PDA

View Full Version : Flight Models



BSS_Vidar
08-09-2004, 12:50 AM
I just spent some time on LOMACS forum and it hit me that after pages and pages, there were no whines or complaints about flight models. Especially since the latest patch came out cleaning up a bunch of issues.
I hope and pray that PF gets the same recognition in this area. IL-2's community never seemed to make everyone happy in the Flight Model areana like LOMAC has seemed to accomplish.

S!

BSS_Vidar.

BSS_Vidar
08-09-2004, 12:50 AM
I just spent some time on LOMACS forum and it hit me that after pages and pages, there were no whines or complaints about flight models. Especially since the latest patch came out cleaning up a bunch of issues.
I hope and pray that PF gets the same recognition in this area. IL-2's community never seemed to make everyone happy in the Flight Model areana like LOMAC has seemed to accomplish.

S!

BSS_Vidar.

olaleier
08-09-2004, 02:34 AM
There's been a few debates in the past, usually of the familiar "internet expert" kind.

Since there aren't as many comparison charts etc for modern jets like there are for WW2 era planes and since manouvering tactics can be much more important than the performance numbers in a dogfight, there isn't much controversy around the FMs.

Even if Lomacs flight modelling is a few steps ahead of current IL-2. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Latico
08-09-2004, 08:22 PM
The thing about modern air combat is that there is rarely any old fashion, slug it out, dog fighting. Engagements are at a distance with guided missiles. Maneuverability isn't that much of an issue in a sim.

Snootles
08-09-2004, 08:25 PM
Maneuvers are still actually pretty important in modern combat, what with trying to evade missiles. And before you know it you're in a furball with short-range IRMs and cannon.

But there is a different priority in modern sims versus historic sims. In "old-school" (pre-avionics) sims, the most complex part is the modelling of the rather idiosyncratic and quirky flight models of each plane. In modern sims, the most complex part is modeling the unique and sophisticated electronics systems of each plane.

LEXX_Luthor
08-09-2004, 08:31 PM
Look at the modern jet fighters. They all look the same. They all have the same FM. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Okay. Especially consider that the modern high thrust/mass ratio eliminates the [false] notion that there is a difference between "turn" and "energy" fighting.

They are the same thing, but until the high powered jets of 1980s flight simmers never noticed. Also, how much modern jet FM is flown by computer anyway?

Here would make real FM discussions if LOMAC had real jets...

http://www.fliegzeugs.de/assets/images/97WN15xi.jpg
In German http://www.fliegzeugs.de/html/j35_draken.html

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/thumbn/j35_r.jpg
Cooler than J8A ~> http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j35.htm

olaleier
08-09-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
The thing about modern air combat is that there is rarely any old fashion, slug it out, dog fighting. Engagements are at a distance with guided missiles. Maneuverability isn't that much of an issue in a sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's separate between actual modern combat and a modern combat sim. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Plenty of dogfighting in Lock On, both on- and offline.

One of the things to consider is that energy comes and goes real fast. The "TnBs" and "BnZs" of FB doesn't apply that easily, it can be a total rollercoaster. Still the basics of aircombat applies, particularly scissoring and yoyo'ing to keep back of the 3-9 line. (at least in my experience)

The flightmodelling of Lock On means you can ride the "edge" with much better control and the nature of jets means that fuel is an actual relevant consideration.

Fist-to-fist dogfighting is incredibly fast and confusing and seldom lasts for very long, although stalemates aren't uncommon. Beyond visual range fighting is also extremely exciting, there are many more things to consider than just locking and pressing a button. You really need to practice ALOT to get the numbers right.

Shame there's no bigger crowd on HL.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

BSS_Vidar
08-09-2004, 10:10 PM
Latico&lt;
You sound like the old "We don't need guns anymore" croud of the 60's and 70's. lol ;-D
If that were a true statement, they would have never eventually put guns back into jets. Even the F-22 has a gun. Close-in dogfighting is still taught and constantly trained.

S!

BSS_Vidar

Fliger747
08-09-2004, 11:41 PM
One of my old flying buddies flew one of the last "gunslingers" of the 60's. the F8 Crusaider for several tours in "Nam", including various "hijinks" at the famous "Than Hoa" bridge. Perhaps the F8 never was as phamous as the Pherocious Phearsom Phemonal Ph-4 Phantom, but it did have guns, and some had not forgotten totally about ACM. Even in the F-4 an outside barrel roll manuver just might get you in "sidewinder" parameters just long enough.

The difference in modern aircraft is the ability to regain energy very quickly and to have fast manuver transients, to play truly in the verticle plane and to be able to shed energy in various manuvers and not be in a final and total energy hole. It's a faster game, though not any deadlier when one on one.

Flight models: first it has to fly like a plane, I'll holler "bulchit" (first in line meal ticket) even in the $50,000,000 sims when they fail that criteria; second it has to replicate the performance in speed, climb, manuver and energy debit of the plane it models; having that it should share the good charceristics and bad that the original did.

The F4U-1D should accelerate well, be a sweet flying baby above 150 kts, pull G's very well at 220 kts, roll very well (immediatly) at hig speeds, and well, be a challenge on approach, requiring precise airspeed control, but be STABLE enough to allow one to do that. If you fly it within the "box" it shouldn't bite, outside, it is called the "Ensign Eliminator". It should feel SOLID.

The Zero, nimble and pretty viceless, but somewhat "kite'y, lacking "substance".

On and on and on. Pilotz, ya never make'm happy!

flyingbullseye
08-10-2004, 12:29 AM
The flight models on FB for the most part seem very well done with the exception of dive characteristics (all planes for the most part being equal,AI better) and high altitude performance, seen little difference there too. Nothing like getting matched or outrun in a P-47 or 51 by a yak or zero ect while diving. The only thing that really bothers me about basically all flight sims is the AI can do things not possible for the player and usually has a better/simplier flight model regardless if both planes are the same.

Fliger747
08-10-2004, 10:03 PM
And marksmanship as well! I wish I could plug one of them when he was doing an out of plane barrel roll guns defense manuver head on! About the only thing you have going for you is they get perdictable, and there is always a spot where they will pull up right in front of you for a good shot, you just have to learn where it will be and be there!

LEXX_Luthor
08-10-2004, 10:28 PM
The most interesting thing if LOMAC had real jets is that the F~106 with 20mm cannon and clear top canopy would be the Noob plane, as it could out~dogfight any other US Air Force plane in frontline service (this excludes F~5). But it could beat F~5 and MiG~21 in the vertical, as back then there was still a visible, if false, difference between Turn and Energy fighting, and it could beat F~4 in both, and beat F~104 in turn. But it was a hideously complex aircraft.

biggest F~106 site on teh internet http://www.f-106deltadart.com/index1.htm

Weather_Man
08-10-2004, 11:09 PM
There may not be many FM debates, but there certainly are plenty of debates about missle effectiveness. The whining is there, it just adapts to what's important for combat.

http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/smalltemptr/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif

VF-10_Snacky
08-11-2004, 03:16 AM
LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
Yeah we pretty much just fire off our missles and turn around and go home.lol
It's a whole different ball game at 1200kts closier.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
The thing about modern air combat is that there is rarely any old fashion, slug it out, dog fighting. Engagements are at a distance with guided missiles. Maneuverability isn't that much of an issue in a sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/f4ucorsr.jpg

BSS_Vidar
08-11-2004, 02:51 PM
I was in a rolling scissor in an Eagle with an SU-33 last night. And it was in the virticle! THE MOST intense dogfight I've ever experienced in a PC flight sim. I spit'em out and got'em with a 20mm shot right in the turdle deck. But it still wasn't like I use to do it when I was on active duty. The whole physiological experience was missing other than my screen tunneling out at high G's.

Straight up.. CFS2's flight charateristics are more accurate when it comes to roll rate and control input - save that crappy trim deboggle. IL-2's over-all FM has too much authority and is too snappy. I flew a Pony back in March. It does NOT snap roll like the Pony in-game. Plus I get alot more speed in level flight in the real plane than IL-2's give me as far as indicated airspeed goes. Another example is the ailerons have authority on the ground. I was able to keep my plane from tipping over due to turning too fast by deflecting aileron control. I discovered that tid-bit by accedent and just couldn't stop laughing.

I here some good things about PF stating roll rates will be more accurate. We'll see.

BSS_Vidar

Yellonet
08-11-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Look at the modern jet fighters. They all look the same. They all have the same FM. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Okay. Especially consider that the modern high thrust/mass ratio eliminates the [false] notion that there is a difference between "turn" and "energy" fighting.

They are the same thing, but until the high powered jets of 1980s flight simmers never noticed. Also, how much modern jet FM is flown by computer anyway?

Here would make _real_ FM discussions if LOMAC had _real_ jets...

http://www.fliegzeugs.de/assets/images/97WN15xi.jpg
In German http://www.fliegzeugs.de/html/j35_draken.html

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/thumbn/j35_r.jpg
Cooler than J8A ~&gt; http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/j35.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you like the "The Dragon" eh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.airliners.net/Airliners_net_image.file?filename=7/0/4/528407.jpg&ZyXtCe=MjMxMDMz&id=528407&ViD=big

http://www.airliners.net/Airliners_net_image.file?filename=4/1/6/570614.jpg&ZyXtCe=MjMxMTMw&id=570614&ViD=big

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

Baco-ECV56
08-11-2004, 03:48 PM
I don´t think it´s fair to compare LOMACS models with FB´s since LOMAC´s has a briliant depittion of a table Model, meaning that the plane modeled is taken as a hole, while FBs models several aerodynamioc pices of the plane.
I canpt find the right wrods but FBs models the influence of the different aerodynamic surfaces on the plane, and then ad Thrsut and weight to the mat. That is why its hard to come up with a perfect model, that is compatible with its state of the art Damage model. In LOMAC if you lose pice of your aircraft its very much it. You get what seems to be a random form of "not having control", while in FB you get a very belivable performance in your plane without a chunck.
If you have a hole in your wing you lose lift Onlly in that wing, take out a chunck and you can manage to level the plane to jump, loose it compelatlly and you spin so fast you can´t even get out of the plane...

I belive that FB has very belivable phisics of aerodynamic (or not so aerodymanic) bodies moving throug a fluid (air). While LOMAC has a table sistem to dictate what lift , speed, AoA, drag, thrust and control authority the aircraft should have.

Besides the flying in a jet is not so subtle. in a jet either you have or not have the energy to performe the manouver you want to perform. You very rarelly fly at the edge of the envelpoe (outsiede the lower ends that is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) Since you need to concentrate in your corner velocity, and keep the jet at the right state of energy. the trades are violent but brief since gaining energy is a lot faster. Don´t get me wrong to dogfigth in a jet is also an art formhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif since subtle changes in the way you use your available energy can dictate victory or defeat, since at cornerspeed 10 knots make a hole lot of diference).

But in a WWII, the inacuracies are a lot more noticeable, since you depend on those extra 5 knots to get your opponet or lose him. Since energy is a much more valuable comodity becouse you cannot regain it during that same fignt. I mean it is dam hard to extend and look for a better position once you are in a furrball.


I am not an expert on BFM, or dogfighting, but it seams to me that in a jet it all ads up to the proper preparation (BFM) to enter the dogfight, once inside its a matter of seconds, you show your cards (trade your energy for positiional advantage) and boom its over the one with the better hand wins.
In a prop plane dogfigth things are gradual, trades of energy far slower, less definitivew (Im talking about pilots that feel their controles not yank the stick) you can strat out with a loosing hand and turn the tables, and in this proces is that the faults of the FMs arise. since you have more time to see them and you use every Knot you have every degree of turning rate you cansqueeze out of your ride....

I mean, in jets, The plane goes where you want it to go with the aporpiate energy, in a prop plane the plane goes to where it CAN go since you rarelly have the energy you need to put it where you want it. (unless of course you are a genious or at the start of a fight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Boom and zoom does not count for my theory http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif since that is a situation where you dominate your opponent becouse of the enormous difference in energy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I love that saying that goes: The more time you spend in a dog fight the deadlier it gets...


My pont is: in a prop plane thisng happen slower so you have mor time to see the FM´s flaws, and the BFM manouvers are more subdle, so you detect inconsistencies a lot better than in a Jet DF,where things happen a lot faster and energy exchanges are a lot more violen so you don´t really notice where the plane stopped eprforming as it should.

And the fact that nobady really knows how modern Jets performe outside the envelope, since few pilots have been there, and they´re not telling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2004, 05:20 PM
Baco that was wonderful, thanks. I like the part about modern jets being able to quickly regain energy with the high thrust/mass ratio available today. That's why crapp jets Rule!

They say the old Swedish J~29 did not get any level speed increase from adding afterburner, mostly cos transonic issues, but the climb rate doubled. Fuel consumption went up even higher though with afterburner fired up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If only LOMAC had real jets...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://www.playsam.com/graphics/600/tunnan2.JPG
~ http://www.playsam.com/Playsam%20gallery/SAAB%20J29%20Flying%20Barrel.htm

Fliger747
08-11-2004, 06:37 PM
Well gee wiz, I got some 12,000 hrs or more tootling around at the controls of jets, and they can be very agressive, requiring a subtile, deft touch. At high speed with boosted controls, a little input, especially in pitch goes a long way. Some modern aircraft have roll rates over 320 deg per second, doesn't take much to make a big roll input!

A fighter pilot, or any pilot getting the most out of any aircraft operates near the edges of the envelope. Flying at very high altitude and landing on a Carrier are two examples not involving ACM. Some fly-by-wire systems do a good job of knowing where these boundaries are, other systems are perfectly willing to let you be in charge, no matter what you want to do.

Anyone wanting to know what goes into a really good flight model, check out the 1% system and the method by which they concoct their air files.

BSS_Vidar
08-11-2004, 08:16 PM
I just don't know 747, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
You try to inform some of these "Monitor Jockeys" with a little insite from REAL aviation experience, and they just throw it to the curb. Sometimes I think I'm waistin' fingertip skin cells on my keyboard. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Just remember folks, a few of us that enjoy these 'sims' have all ready lived your dream. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There is a Real P-51 Ace that flies on HL. He's in his mid 80's. Find out who he is and get the real poop.

BSS_Vidar

olaleier
08-14-2004, 12:33 AM
Baco-ECV56, who on Earth told you Lomac uses lookup-tables?!

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby