PDA

View Full Version : The New FM? I dont get it..



Armhunter
06-13-2005, 11:33 AM
So this game was supposed to be the most realistic flight sim out. X pilots saying the FM was incredible, and one of the most realistic so far.

But then 4.0m with a new FM comes out.

So which am I supposed to believe??
It is so much different and now I dont know which was more realistic?!

It seems like Games will always be games. We will never know if it is even close, unless we are real pilots.

How can they call one FM the real one, then change it to another and yet, call that one the real one....

By the way, I do like the game.. I just dont understand...

joeap
06-13-2005, 12:08 PM
They don't really. Don't confuse realistic with reality. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Look think of it as an artist drawing a picture of someone long dead with some old torn partial photos, interviews with old folks who knew him. Say you start with one half-photo, faded, and hte memories of some old coot who knew the guy. Suppose you have a great artist draw a picture. That's the best picture with the info you have. Then another photo is found and you see the fellow had a scar on the left cheek, great you do a new picture with a photo on the cheek. You new drawing or painting is more realistic than the previous.

But they are all just portraits. The real guy is long gone.

VW-IceFire
06-13-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Armhunter:
So this game was supposed to be the most realistic flight sim out. X pilots saying the FM was incredible, and one of the most realistic so far.

But then 4.0m with a new FM comes out.

So which am I supposed to believe??
It is so much different and now I dont know which was more realistic?!

It seems like Games will always be games. We will never know if it is even close, unless we are real pilots.

How can they call one FM the real one, then change it to another and yet, call that one the real one....

By the way, I do like the game.. I just dont understand...
Being the most realistic WWII flight combat game doesn't mean its entirely realistic...it just means its more realistic than anything else at the time.

That time has passed and Oleg has always said that he can do far more with the flight modeling. Now that our machines are a bit faster he's unlocked and re-written (and graciously provided it for free) a new FM system which is closer to reality than before.

In 5 years if Oleg is still making sims at that point no doubt we'll have an FM thats even better than the one we have. Note: Don't always assume harder either.

To have a flight model thats 100% accurate to real physics you'll need several networked supercomputers to do it in real time. We aren't there yet but its an approximation of whatever can be simulated on a home PC using as much in the way of real physics as possible without destroying your CPU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AWL_Frog
06-13-2005, 12:15 PM
Well, maybe it would help if you compare computer graphics from 1995 and 2005? Ten years ago it was just a few polygons with simple textures, now we have realistic lighting, thousands of polygons for each object and bump mapping. But still ten years ago people were stunned by the graphics.

Same with the flight model. When Il-2 was released the best computers you could buy back then had something like 1 ghz, and the Geforce 3 was the hottest card you could get. To make it possible for the sim to run on those machines it was necessary to go for some compromises, and those compromises still were in the game until 3.04. Compromises mean that instead of calculating effects precisely you create a module which gives a "canned" version of the desired effect, with the drawback that it's always more or less the same effect, like the prescripted drop of a wing as soon as a stall happened in 3.04 and all earlier versions.

BTW, it cannot work without compromises like that, there is no compter in the world which can precisely calculate the flow of air over a wing in realtime.

With 4.00 three of those modules, modelling of torque, of inertia and modelling of stalls, were replaced by more precise calculation. This does not mean that the prior modelling is thrown into the garbage bin completely, it just takes advatege of the higher CPU power that is available today.

Armhunter
06-13-2005, 02:19 PM
awesome responses, thank you!!

With the new FM, I can still fly very well, and I have no problem landind or taking off. I just have to pay more attention then before.

The only thing.. Its much harder to get the kills... But I am practicing...

Chuck_Older
06-13-2005, 03:46 PM
It's like this:

nothing is ever perfect

As the sim evolved, things were changed. Sometimes they were changed for the wrong reasons, but other times, it was to more accurately represent flight characteristics

Consider that the original code never modelled high altitude flight well. OK, at the time, it was as realistic as could reasonably be made

Then new ways of approaching things come about, and the FM gets updated

Consider how PC technology is refined, and then you may have an idea of what can go on- for example-

X Y and Z need to be modelled. X and Y depend on Z.

Z is a very difficult to compute algorithm, and PCs in 2001 aren't typically powerful enough to do that computation fast enough. So, a simplified algorithm is substituted for that complex one. X, Y, and Z are not ever going to be completely 'perfect', but in this case, say they get to 70% accuracy

In 2005, we have more powerful PCs, and Z's original complex algorithm can be computed in a reasonable amount of time. Now, X, Y, and Z are all far more accurate, to say, 85% accurate. Now the factors from X Y and Z are plugged into the FM, and there's new ways of interpreting the data into the FM. So now maybe you get 87% accuracy.

Take anything you ever did in your life. Was it easier to get it 100% right the first time, or did you have to refine it at all? When you first did it, it was indeed your best effort and as accurate as you could make it. Then, later, hopefully, your expereince with problem solving in that field, whatever it was, may make you think you should have approached a few issues a different way. That's just life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Aspire for perfection, and get as close as you can

Atomic_Marten
06-13-2005, 03:53 PM
Oh. This game is better than the real thing. If that isn't so, I wouldn't be playing it for so long.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/Smileys/biggrinlove.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/StukaRollOver_3.gif

FoolTrottel
06-13-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Oh. This game is better than the real thing. If that isn't so, I wouldn't be playing it for so long.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/Smileys/biggrinlove.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/Atomic_Marten/StukaRollOver_3.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bearcat99
06-13-2005, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Armhunter:
So this game was supposed to be the most realistic flight sim out. X pilots saying the FM was incredible, and one of the most realistic so far.



That is still the case.. it has just gotten better. Let's face it... until we can get a holodeck type of thing going on there will always be room for improvement.