim or stick forces other than those you say you need and tell me that plane keeps a straight line up the run way when taking off.

Challenge no.3
Land with that P47 (if you didn't hit anything taking off with no rudder trim :P) without any rudder.

Repeat 2 and 3 with a FW190D9. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I prefer the takeoff in a B-239 experiment. Aaaarrrggghhh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also see my numerous posts on icons for proof of this. I don't think icons are "more realistic" than not seeing them, but, given the problems with graphics, monitors and such, they produce the most realistic results, IMO, hence, better simulation, so I advocate their use, provided they are designed to appear within realistic parameters, and provide the "proper" level of "visual" information in letter form. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've always been an advocate of this way of thinking in various aspects of sim gaming, not just flight sims either.

So, Tagert, Stiglr... just say the word and I'll create a special thread where you can continue to make your very special kind of love.

ElAurens
01-30-2005, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:

So, Tagert, Stiglr... just say the word and I'll create a special thread where you can continue to make your very special kind of love. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have just the spot...

http://www.quebecweb.com/motelcapblanc/images/motel.jpg

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

TAGERT.
01-30-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
I have just the spot... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im ez... But Im not that ez! You need to spenda little money on me b4 you get the goods!

heywooood
01-30-2005, 08:18 PM
hey El....is that the Bates Motel?....

i hear the guy that runs it likes his guests to 'stick around'....yeah - I hear its a real 'mother' to find....

I dunno about tagert and stiglr...but there are a couple of newer guys I'd like to see over there...I'll even park their cars for 'em...out back....in the lake.

heywooood
01-30-2005, 10:28 PM
c'mon - you gotta remember this film, surely....

http://www.film.queensu.ca/Critical/Photos/Psycho/psycho.gif

VF-3Thunderboy
01-30-2005, 11:34 PM
Good torque effects should produce a faster roll to one side, and a slower roll effect to the other, by a couple seconds, for starters. Testing out Targetware, which isnt bad for a beta,it does not have this.

CFS2 "has it" in a very minor way, and I suppose ILL@ Sturm has it also in a minor way.

If you want to really understand it, get a P-40 flight manual, etc. It takes 10,000 feet to recover from a bad power on stall. Basicly- dont stall, ever...Not sure if they will get around to that in flight sims, but Ill2 does have a nicer stall!

Stiglr
01-31-2005, 10:43 AM
Yeah, I'll readily admit IL-2 has a nicer stall effect.. but there seems to be ONE, canned stall, the most violent one. The sudden wingdrop variety.

This does not gibe with reports of some planes merely "mushing" and "sagging" into a stall, perhaps with a little frame vibration to warn you of it.

As a result, I give you the Oleg Banana peel snap stall that the 109s suffer from every few patches or so, that can snap you out of a right hand coordinated turn and onto your back, like you'd expect from a Focke Wulf!!!

It seems Targetware has the mush and wallow down pretty good, but there's something about how sometimes a plane will wallow a bit too long, when you'd expect it to snap out or begin a more involved spin. But the snap stalls ARE there... you fly a Ki-44 and handle it too rough, and you'll get a good intro to it!!! Same with takeoffs on some planes.... if you can't get a good speed going, and rotate off...yikes.

ElAurens
01-31-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
c'mon - you gotta remember this film, surely....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mother.....


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

crazyivan1970
01-31-2005, 11:13 AM
What`s the topic again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

To lock or not to lock...that`s the question - hmmmm

initjust
01-31-2005, 12:48 PM
CrazyIavan,

I was really hoping to be able to get a better understanding of how the FMs and DMs were done in PF but this certainly has turned into a Tagert-Stiglr contest and it seems to have run it's course and it would certainly appear that it's usefulness is spent.

So, if you feel it best to lock this one I'd say do it since I am pretty frustrated that it wne the way it did as well. Some may not believe this but this thread was started in a sincere effort to gather real information and understanding. At least that was my intent.

Rocketdog,

My lack of interest in the ETO really has nothing to do with any nationality and should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in WWII era aviation. My focused interest in the PTO is due entirely to carriers and carrier based aviation.

I find the concept of taking off from a small, moving 'island', flying over vast distances with no land marks or points of reference and then flying an equal or greater distance retruning to the carrier, assuming it is where it is expected to be, facinating beyond any other aspect of WWII aviation. This is the only reason I say that I am interested in the PTO above any and all other theaters involved in WWII.

While it is true that the cost of any game is not prohibitive and is not really even a factor in a decision to buy or not buy the issue is the amount of time I have to invest in a given 'game'. I only have so much time available to invest in 'gaming' and I would choose to use what time I have in the PTO.

initjust
01-31-2005, 01:28 PM
And just a special 'thanks' to Tagert and Stiglr for turning this into another one of your personal "my dog is bigger than your dog" contests.

Perhaps you two should start a thread dedicated entirely to trying to prove your individual points on any and every subject you disagree on.

VF-3Thunderboy
01-31-2005, 07:53 PM
Sadly, this fine minutia is missing from all flight sims from the CFS2 Training script:

"Throughout the loop it is necessary to maintain directional control with the rudder. A loop can be done with the feet on the deck, but the varying torque at varying airspeeds would result in poor directional control."


No - NOBODY does close to real torque just yet.


Flight sims are probably the most complex sims going, and should be advertized as such. They should have $$ prizes for the best teams etc, to keep interest, and so we could laugh at the ******s who play the "Im a wannabe fellon " car video games that seem so popular.


Init, I suggest you look up on e-bay and get yourself a navy plotting board, and the book for it, like 30.00 bucks, if you like Naval Navigaion so much. - You might as well do it real time with the actual tools.
I have 2 that I dont (have the time) to use. PM me and Ill tell you more. You jsut missed a PILE of them, all under $30.00 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

initjust
01-31-2005, 08:22 PM
Thunder,

Thanks for the offer but I really don't need the plotting board.

I just use my maps, dividers and protractors to do my course changes/adjustments in real time. For the wind drift correction I just estimate based on flight time, wind angle and velocity.

TAGERT.
01-31-2005, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
And just a special 'thanks' to Tagert and Stiglr for turning this into another one of your personal "my dog is bigger than your dog" contests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No prob bud anytime!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
Perhaps you two should start a thread dedicated entirely to trying to prove your individual points on any and every subject you disagree on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, I perfer to follow you around and make your day.. Oh, by the way your welcome.

JunkoIfurita
02-01-2005, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Australia just bought a sim fot their army from a last year release of a wargame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what the sim was, but I know the facility that the game will be used in. Up at the Enoggera barracks the Aussie Defence Force has been experimenting in virtual training situations to simulate live firefights.

When I saw it, they were only as far as simulating using a Steyr on the range (They use a modified steyr with a Pneumatic pump on the barrel to simulate kick, and laser targeting to interact with the program, which provided range targets and provided feedback about hand shake and barrel movement, to improve accuracy). But they did mention they were developing technology to accurately virtualise platoon/squad based situations such as urban warfare, village sweeps, etc. Maybe they're using the wargame engine in this research, although to work in VR it'd have to be greatly modified.

----