PDA

View Full Version : Please add realistic torque effect on all planes..



robban75
09-03-2004, 12:56 PM
It would be nice, make it an optional so that people can turn it off if the want to. I want to feel how the power of the engine just pulls me to the left/right out into the grass when I takeoff. I also want to be able to flip over when I rapidly add full power during slow speed turnfights! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

robban75
09-03-2004, 12:56 PM
It would be nice, make it an optional so that people can turn it off if the want to. I want to feel how the power of the engine just pulls me to the left/right out into the grass when I takeoff. I also want to be able to flip over when I rapidly add full power during slow speed turnfights! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Thanks!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

CHDT
09-03-2004, 01:20 PM
I agree, more torque please.

A good link about it:

http://home.worldonline.dk/winthrop/stanwood.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Torque on takeoff in a 51 was really a ***** if you failed to have the trim tabs set to compensate for that big fan in front. Trying to hold it on takeoff without the trim was almost impossible. I did it once and it taught me never to forget to set it again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
09-03-2004, 08:56 PM
I think Oleg mentioned that they had turned the torque modeling to its maximum for the current flight engine and that he knew it wasn't entirely realistic but some sacrifices had to be made based on available CPU power.

So expect BoB to do it better I would say.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2004, 11:23 PM
So, now it's our CPU's fault they can't get it right?

What a crock of....

I notice the "eye candy" component of torque, the "startup wingtip dip" works fine.... it's just we can't get it in flight or on takeoff roll.

Horsesh**.

p1ngu666
09-03-2004, 11:38 PM
try turning off the engine inflight, then restart and watch as u rotate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

Korolov
09-03-2004, 11:55 PM
So, Stiglr, I wasn't aware you were a expert programmer who made the IL2/FB engine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

They could be sh*tting us just as much as they couldn't do it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

karost
09-05-2004, 09:47 AM
Hi, CHDT thanks for your good link. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm not a real pilot so I don't have experience for realistic torque effect.

but after I take off Corsair in TARGETWARE , that time I knowed what torque's meaning. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2004, 09:55 AM
See above, Korolov,

TW managed it, and with a smaller CPU footprint besides; yer saying Oleg couldn't?

Cragger
09-05-2004, 07:28 PM
I'm at a crossroads on this, sometimes concessions have to be made for playability and fun.

While the torque effect during low speed/near stall turning especially with power setting changes would definately raise the challenge of combat flying.

However, the constant rudder appllication to maintain a course and climb would be tedious and annoying.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

VW-IceFire
09-05-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
So, now it's our CPU's fault they can't get it right?

What a crock of....

I notice the "eye candy" component of torque, the "startup wingtip dip" works fine.... it's just we can't get it in flight or on takeoff roll.

Horsesh**.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Put some perspective in it please.

IL2 engine designed back when Pentium II's were showing up.

Suparfantastiksimthatyoulovesomuch is much more recent as I recall. This is why its obvious that Oleg is making a big step with BoB and redesigning much of the engine so that he can do things like more realistic torque and other elements that until now have been somewhat lacking.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

XyZspineZyX
09-05-2004, 08:12 PM
No, it's not that recent. It's been in development for quite some time, very slowly coming along even before it entered any kind of public beta.

Find another excuse if you have to. But I have to tell ya, it's the lack of will to just get it right (rather than gorgeous and dumbed down) that's the culprit here.

triggerhappyfin
09-09-2004, 06:26 AM
I think this torgue issue have been smoothened out a bit since release of original IL-2.

Take off is easier in FB than IL-2(or is it just me?).

All flying in FB is easier than in IL-2, witch I experienced to have more violent flight characteristics.

FM has been toned down in order to appeal more ppl http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v257/Triggerhappyfin/ace1_copy.bmp
Heads-on firing was not a safe practice after all ?
Jussi Huotari: It was not specially recommendedÔ.....
And later, as the Russians were armed with 20mm cannons, it was unwise to meet them heads-on

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2004, 12:56 PM
I agree, and what's worse is, they couldn't seem to find some "Easy Mode" switch to put torque into so that the arcadists can just dial it out. They took it out of the Realistic flight model too.

It's a joke. You get this silly eye candy wingdip thing when you first advance the throttle, but then, when you roll down the strip, no torque to speak of. You can just as easily add rudder left as right. And there's usually no "tendency" to go either way.

The only other time you might notice torque is if you get one of the scripted, canned Oleg Banana Peel Stalls or Flatspins of Death. But even in these cases, it seems as if the torque itself is just part of the "canned effect", not actual torque from that particular plane's engine, at work.

LEXX_Luthor
09-09-2004, 08:41 PM
I am thinking that every flight sim that offers the Option of turning "off" stalls has a FM problem built in from the start. How can an FM be "realistic" if you can turn off parts of it?

I hope BoB has at least two (2) FM engines, one "real" FM and one "Newbie" FM. There should be NO options to turn off any FM features of the "real" FM, or it will be already porked by design.

That's why I don't talk about FB FM, as its good enough for the much larger battlefield environment far beyond the player's own cockpit, although I know that concept of air warfare makes no sense to pure dogfighter flight simmers.

So given the "stall" Option, any discussion of FM may be worthless, and more than FM we need better FMB tools to create missions and massive campaigns more easily.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Ugly_Kid
09-10-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Find another excuse if you have to. But I have to tell ya, it's the lack of will to just get it right (rather than gorgeous and dumbed down) that's the culprit here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to admit quite a few of these "CPU-power munching features that are not realisible with todays computers" whereas tyre smoke on the carrier deck seems to be possible seem to be working on TW http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The low speed flight has a certain feel of flying in it, not necessary more difficult (except the take-offs) just more real. Straight stalls work and there are not these peculiar stalls in inverted flight coming over the top of the looping stuff...We even have overrevving http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif so there is a fair change of bigger differences in vertical manouvers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - I wish I had more time to dig deeper into this...

Computer power is anyway a moot point, a modern PC has more calculation power than a complete computer room from 70s-80s running a professional DC-10 flight simulator. Well somewhere you have to say no and you probably have to give some reason. I personally would pay anyday 300 EUR for less aircraft less eye-candy but way more technical features, motor management and a more real FM. After all it's not more than a price of a joystic and throttle...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

CHDT
09-10-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I agree, and what's worse is, they couldn't seem to find some "Easy Mode" switch to put torque into so that the arcadists can just dial it out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true.

The problem is that the "arcadists" don't want to say to themselves "I fly arcade", so in the end, we get all "light" real settings!

Of course, there are exceptions: for instance, the ueberstall of the 190 variants!

Ugly_Kid
09-11-2004, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I am thinking that every flight sim that offers the Option of turning "off" stalls has a FM problem built in from the start. How can an FM be "realistic" if you can turn off parts of it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even multimillion dollar professional flight simulators with EVERYTHING have options to turn this or that on/off - DC-10 sim I visited during my studies could be flown with features like auto-throttle etc. Did not make the "full real" any less real though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
09-12-2004, 03:14 AM
Ugly_Kid:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>DC-10 sim I visited during my studies could be flown with features like auto-throttle etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could stall be turned off? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

OldMan____
09-12-2004, 07:39 AM
Its not hard tu build a Physics model that you can turn Stall off withou affect other things. Specially because stall is not computed with integrations of formulaes of fluid dynamics. It is too complex, so it is simplified directly to its effects (the vortex over the wing is not calculated.. ony the condition when it would apear and its final effects of changing raise force)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Bull_dog_
09-12-2004, 08:43 AM
I read alot about more torque, harder this, full real that but what I think is really the issue is the fact that most of us have thousands of hours of flight time and we're trying to make the sim harder.

Any person here, like myself, who has flown virtually for more than 4 or 5 years...often and online, are good in the virtual world...one without fear, without g-forces, without gravity, cold, heat etc...

I do believe that the torque is not modelled correctly at low speed for the simple reason, I never ground loop, my lightning stalls incorrectly etc...but what I don't know is how close it is the other 80% of the time....I got this feeling that the sim is actually harder in many respects than in real life.

I was a terrible pilot when I started out...I have a buddy who is learning and he is a terrible pilot cause he's starting out. I can quickly sort out the good pilots from the newbs online now.... so yes, the torque model needs some work but I would add that we must be careful when we talk about he guise of "realistic" cause I think many aspects of flight have been mastered by most of us and we're looking for a challenge... full difficulty maybe.

Ugly_Kid
09-12-2004, 08:47 AM
The FM in the normal area is also not calculated with some fluid dynamics in a simulator. The aircraft is given stability derivatives (in clear language what kind of forces and moments a certain inclination of airstream is going to cause). You can imagine a weathercock, the behaviour can be described with one stability derivative a change in the incoming airstream is going to induce a moment that turns the weathercock again to the stream. Dynamically speaking this is not going to happen just like this but the weathercock is probably going to turn a little bit too much and then back again etc. etc. it will oscillate and finally converge to streamlined attitude. This is also the way how FM works there are no complicated calculations of the vortexes etc. this part preceeds generation of the FM, fluid dynamics are used to define stability derivatives and other qualities, drag polar etc. but they do not work interactively in a FM. You can see for example if you pull the stick hastily and release it you will induce an angle of attack oscillation which then dampens quite rapidly...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Ugly_Kid
09-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Very often the equations are simplified crosscoupled inertias are sometimes set to zero etc. Longitudinal force equations are simplified for example aircraft longitudinal force often is left without influence of the control movements etc, trim drag. This makes the calculation easier. Very often also the influence of the rotating masses are also neglected. A rotating prop will have gyroscopic reaction on aircraft yaw for instance. A pulling propeller will normally cause instability a yaw or aoa disturbance creates a force component which increases the disturbance, with pusher prop it's vice versa.
It is clear that in a low speed area these disturbations start playing a significant role, not least while the thrust increases with the drop of the speed whereas other aerodynamic forces decrease.

I don't think that we have any of this in the game. The torque effect is propably radically simplified anyway, there is a constant pull, trimming aircraft once to fly straigth is sufficient low speed or high speed does not matter...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

karost
09-12-2004, 11:11 AM
Hi Ugly_Kid
Feel good to read your good lecture again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

one night in TW wwi server, there has one friend join server and ask me help for take off CAMEL it's very hard to teach him to understand how to take off, he try and try and try many time to take off CAMEL but not success then he disconnect with out any word.

So if we turn this game (IL2) more hard (difficult) level close to realistic... only a few people in hard core members will happy but a major people ,who love and like to play this game for fun, will not happy and walk away...

In technical view point now the developer can put the game close to sim but for a marketing view point that is not good idea to let a major customer behind. IMHO

Difficult switch option is one of good idea, but that will make more space between groups of player.

It is very interesting me much for BOB project what plan (idea) for difficult in FM option that the team will implement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

TAGERT.
09-12-2004, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
The FM in the normal area is also not calculated with some fluid dynamics in a simulator. The aircraft is given stability derivatives (in clear language what kind of forces and moments a certain inclination of airstream is going to cause). You can imagine a weathercock, the behaviour can be described with one stability derivative a change in the incoming airstream is going to induce a moment that turns the weathercock again to the stream. Dynamically speaking this is not going to happen just like this but the weathercock is probably going to turn a little bit too much and then back again etc. etc. it will oscillate and finally converge to streamlined attitude. This is also the way how FM works there are no complicated calculations of the vortexes etc. this part preceeds generation of the FM, fluid dynamics are used to define stability derivatives and other qualities, drag polar etc. but they do not work interactively in a FM. You can see for example if you pull the stick hastily and release it you will induce an angle of attack oscillation which then dampens quite rapidly...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man.. UK that is the best discription of the difference between the FM used in FM's like our games and the ones used in design and developemnt of modern planes... ie the ones that dont run in real time! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Ugly_Kid
09-12-2004, 11:19 AM
Dunno I would easily spill 300 EUR for such a sim with less aircraft but more true to the realism, after all most people have already invested more to their joysticks and stuff so why not for the game itself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
09-12-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... less aircraft but more true to the realism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Logically will take us back to the early 1990s with the one~aircraft study sim, and we wind up with flying nothing but the usual P~51D and, if we are lucky, a Fw~190D, and nothing else. Awsum if that's all we enjoy simming. WretchFest Maximus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FM today is basically "good enough" to fit into the much larger battlefield environment far beyond the player's cockpit, but could always be made "better." I think what we are wanting here is a pure one aircraft vs one aircraft dogfight sim.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
09-12-2004, 05:55 PM
btw, the camels engine rotated with the prop, its engine is about as powerful as u can sensibly get and not have dire and deadly handling (it does already, but even moreso)

i must admit i prefer close to with many planes to abit closer (but ppl will still argue about stuff, be sure) with only a few planes

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

Korolov
09-12-2004, 05:56 PM
I think through all the cries for more realism, harder controls, etc. at some point, we forget one thing:

Fun.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2004, 06:04 PM
No, not really

What we really want (imo) is a sim that is realistic.
Most of the realism seems to stop a tad short of realistic.
I mean:
Not all the trim functions work on all planes
Standard features of all aircraft don't work.
(selectable fuel tanks for one. There are many others)
Engine torque is not applicable

- RL P40's don't don't have big rubber air filled tyres that bounce around all over the shop.

The stalling side of things could be a lot better

As for planes being too hard to in take off, I'm sure if they were that hard to lift off in real life......................

The most confusing thing about the sim is how many people say just how real it is but once you get in there, one can't help but think HUH?, how can this be? The realistic side of things seems to be stopping just short of anything truly realistic (I don't mean as in the real world) and some of it seems to be just out the window.

This is why a lot of us ask; Less planes, more realism. Please get the planes we do have now, moving towards a better FM (fix the dodgy stalling)and the switches working and the bullet hit sounds fixed (so many of then are missing), etc, etc, instead of throwing more planes into the mix to 'keep the masses happy'

I do not see why the call "study sim" cannot be applied. Did il2 start not off as that?
(Though I do understand that the publishers {not a sleight}, set the direction of development)
Bring each new plane into the game in the same mindset, one or two at a time.
Get it right, then move onto the next.

What is the point of saying we have have over 200 planes to choose from, if they are not functional items?
How about 20, that are?

Oh!
The mindset that harder is more real, is just plain silly. Harder is not more real, it's bullsh*t.
Accurate is more real.

LEXX_Luthor
09-12-2004, 06:30 PM
Vaguegout:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is why a lot of us ask; Less planes, more realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if you take out somebody else's favorite plane other than your own. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


But I can agree, Oleg could take out Fw~190 and P~51 and make more realistic FM for Fiat G.50.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do not see why the call "study sim" cannot be applied. Did il2 start not off as that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, Flyable IL~2 only.

Your "problem" is now matter how "realistic" your computer game FM becomes, you will always want to make it better. Now I agree with that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but more planes is not the reason for any faults in FM over the FB. Oleg has only one (1) FM programmer working, and a Hundred aircraft modders modding there own personal favorites (and mine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif ).

More FM programmers, More Planes and More Better FM http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... less aircraft but more true to the realism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Logically will take us back to the early 1990s with the one~aircraft _study sim_, and we wind up with flying nothing but the usual P~51D and, if we are lucky, a Fw~190D, and nothing else. Awsum if that's all we enjoy simming. WretchFest Maximus. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

? and there's nothing between? With 8 aircraft 4 per side it would be possible to simulate for example complete war in the East or a smaller time-period, just thing how many types a single pilot got to fly in combat, during the war? I have nothing against bombers since the FM does not play _such_ an important role and the technical complexity would be anyway not doable but few fighters with much more complex model than we currently have would be fine for me. Lock-on, for example, due to the evident complexity of a modern fighter went this way but a piston-engined fighter is in many way much more complicated to fly without any automated ergonomics and not one sim shows this fact. If it's not interesting for you or 70-80% of the community here, tough luck, hence the higher price. This is just what I'd like to have more complexity and less FM-stepdancing and this is a way I see how it is possible to accomplish that. You have to realize that even for the half of the aircraft we don't have sufficient amount of data. Take for example control stiffness, how much did plane X suffer from stiff control, how well could it roll. If the data does not exist it will be guessed and we are very likely to get controversy to RL. In a small scale it is still possible to do a more complex analysis on few aircraft to define this analytically but way more correct than by just putting something in the code.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Vaguegout:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is why a lot of us ask; Less planes, more realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, if you take out somebody else's favorite plane other than your own. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


But I can agree, Oleg could take out Fw~190 and P~51 and make more realistic FM for Fiat G.50.

More FM programmers, More Planes and More Better FM http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess which one is cheaper? Less planes or more FM-programmers? I said I would gladly pay more for the sim worth the money but you can start moderately too. You see with the detail level I am talking about, most of the Crimson Skies lot would not even want it anyway, because it would take hours to get of the runway - so again it would not make any sense to crack the nut big time.

Yes if I wanted to make a good sim of the Finnish Front, i.e, there would be Fiat and there would be no P-51 and there would never come one. If it doesn't please buyers they can skip it, hence the higher price. Next battle, next game.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2004, 03:02 AM
"More FM programmers, More Planes and More Better FM"

Fair cop m8, point taken.

Any chance of pooling the resources of a hundred modders into helping out the one programmer ?

preempting there being only one trusted programmer.....Are things really like that?

At that rate B'o'B will be over and done with by the time it gets to store. Hopefully B'o'B will have all the basics and at least more accurate bits and pieces in there.