Vapor trails would be cool

[1K3]

so...

are we getting vapor trails to fighters making ho-G manuvers?

[lasersailor184]

HT comes out swinging!  

[Central]

OttoJ:

I think you clearly missed the point....  A box formation of bombers (in) AH would be 4 contrails (with) all the same spacing inbetween them.  Fighters, they obviously are not going to fly in formation and would (not) look like the contrails of that of a box formation.

Now, at a distance i can distinguish:

1. Im a bomber - "ok, they're other bombers  @ 28k, no threat."

2.  "          "      - "They're four fighters @28k, I need to turn tail and run."

3. I'm a fighter - "They're bombers @ 28k, I dont want to waste my time or i do want to waste time flying up to them."

4.    "        "       - "They're fighters @28k, I'm going to get jumped by 4 alt-monkeys."


never did i say a fighter would not create a contrail, but would make it easier to set up my attack or retreat.

Originally posted by OttoJ
Why do some people think that a bomber's engine would produce a contrail, but a fighter's engine would not?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Central
One solution that was brought up was, just adding the fuel leak between the ranges of 18k through 30k. We'd be able to distinguish a box formation of bombers opposed to 4 fighters.

[Brooke]

We are generating our own vapor trails as the dogfight over realism evolves.

"Table based"?  "True physics-based flight model"?

Tables have nothing whatsoever to do with level of modelling and whether or not they are physically realistic.  Tables are nothing more than functions, and they are the basis of how most nonlinear functions are implemented on a digital computer.  Whether you make a table to implement, say, f(x) = exp(-a*t) * sin(w*t) or call the microprocessor's native functions (which are eventually table based) has little relevance as to how physically realistic the model is.  This is just an implementation choice.

Based on how planes in AH handle, I already know that it is a physically realistic model.  Based on the level of physical realism, I would be willing to bet that the model is quite sophisticated and already a "true physics-based" flight model.

Eilif, what multiplayer air-combat sim out there has a better flight model than AH in your opinion?

[JB42]

First of all, fighter plane engines leave less of a contrail than bombers for a number of reasons. 1, one engine produces a lot less heat than 4 engines in proximity. 2, Becuase there isn't another heat source in proximity to the fighter engine, heat despersion happens faster. 3, exhaust systems on fighters are designed to impede as little as possible on the planes performance. Not so much consideration for a bombers engine. For example most fighter engine exhaust is broken up into multiple small exhaust outlets whereas bomber engines are generally 1 or 2 ginormous pipes.

As for the FM, sure there are some things lacking from real life, but chaos therory dictates than in order to make it "real" there would a ton of variables that your computer simple could not handle. There's a reason why armed forces flight simulators are in warehouses powered by computing systems bigger than your house.

[Kweassa]

That's why nobody's asking for a game which can compute a high probability out of "which direction would the rain drop roll down if it hit my Bf109 windshield".

 All we want is some slight, aesthetic, vapor trail at the tips of the wings.

[715]

Ah.. contrails have nothing whatsoever to do with heat produced by a power plant.  A contrail is water vapor that has condensed to form small water droplets.  These droplets scatter light- that's why you see the trail.  Contrails are essentially just clouds- and indeed, they can seed and grow into big clouds.  They form because all fuels used in either internal combustion or turbine engines contain hydrogen which burns to form H2O, ie water.  The water formed from combustion can stay as invisible vapor at lower altitudes because the air is warm enough to keep it vapor.  At higher altitudes the surrounding air is cold and when some if it mixes with the exhaust plume it cools the water vapor which condenses to form droplets, ie the contrail.  Look closely, the contrail starts behind the engine a distance because the surrounding air takes time to mix in and cool the plume below a critical temperature.  So at high altitude all aircraft, even the Me-163 rocket plane, which burns a mixture of hydrazine and methanol, will create contrails.  The size and persistance of the contrails would be more a function of meterological conditions than the type of plane.

Contrails that form at low altitude during high G maneuvers are almost the same thing, but not quite.  They only occur in very humid conditions where the surrounding air is almost saturated with water vapor.  When the plane does a high G maneuver there are regions above the wing of particularly low pressure.  This low pressure air can't hold as much water vapor, mostly because expansion causes a temperature drop, so some of the water vapor in the air condenses out as droplets which show up like a cloud.  If you are sitting near the wing on an airliner during takeoff or landing, ie high lift configurations that lead to particularly low pressure above the wing, you can see these contrails during very humid weather.

[eilif]

Im not going to dig myself a hole here, (which is something im rather natural at) and  starting a big arguement over this on an official aces high board is a great way to do that, and since i have high hopes with the future of HTCs products i dont think it would be a great idea to work any harder to get on his bad side.

alas the limits of the table based fm. Im amazed that its still in use, its easier and faster to make than a true phisics based fm but its got alot less potential.

  famouse last words eh? ended up sounding kind of pompouse,

Some days darts get under my skin. especialy when some people are "Stuck on stupid." or my version "Clueless dolts."

 
was a fitting reply.

 i cant give you a dicitionary example of what i was saying, if there even is one, so ill just mention the sims that use this "level of fidelity".

The kind of flight model that x plane and Targetware use is the FM i am refering too. Im not saying these games are better games, im just saying they have more realistic/detailed/anal/flight models because thats what they do,  they are sims not games, and targetware is the only one that has multiplayer air combat, which is still in beta and has alot of work to be done before it can go gold. These sims and the like are not fun for most people because they are not meant to be in the way aces high is, they are just realistic which you have to take with a grain of salt. Fun vs Science.

I dont belive aces high has the most "realistic" "detailed" flight model in the multi player  air combat genre, this doesnt mean i think its inacurate, what it does it does right in terms of fm. The succes of aces high is because its fun, and as long as it is, there is no point in comparing/defending it evangelicly to sims in terms of realism, sometimes i forget this, i think many of us do, and after dorking around in sims and coming onto this forum, hearing people bicker about realism its hard not to intergect.

AH is what it is, and many are paying money to play it, which says alot for the passionate talented people making it work considering the odd niche genre it fills.

anyway

[JB42]

715, the heat allows more water vapor (humidity). The more water vapor the more noticable the contrail. Back to meteorology school for you.

[Noir]

I dont belive aces high has the most "realistic" "detailed" flight model in the multi player air combat genre

Give names I want to test !

[hitech]

im just saying they have more realistic/detailed/anal/flight models

You are basicly bying into there marketing hype.

I wrote My first "what you are calling physics base" model about 18 years ago. It was the first model I had ever flown that would snap roll and spin right from the basic flight dynamics. A better term would be "6 axis model" then Physics based, but that was where your term "Table Based" and "Physics based" model stemed from.  

Now I want you to back your statement up with facts. Because first off you havn't a clue of how we do modeling, because I do not belive we have ever published how we do the details.

Pick a plane that both us and targetware and xplane model and that real data is readily availabl ( If targetware has a P51D would be a great choice). Then do some detail testing.

Test the following. Best climb rates at all altitudes.

Best Speed at all altitudes.

Fuel consumptions at all alititudes and multiple throttle settings.

Sustainted turn rates.

Stall Speeds.

Roll rates at different speeds.


After you have run these test in both sims, come back to me and tell me which model is more acurate.


HiTech

[Hajo]

HiTech......ignore.  Probably few have a clue to write code let alone actualy fly an aircraft that has maneuverablilty capabilities higher then the aircraft they are using in Aces High.


Do what I do when someone who is not trained in the field and without the expertise to suggest something in your Professional field.  I smile......shake my head and walk away.

[Edbert]

I have never flown a real warbird, closest I've come is an AT6 and all I could do was two loops and a dozen barrel-rolls (before I was too discombobulated to see the horizon). I have a few dozen hours in high wing Cessnas and 2 hours in a PT30 (low-wing monoplane open-cockpit trainer, not sure of the designation).

The only thing I find different from sitting in a real pit versus my desk at home is the wandering nose and imprecise ball, I can readilly beleive that in a 400mph fighter this might be lessened than in the 90mph Cessna 152. In RL making a perfectly coordinated 180 degree turn is nearly impossible, but I can do it easily in AH. I do not think this has as much if anything at all to do with the FM, I'm guessing it has more to do with atmosphereic modeling or the lack thereof.


BTW...that Spit video, the realplayer one, is simply horrific:(

[Noir]

I'm guessing it has more to do with atmosphereic modeling

I never piloted a real plane (got 3/10 a both eyes and am color blind) but landings and slow maneuvers seems too easy or "too stable", the wind is too constant IMO. Some strong wind rafales could be fun and more realistic

Weather is what we miss in AH, rain, snow, etc...I think its the next big step towards true happiness. I presume HT is working on this, trying settings on the MA cause sometimes you see some changes .I really liked the fog he set on MA for 15mins once, giving british atmosphere to the map, hiding a bit low alt icons wich is great, and improved a LOT fps.

It could be nice to see the "atmospheres" changing during day and location, even if the graphics aren't the top, but just to give the impression of actual travelling. In AH2 you do hundreds of miles and it feels like exactly the same place :/ and if we could have trails too....imagine the immersion Looking thru the tower window on a smogy morning, I look up and and I see 20 white trails high in the sky : "that must be a german raid"....

[Heretik]

this here is what we in the industry like to call "table based modeling"