PDA

View Full Version : I know this is dangerous territory...



p-11.cAce
09-22-2006, 01:21 PM
...but I really miss the 4.01m flight models. I know there was a huge outcry at the time but I really thought they captured the feel of flying very well. The current FM's are great - they just feel off somehow...like the difference between walking barefoot across a hardwoodfloor and walking around in tennis shoes: You are still walking but your steps are cushioned and isolated...not as crisp or immediate. I notice this most on carrier landings - when is the last time you have'nt flown one right in? It seemed like they used to really be tough and now its like there is an invisible funnel just pulling you towards the wire. Before the flamers start no I've never flown anything with more than 200hp in the nose, and yes most of my rl flight time is in non-powered a/c so what do I know? Nothing really...just know that I like that fm better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p-11.cAce
09-22-2006, 01:21 PM
...but I really miss the 4.01m flight models. I know there was a huge outcry at the time but I really thought they captured the feel of flying very well. The current FM's are great - they just feel off somehow...like the difference between walking barefoot across a hardwoodfloor and walking around in tennis shoes: You are still walking but your steps are cushioned and isolated...not as crisp or immediate. I notice this most on carrier landings - when is the last time you have'nt flown one right in? It seemed like they used to really be tough and now its like there is an invisible funnel just pulling you towards the wire. Before the flamers start no I've never flown anything with more than 200hp in the nose, and yes most of my rl flight time is in non-powered a/c so what do I know? Nothing really...just know that I like that fm better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

R_Target
09-22-2006, 01:28 PM
I hear ya. I've been flying 4.01 while waiting for the recoil fix on the USN planes. More engine torque, livelier rudder.

boxmike
09-22-2006, 01:39 PM
Just out of curiosity, which version are you at now?
I just started being suspicious about my sudden successes in carrier landings, all that cheering for nuthin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I'm at 4.04. Then again, sunday flier like me cannot tell. After all I believe democracy in sim communities means majority gets their FM through. Sry if added firewood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Rgds,
-box

p-11.cAce
09-22-2006, 01:49 PM
I'm in 4.05m now...and the carrier thing really stands out to me for some reason...I just don't think I'm that much better a pilot now than I was back then but it sure feels different. I do not think that democracy in sim communities means the majority gets their fm though....I think it means we get confused and unrealistic fms that are easy enough to keep people from quitting the game if they can't takeoff, fight, or land perfectly after a few minutes of learning the game. Its not just rudder input - its all the aerodynamic effects that happen in rl that freak you out when you're learning how to fly - ADVERSE YAW, p-factor, torque, ground effect - these were great in 4.01 and practically absent now. Someone who has never flown in rl will not miss any of these things - without them flying a plane is like driving a car. But for a rl pilot to not have these reactions and affects can be just as arcade as having the arrows on. I really don't want to start a fight here it just really bothers me because that fm seemed very good and "real".

LEBillfish
09-22-2006, 02:47 PM
"I believe" 4.01 was altered to what we have due to outcry of "unplayability". Meaning, real didn't matter it's a game, let me get my kills!".....In kind AI was de-tuned.

I liked both yet is not my call and fly what's out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

F6_Ace
09-22-2006, 02:50 PM
I've had a few beers so I've no memory whatsoever but one of those betas, possibly 4.01 beta 4, was the dog's bollox.

The FM now is pants in comparison. And the AI just went downhill of late.

-HH-Quazi
09-22-2006, 03:33 PM
So why don't you set it up like those of us that are set up to go between 4.04m to 4.05m via using the batch switch files that Coastie posted about way back when Pe-2 was released. Except set it up to switch from 4.01m to 4.05m.

If you would like, I have no problem setting that up for you and sending you the files with installation instructions m8.

I have batch switch files set up for every version of the game from 4.01m to 4.05m. Why? I just wanted to see if I could rewrite the batch file instructions and get the file.sys files from each patch, rename them and be able to switch to any version of the game by a simple double-click on a batch file shortcut on my desktop.

Pretty neat and allows one to compare changes in FM's without having to have all the different versions with complete installs. One install, any version I want to fly. Works out well.

F6_Ace
09-22-2006, 03:52 PM
I can. I use Beyond Compare to switch versions without batch files.

The problem is...what is the point? I can fly 4.01 beta and enjoy myself alone (oo-er) but at some point I need to go online and I just get an arcade game. Frustration.c

Badsight-
09-22-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I've had a few beers so I've no memory whatsoever but one of those betas, possibly 4.01 beta 4, was the dog's bollox.

The FM now is pants in comparison. And the AI just went downhill of late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>those were the beta's for patch v4.0

& beta 06 was awesome , best fight against an AI i have ever had in this game was against a beta 06 Bf-109 F4 Ai , he totally flew to its strengths against 2 human LaGGs

i couldnt believe how v4.01 ended up being

p-11.cAce
09-22-2006, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you would like, I have no problem setting that up for you and sending you the files with installation instructions m8. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would love to know how to do that - I've got a two full versions on my HD now: 4.04 for older df servers and 4.05 for the updated servers...being able to switch back to the 4.01 fms by just changing a file would be great!

-HH-Quazi
09-22-2006, 04:56 PM
Not a problem m8. A bit busy tonight with my sons high school football game. But expect a PM sometime tomorrow and we will get this done for you m8.

Viper2005_
09-22-2006, 05:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

p-11.cAce
09-22-2006, 05:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif GUILTY AS CHARGED! Ok that is the best post EVER! Whine mode dis-engaged http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (though I am looking fwd to switching easily back and forth)

LW_lcarp
09-22-2006, 08:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjbYNgIi5ss&mode=related&search=

Even better must be talking about Olegs flight models

-HH-Quazi
09-22-2006, 10:44 PM
I am setting it up now. Is 4.01m, 4.04m, & 4.05m the only ones you want to be able to switch too m8? Also, PM me with an email address that you would like to receive a YouSendIt link at. When I get it together and tested, I will upload it to my YouSendIt account and send you a link to dl the file from I will include a txt document with detailed instructions inside. Once I get your PM with an email addy to send the link to, I will try to get it sent asap for you.

-HH-Quazi
09-23-2006, 12:47 AM
FYI for those interested. Anyone interested in the files I sent the original poster to be able to switch between 4.01m, 4.04m, and 4.05m and have only one copy of the game installed just PM me your email addy and I will forward the YouSendIt link to you. I have included a staright forward installation txt file and it isn't no big deal to do. Just in case there are those that like the 4.01m FM's better and would like to fly them from time to time like this m8 does.

AKA_TAGERT
09-23-2006, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
...but I really miss the 4.01m flight models. I know there was a huge outcry at the time but I really thought they captured the feel of flying very well. The current FM's are great - they just feel off somehow...like the difference between walking barefoot across a hardwoodfloor and walking around in tennis shoes: You are still walking but your steps are cushioned and isolated...not as crisp or immediate. I notice this most on carrier landings - when is the last time you have'nt flown one right in? It seemed like they used to really be tough and now its like there is an invisible funnel just pulling you towards the wire. Before the flamers start no I've never flown anything with more than 200hp in the nose, and yes most of my rl flight time is in non-powered a/c so what do I know? Nothing really...just know that I like that fm better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with "feelings" is they are just an extension of your opinion. As you pointed out, you have no experience, thus your "feelings" and thus opinion is based on nothing.. nothing in reality that is. But don€t "feel" bad in that even so called pilots with years of experience "feelings" are nothing more than opinions too. They are just based on something more than a PC game experience. These so called pilots get it wrong as often as non-pilots. Most pilots are nothing more than someone who had enough time and money to get the license to fly. That is to say any boob can do it. Military pilots tend to be a cut above that in that they receive much more training and experience in the edge of the envelope type of flying, but the pilots you really want to take note of are the test pilots. They are the ones trained to provide a calibrated response to what they observe.

With that said, the only opinions I personally put any value on are the ones that are based on some real world data and how the in-game plane relates to that real world data. Also the procedure and or method they used. Very few sims provide a method to record that test, thank god IL2 does have track files.

So, long story short if you "feel" something is a wrong, find some real world data and do an in game test and record a track file of that test. Then tell us how you think the in game plane does or does not match the real world data. Because anything less than that is just an opinion (aka feeling) and like ***holes everyone has one.. and I couldn€t care less about them when talking about the FM, and Ill bet Oleg cares even less than I do! So, if you want change, get the data and do the test. That is the only thing Oleg will respond to.

AKA_TAGERT
09-23-2006, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
"I believe" 4.01 was altered to what we have due to outcry of "unplayability". Meaning, real didn't matter it's a game, let me get my kills!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. maybe not.. The only thing we know for sure is that NO ONE has provided any proof of that one way or the other. So when faced with that situation I like to quote what Robert Dorsett said so many years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Robert Dorsett:
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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the whole story see this
Robert Dorsett on Flight Simulation (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/FLIGHT_SIMULATION/FLIGHT_MODELING/FM_FAQ.pdf)

BaldieJr
09-23-2006, 07:45 AM
I feel my computer does not truely love me.

boxmike
09-23-2006, 09:37 AM
No no no no no.
I'm not turning my comp into a circus of batch files for executives nice extravaganza when it suits me. I quit that after SWOTL nachtj¤gers anf north africa where your FW190 was a Fiat G50.
As a regular lawndart I find it not difficult to adapt into new FMs. Simply start each mission 'We are all going to die' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Rgds,

- box

Blood_Splat
09-23-2006, 09:42 AM
I loved that wicked torque we use to have. It kept you alert and the pucker factor was high.http://www.smileypad.com/v224/Funny/Prayer.gif

joeap
09-23-2006, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
"I believe" 4.01 was altered to what we have due to outcry of "unplayability". Meaning, real didn't matter it's a game, let me get my kills!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. maybe not.. The only thing we know for sure is that NO ONE has provided any proof of that one way or the other. So when faced with that situation I like to quote what Robert Dorsett said so many years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Robert Dorsett:
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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the whole story see this
Robert Dorsett on Flight Simulation (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/FLIGHT_SIMULATION/FLIGHT_MODELING/FM_FAQ.pdf) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert buddy why do you bother, most who whine have made their minds up and don't want to listen to facts, and won't read the link you posted. Oh well, nothing we say will make any difference, when you know you know.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Tagert buddy why do you bother, most who whine have made their minds up and don't want to listen to facts, and won't read the link you posted. Oh well, nothing we say will make any difference, when you know you know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I know.. but it is in my nature to try and help people! I'm a giver, never take allways give! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But seriously, it makes me smile inside when "these" types with nothing more than a "feeling" to go by will say Oleg must be doing something wrong.

triggerhappyfin
09-24-2006, 09:36 AM
"clic" While not perfect its more perfect thn this parleour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Gn6a3WbYw&mode=related&search=)

p-11.cAce
09-24-2006, 10:09 AM
Actually my biggest complaint is not a feeling, but a reproducable fact - adverse yaw is missing from almost every fm now. In any aircraft deflecting the ailerons causes adverse yaw (opposite the direction of the roll) due to the increased drag created by the increase in lift of the wing with the downward deflected aileron. If you push the stick to the right the nose should yaw left, the yaw force decreasing as you center the stick once established at the bank angle you want for the turn. This effect increases as speed reduces due to lower aerodynamic effect on the vertical fin. While in slow flight (just above stall speed) pushing the stick to the right should cause the left wing to drop, not rise. This flight regime is often called "the area of reversed command" due to aircraft responses which seem backward. The correct response to a wing drop in slow flight is to apply opposite rudder to "pick up" the wing...using ailerons to pick up a wing in slow flight is a sure way to drop off into a spin. Anyway this effect is much stronger in earlier fm's and I am sure it was responsible for much of the "now the plane is uncontrollable" complaints because it really requires proper use and coordination of rudder and aileron inputs.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 10:20 AM
A little OT, but valid.

I also notice that allot of people don€t seem to know this...

No flight simulation
ever WAS
IS
or WILL BE perfect!

That is true for both the $10 game and $100,000 military simulators.

That ignorance combined with modern society€s inability to take responsibility for their short comings makes for a bad combination. The quickness of people to blame something else for their short comings would be comical if it was not so said. The saddest part is it seems to becoming more and more common place in all walks of life.

WWMaxGunz
09-24-2006, 10:53 AM
Imperfect or not, he's trying to tell what he finds about things that are there in 4.01.
And his "feelings" are not based on nothing as he has time in prop planes, not just sims.
He hasn't demanded changes or been rude or whined, just stated what he feels and why.

The crying about instability 4.0, 4.01, 4.02 may still hold as these fighters are not
low powered and low wingloaded as some GA planes but hey, he did say he has no experience
with over 200 HP planes and he ASKS about his feelings. Might ber nice if someone with
MORE experience than him would answer and explain a bit.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 11:00 AM
Ah, thank you p-11.cAce, in that your post is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I point out the lack of proof and nothing but feelings. Let€s take a look, shall we?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Actually my biggest complaint is not a feeling, but a reproducable fact </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First mistake, just because something is reproducible does not make it a FACT.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
- adverse yaw is missing from almost every fm now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Next mistake, simply stating it does not make it true, let alone a FACT. Thus far it is simply your opinion, also know as your theory. It does not become a FACT until proven to be so. To prove it you have to do more than say it, you have to provide proof. Or, refer to it as something other than a FACT. A good example how to do this is in Billfish€s post. Note that she said she €œbelieves€ it to be true. That is she is pointing out that she does not know for sure, but her experiences with the game leads her to believe that is the case. Which is very different than claiming it to be a FACT. She has learned well over the years in that a very short time ago she was claiming the Ki61 FM was wrong because it could not reach a certain speed at a certain altitude. When pressed for proof she provided some data sheets to support her claims. When asked for a track file she provided one that she preformed supported her claims. On further investigating I found a few mistakes in her method and did the test myself and obtained the speed she said was not obtainable. That little ditty is know as the scientific method. Make a theory, provide the data and the method so others can try and reproduce your test. In this case the error turned out to be in the method Billfish was using, not the FM. I €œbelieve€ that most of the so called errors in this sim are with the user and not the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
In any aircraft deflecting the ailerons causes adverse yaw (opposite the direction of the roll) due to the increased drag created by the increase in lift of the wing with the downward deflected aileron. If you push the stick to the right the nose should yaw left, the yaw force decreasing as you center the stick once established at the bank angle you want for the turn. This effect increases as speed reduces due to lower aerodynamic effect on the vertical fin. While in slow flight (just above stall speed) pushing the stick to the right should cause the left wing to drop, not rise. This flight regime is often called "the area of reversed command" due to aircraft responses which seem backward. The correct response to a wing drop in slow flight is to apply opposite rudder to "pick up" the wing...using ailerons to pick up a wing in slow flight is a sure way to drop off into a spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Next mistake, again, simply stating things to be true does not make them true. Note, I am not saying your statement is wrong€¦ or right. I am simply pointing out the lack of any supporting documentation. With that said, if what you say is true, that €œany plane€ has this effect than it should be a simple case to find supporting (FAA like) documentation on the web to link to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Anyway this effect is much stronger in earlier fm's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Next mistake, a statement like €œstronger€ is very hard to reproduce via the scientific method. How strong is strong? You will have to tell us your method on how you came to this conclusion. How did you measure this €œstrength€ and the difference between the two? Long story short, just saying it does not make it so, you have to provide enough detail so others can reproduce your tests to see for themselves. In that they might, as I did, find an error in your method like I did in Billfish€s speed test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
and I am sure it was responsible for much of the "now the plane is uncontrollable" complaints because it really requires proper use and coordination of rudder and aileron inputs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Next mistake, you being sure means nothing to anyone else. For every WWII spitfire pilot that was sure he could out turn a 109 you can find a WWII 109 pilot that is sure he could out turn a Spitfire. It is nice for you that you are sure, it will help you get to sleep at night, but until you provide some supporting data and a method your theory will remain a theory (aka opinion, feeling, belief, etc.) which is a far cry from FACT

p1ngu666
09-24-2006, 12:30 PM
on the instability, u dont see planes wobble while at duxford or other airshows, while u can see them wobble at a similer distance ingame...

wind seemed to have a really big effect, specialy on the lanc cos of so much side area!

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
on the instability, u dont see planes wobble while at duxford or other airshows, while u can see them wobble at a similer distance ingame... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which says nothing really.. an observation from the ground vs the cockpit itself is two very different things. That is to say what might be noticable from the cockpit may not be noticable from the ground. That and we have not even begun to point out the differences between an air show and a dog fight. Air shows tend to be flown well within the envelope of flight, where as a dog fight, espically the simulated kind, tend to be near the edge of said envelope. That simply difference could also acount for what you see or dont see. Im sure there are many other factors too, but off the top of my head those two come to mind.

p-11.cAce
09-24-2006, 12:38 PM
touche'....I apologize for my semantic failings. You are correct of course, I am only proposing a theory. My stats prof used to always say that "commonality does not equal causality" and to say that I can repeat something does not make it fact...though reproduction of results does tend to indicate a higher probability of something being correct.
There are many aircraft I do not fly - so I guess I should state that it is my belief that among the aircraft I fly on a regular basis (bf 109 e & f, me-163, he-162, J8, and I-153) the adverse yaw I correct for now is less than in 4.01; to the point that it impacts my suspension of disbelief and impacts my enjoyment of the game. This was evidenced to me strongly when reflying a me-163 mission during which I was able in 4.05 to slow to minimum controllable airspeed with full aft stick and maintain roll control with ailerons. During the same flight regime in 4.01 the application of aileron results in a strong adverse yaw leading to an incipent spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_controls <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> * Ailerons: The ailerons primarily control bank. Whenever lift is increased, induced drag is also increased. When the stick is moved left to bank the aircraft to the left, the right aileron is lowered which increases lift on the right wing and therefore increases drag on the right wing. Using ailerons causes adverse yaw, meaning the nose of the aircraft yaws in a direction opposite to the aileron application. When moving the stick to the left to bank the wings, adverse yaw moves the nose of the aircraft to the right. Adverse yaw is more pronounced for light aircraft with long wings, such as gliders. It is counteracted by the pilot with the rudder. Differential ailerons are ailerons which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects less than the upward-moving one, reducing adverse yaw.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> A telling quote from above is that adverse yaw is more prononuced in light aircraft with long wings - since the vast majority of my rl flight time (325 of 475 hours) is in sailplanes which are VERY yaw sensitive and require much greater use of the rudder to maintain coordinated flight than other aircraft, perhaps my sense of what the "proper" amount of rudder input and yaw response "feels" right are skewed higher.
I am often accused of being "sure" and "confident" in my positions...I think it has less to do with sleeping well at night (wish I did) and more to do with the requirments of both my job (Network Manager) and my hobbies (flying - both sim and rl & skydiving). When I am confronted with a decision or course of action I need to be confident that the choices I make are what I believe to the core of my being are correct - sometimes my life has depended on chosing the right theory of action from what I feel and believe.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
touche'.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly, As and engineer who has spent a good part of his life €œtesting€ things I come off sounding €œtouchie€ to the general public, so don€t €œfeel€ bad because I find that many in the general public (aka untrained) confuse being specific with being sensitive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I apologize for my semantic failings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need, we all have our short comings. Take my spelling and grammar for example, if it was not for my sectary and WORDS spell check and grammar check I would most likely be out of a job!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You are correct of course, I am only proposing a theory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
My stats prof used to always say that "commonality does not equal causality" and to say that I can repeat something does not make it fact...though reproduction of results does tend to indicate a higher probability of something being correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reproducibility by different people yes, but reproducibility by the same person no. In that reproducibility by the same person over and over could just be due to said person making the same mistake over and over. Thus my request for you to define your methods so others can try what your doing to see if they get he same results. Perfect example is the one by Billfish and her Ki61 speed error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
There are many aircraft I do not fly - so I guess I should state that it is my belief that among the aircraft I fly on a regular basis (bf 109 e & f, me-163, he-162, J8, and I-153) the adverse yaw I correct for now is less than in 4.01; to the point that it impacts my suspension of disbelief and impacts my enjoyment of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe.. maybe not. Many things could account for what you think you are €œseeing€. A simple joystick calibration or a subtle change in your flying style could account for the difference in what your seeing. Thus the call for track files where things like the joystick inputs can be compared to the aircrafts yaw position.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
This was evidenced to me strongly when reflying a me-163 mission during which I was able in 4.05 to slow to minimum controllable airspeed with full aft stick and maintain roll control with ailerons. During the same flight regime in 4.01 the application of aileron results in a strong adverse yaw leading to an incipent spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, many variables here that could cause the difference, without a method and a track file showing how well you stuck to your method it is hard to say one way or another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce from Wikipedia:
* Ailerons: The ailerons primarily control bank. Whenever lift is increased, induced drag is also increased. When the stick is moved left to bank the aircraft to the left, the right aileron is lowered which increases lift on the right wing and therefore increases drag on the right wing. Using ailerons causes adverse yaw, meaning the nose of the aircraft yaws in a direction opposite to the aileron application. When moving the stick to the left to bank the wings, adverse yaw moves the nose of the aircraft to the right. Adverse yaw is more pronounced for light aircraft with long wings, such as gliders. It is counteracted by the pilot with the rudder. Differential ailerons are ailerons which have been rigged such that the downgoing aileron deflects less than the upward-moving one, reducing adverse yaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note €œAdverse yaw is more pronounced for light aircraft with long wings€. I don€t know what that tells you, but it tells me that a Cessna pilot is not qualified to comment on how a P51 should act in the game based on Cessna experience

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
A telling quote from above is that adverse yaw is more prononuced in light aircraft with long wings - since the vast majority of my rl flight time (325 of 475 hours) is in sailplanes which are VERY yaw sensitive and require much greater use of the rudder to maintain coordinated flight than other aircraft, perhaps my sense of what the "proper" amount of rudder input and yaw response "feels" right are skewed higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I am often accused of being "sure" and "confident" in my positions... I think it has less to do with sleeping well at night (wish I did) and more to do with the requirments of both my job (Network Manager) and my hobbies (flying - both sim and rl & skydiving). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe, maybe not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
When I am confronted with a decision or course of action I need to be confident that the choices I make are what I believe to the core of my being are correct - sometimes my life has depended on chosing the right theory of action from what I feel and believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! When I was in the Army our drill Sgt told us what ever you do, do it 100%! Be it wrong or right indecision is the killer! That is to say, even if you start out wrong, preserving at 100% might turn things around in your favor. But, it does not change the fact that you were wrong.

All I was pointing out is what you called FACT was nothing more than an opinion. You can €œfeel€ as strong as you want about your opinion, but €œfeeling€ strong about it does not make it true.

ploughman
09-24-2006, 01:15 PM
Tag, touche (with the infleciton over the 'e') is a fencing term meaning an you've been touched or hit, thus incurring a point scored against you, in debate it means 'effective reposte,' and in this case the bloke's acknowledging the correctness of your point. It doesn't mean touchy or sensitive, although the root meanings of the words are probably connected.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Tag, touche (with the infleciton over the 'e') is a fencing term meaning an you've been touched or hit, thus incurring a point scored against you, in debate it means 'effective reposte,' and in this case the bloke's acknowledging the correctness of your point. It doesn't mean touchy or sensitive, although the root meanings of the words are probably connected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh! Really, I did not know that! Thank you for the correction! My Bad! My bad grammer and spellin strikes again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
09-24-2006, 01:23 PM
Yore welkum.

AKA_TAGERT
09-24-2006, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yore welkum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!
Now I understand.. I saw touchie.. he said touche' (ie no i b4 e) as in Tooshay! My bad!

p-11.cAce
09-24-2006, 01:35 PM
Yep - no insult meant I think your responses are great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Its nice having to really think instead of the usual "oh yeah? well #$#$$##@@$" stuff these things can get into. I am in the process of setting up the new batch files I got from HH_Quazi so I can easily switch from 4.01 to 4.05. Once done I'll get some data and tracks up.

AKA_TAGERT
09-25-2006, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Yep - no insult meant I think your responses are great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Its nice having to really think instead of the usual "oh yeah? well #$#$$##@@$" stuff these things can get into. I am in the process of setting up the new batch files I got from HH_Quazi so I can easily switch from 4.01 to 4.05. Once done I'll get some data and tracks up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool.. Im still un-packing, so I wont be able to process any track files for a few more weekends.. but soon, very soon.

LEBillfish
09-25-2006, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
........usual "oh yeah? well #$#$$##@@$" .............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the "Oh yea, and so's your old man!" jab? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

AKA_TAGERT
09-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Ill see your old man and raise you two sisters that are roten to the core but great to the infantry

LEBillfish
09-25-2006, 11:06 PM
I'll raise you give me to the infantry instead and you go to my old man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif