WB's torque, and AH lack of.

[fscott]

I just reloaded Warbirds for old time sake, and was impressed by its torque effects, which seem to be lacking in AH.  For instance, on the ground you push the throttle forward and one side of the plane actually dips to one side or the other. I hardly see this in AH. This is especially true of the 109 series of planes.  I was just wondering why this was never implemented to such great effect as it was in WB?

fscott

[Westy]

 Fly a Yak-9U.  Try and keep her moving on down the runway without ALOT of rudder input..

 FYI, just because WB's torque does one thing and AH another does not mean one or the other is correct.

 -Westy

[fscott]

I know that. I'm just asking, the effect feels very real and amazing to me since it's been so long since I've flown WB.  For old time's sake, start up WB, get a 109g6, and fire up the engine. Then push the throttle forward and feel how the torque literally rolls that thing into the dirt.

This bothers me. I've asked HT about it but he seems to think that everything is modelled correct. I disagree, because he also modelled WB torque effects, so at some point he thought it was correct when programming WB? Big engines like the PW 2800 series should most definatley cause this tremendous torque pull. Just go try em on WB, then come back and tell me what you think.

fscott

[AKSeaWulfe]

Using games to compare the authenticity/realistic portrayal of how a plane flies? That's rediculous, it's like saying "well the Fighter Ace P51 flies this way, so the AH/WB/AW P51 should fly this way too..."

Use real world numbers and data to compare against AH's numbers and data, that'll get the problem more attention.
-SW

[Yeager]

Sometimes you add a little spice to put more flavor on a dish.  AH BETA had a helluva lot more spice in regards to torque then 1.05 has.

I hope that at some point HT can add a little of the spice he has taken out since 1.03

Yeager

[Revvin]

LOL same old apples and oranges being compared, the point where every fanatic's(not calling you a fanatic Fscott) argument breaks down when arguing one sim is better than the other such as 'Brand X does Y so much better than Brand Z' Like AK said come back with real-life data confirming one of the two sims is correct and then we can ask HT to change it or break out the pom poms because its spot on  

[fscott]

I never said that AH should model after WB. I am asking why WB has such tremendous torque whereas AH almost has a lack of any torque at all. Additionally, I stated that it feels more believable in WB. And I tend to believe WB's torque effects over AH current rendering.

fscott

[Westy]

"because he also modelled WB torque effects, so at some point he thought it was correct when programming WB"

 Sure. But WB's was also a "first" effort and you (not just you but alot of folks in general really) are not giving HiTech alot of credit in thinking he cannot do better.  Alot of what he did then he might be doing different and maybe even better now.
 On the other hand, since his WB's days he's also flown a P-51 and I might wonder if that might have had some influence on what he thinks is right.

 FWIW, I enjoyed the heavy torque effects of the "old" days. Especially the Tiffie.  But there's plenty there still.

  -Westy

[AKSeaWulfe]

Again, you are still comparing two computer simulated aerodynamic models. You need to get the data of the real world counterparts and test it against the in game rendering of these effects. Otherwise saying "but it just doesn't feel..." is like saying "it doesn't feel like I'm inverted" when you are in fact playing a game and flying inverted.
-SW

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Westy:
[BFYI, just because WB's torque does one thing and AH another does not mean one or the other is correct.
[/B]

Nevermind....just reread Westys post and looks like I misread it originally.  

Ok Westy...you may pass  

-Ding

[This message has been edited by Dingy (edited 02-27-2001).]

[Dead Man Flying]

 

Originally posted by Dingy:
Since you have two different effects for the same phenomenon, ONE of them has to be incorrect  

Or, of course, they could both be incorrect.  

-- Todd/DMF

[Dingy]

*PUNT*

[milnko]

YEAH! Where is ppit..err Torque, god how I love HO'n him in WB, and now AH is lacking him........a sad day for AH til he comes back.  

------------------
"ASSASSINS have BIGGER Joysticks!"

<< MILENKO >>
ACES HIGH ASSASSINS Website
WB/AH ASSASSINS Website

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
on the ground you push the throttle forward and one side of the plane actually dips to one side or the other. I hardly see this in AH

 Fscott,
 The difference you observe may have nothing to do with modelling of torque. It may just mean that either WB or AH does not model the landing gear compression correctly. That is hardly a very important point for the game as a whole because most of the time you are in the air and that is where torque really matters. The yawing effects on the ground are very pronounced in AH.

 Does it seem realistic that a plane standing still on the ground (with ALL its weight resting on the gear) would have enough torque to actually lift one side into the air? Or compress it that noticably? May be, especially with its narrow 109 gear.

miko

[Skuzzy]

No one has mentioned it,....if you have "combat-trim" enabled,the effects of torque are highly diminished.

Not that any of you would have it enabled,..just thought I would mention it.

------------------
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
President, AppLink Corp.
http://www.applink.net
skuzzy@applink.net