# Thread: Thrust, drag and energy | Forums

1. Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is thrust too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go

2. Are you already knowing the reality of this "what's wrong with" or just starting with that?

Otherwise, good luck.

3. There's the first half of the reason this will get locked

The other half will be along shortly, no doubt

It would be nice to have a civil discussion once, but I just don't see it happening.

Good luck, though and I hope you get what you're looking for before this thread degenerates too badly

4. Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is thrust too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go
There's nothing WRONG with Thrust-drag or energy modeling,

It's just that some times the calculations are very involved and the physics gets very complex. As a result, there arises much debate over which method is more accurate, given a set of certain simplifying assumptions.

5. Freelancer, there has never been more than bad claims and bad "tests" to back that OLD-OLD
idea up. Ja-Ra and others OTOH have come here time to time since almost 5 years now showing
that there is nothing much wrong with gravity, drag, and the rest more than a few times.

All I'd like to know is why start out assuming "wrong"? From there you have a full crew of
die-hards who use "wrong" as the checksum -- no matter what anything says, if it does not
come up with the sim being out of whack by more than a small margin, that is not acceptable.
In the meantime things that AE's like Crumpp provides are dismissed by bowling balls to
feathers comparisons, or cannon shell trajectories at multiple-mach, or Raaid-devices.

I'll give points for this at least, it's not another Red vs Blue thread!

6. Originally posted by M_Gunz:

All I'd like to know is why start out assuming "wrong"? From there you have a full crew of
die-hards who use "wrong" as the checksum -- no matter what anything says, if it does not
come up with the sim being out of whack by more than a small margin, that is not acceptable.
In the meantime things that AE's like Crumpp provides are dismissed by bowling balls to
feathers comparisons, or cannon shell trajectories at multiple-mach, or Raaid-devices.
I think he meant his original post as "Why is it that analyses of thrust, drag, and energy cause so much drama?"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also stop picking on Raaaid

7. Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.
huh, this is exactly the reason why I left posting at these forums a long time ago, and when I tried it again a couple of weeks ago, i got my fingers burnt once again. some people believe they can throw everything they want to somebody over the internet as they cannot see the difference between discussing the facts and the 'duel' of insulting.

8. there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled. All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge. And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.

The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?

9. Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled. All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge. And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.

The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?
Ahh, I misunderstood your first post