Author Topic: Flight model stuff (Read 2049 times)

MiG Eater · « **Reply #30 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:27:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro:

N1K2- ...However, I must admit a certain irritation with the moniker "Niki".

Does Niktu work better??

MiG

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #31 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:31:00 PM »

Ummm... didn't go over my head at all. Maybe you are just completely oblivious to what you are saying. Let me put it into words that most can understand:

"HTC, I know alot about flying and think your game doesn't model it as well as x-pilot. Can you make your game more like x-pilot since I think that's a more realistic model?"

Wulfe questions you seemingly knowing what model is more accurate. You come back with the planes you've flown <in>. HT has flown <in> even more advanced WW2 aircraft.

Neither X-pilot nor AH models flight accurately. If you believe either does then you are dillusional. Both try to do it as accurately as possible. You simply perceive that one does it better than the other. That may be... but you are no more of an expert to determine that than HT. And to come here and suggest they use x-pilot data is downright insulting.

AKDejaVu

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #32 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:39:00 PM »

I've flown in the full motion Boeing Simulators a few times. 737, 747 and the new 777 simulator. Have you?

I've also flown Cessna172s, Cozy Kit Plane and in Gliders (my uncle flies power and glider planes in Montana, ever been ridge soaring?).

Does this make me just as qualified as you are to make assumptions about how HTC models their flight?

Nope! And because you've flown a something er other naval trainer makes you more qualified? Heh... bullllllllsssssshhhhhiiiiittt tttt

I'd recommend you get real data before you spew up your "experience" and how it feels to you.

-SW

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** June 21, 2001, 01:44:00 PM »

http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009521

"DeeZCamp, how well does Blade element theory repoduce motor output or the weight of the airplane?
In other words your just swaping one set of data for another.

HiTech"

DeeZCamp, just curious... are you carrying out the same continual campaign with Austin Meyer to add ACM/guns to his program? Or have you just decided to nag the ever-loving out of HTC?

Pongo · « **Reply #34 on:** June 21, 2001, 02:44:00 PM »

Wow..
DeeZee camp. I thought your question was reasonable and not offensive at all.
These guys have somehow made it so that if you dissagree with them. You are insulting HT personaly. They really get offended when you seem to have some credentials.
Nice twist and about what I have come to accept from some of these rabid chearleaders.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #35 on:** June 21, 2001, 02:55:00 PM »

Pongo, he's making assumptions of something he has no idea about. Unless Deezcamp somehow got his hands on the source code, he doesn't know what's modelled. That's what I pointed out, therefore he is talking out of his bellybutton because he does NOT have any information or data as to WHAT is modelled in AH.
-SW

Pyro · « **Reply #36 on:** June 21, 2001, 03:07:00 PM »

Most of these items that I mentioned have already been discussed and acknowledged in the past here.

DZ, I have flown X-plane, but not a whole lot. I've read their marketing materials as well and that's my confusion as to what you think they're doing and we're not. I will agree with you that it is hard to compare the two. Which flight model was more highly regarded, MFS or MCFS?

P.S.- everybody lay off with the attacks.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #37 on:** June 21, 2001, 03:08:00 PM »

I'm not attacking anyone... I'm pointing out his flaws.

-SW

Pongo · « **Reply #38 on:** June 21, 2001, 04:56:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:
Pongo, he's making assumptions of something he has no idea about. Unless Deezcamp somehow got his hands on the source code, he doesn't know what's modelled. That's what I pointed out, therefore he is talking out of his bellybutton because he does NOT have any information or data as to WHAT is modelled in AH.
-SW

So an experianced pilot. Flying AH and doing a certain manuver in a certain plane he had lots of hours in wouldnt notice that a certain effect of a certain aeorodynamic force was not being applied?
I dont know anything about it....
But shouldnt a pilot in some sort of course way feel that this simulation of flight had some of the characteristics of real flight?
I admit he didnt originally list the characteristics that were missing. But still it seems a valid observation that another simulation seems more complete in that way and is there no way to use simulare technology in AH?

Zigrat · « **Reply #39 on:** June 21, 2001, 05:34:00 PM »

pyro,

are there any chances automatic flap and slat systems will be modeled, both visually, aurally (sp?) and performance wise?

i am thinking especially in regards to the shiden-kai and the bf-109.

while the e retention and other aspects of ww2ol's bf109 are laughable, hearing the asymmetric "bang" of the slats extending is pretty damned cool

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #40 on:** June 21, 2001, 05:42:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo:
So an experianced pilot. Flying AH and doing a certain manuver in a certain plane he had lots of hours in wouldnt notice that a certain effect of a certain aeorodynamic force was not being applied?
I dont know anything about it....
But shouldnt a pilot in some sort of course way feel that this simulation of flight had some of the characteristics of real flight?
I admit he didnt originally list the characteristics that were missing. But still it seems a valid observation that another simulation seems more complete in that way and is there no way to use simulare technology in AH?

An experienced simulator pilot.. He admits to that, but don't see anything about real planes.

What I'm trying to say is, he has no idea how or what is modelled in AH. He's judging by "feel", that's something a real pilot would never make the mistake of saying. AH simulates flying very well and, from my experience, these planes "behave" like real world planes (as close to real world flying as you can get on a PC) should.

So in the end, he's going by what he "feels" is missing or is coded wrong. While he has no idea how AH models the planes in a virtual world.
-SW

DeeZCamp · « **Reply #41 on:** June 21, 2001, 06:06:00 PM »

Pyro, I am glad that you responded

now this is what I would like for you to try,if you are willing.

goto www.x-plane.org and download a P51 or any other WWII fighter and install it, then take off / normal/as well as any weather setup x-wind takeoff, etc.. then do acro with it. power on/off stalls turn on smoke "x" if you want to emphisize the flight path and interaction of wind/aerodynamic forces of thrust applied to the airstream.

Goto an outside view "SHIFT 2" for fly by and pull into vertical and analize hanging prop, and reaction of stall recovery. Do slow flight, as well as hi speed handling as well as turn rate vs radius.(noteing energy state througout procedures.

Create an Aircraft with the CAD type plane creation program (one from the Aces High Planeset). And compare the DIFFERNT abilites of aces vs Xplane. Include a non biased opion please

I know this sounds strange considering it is a comparison to Your OWN product.

I would really like to know what YOU THINK of X-plane.. not that you have used it just a bit

If you find something that you feel you LIKE, then perhaps maybe you guys could interpret it and possible add it?

Again I WOULD like to let it be KNOWN that I am IN NO WAY Degrading Aces.

I would like to let it be KNOWN that I REALLY LIKE ACES for many aspects (I do agree that it is the BEST A2A WWII combat flight sim/game) boxed or non boxed. I think this is because of the ever evolving additions that are being added and the ability to have a good flight model.

It is my general concern with accuracey in flight physics(the randomness and unstructured aspect of it)
that they be as close to reality in order to properly use ACM in a virtual simulated environment. Simply put, nothing should ever be predetermined as far as flight physics are concerned.

Anyway.. thanks for the reply..

DeeZCamp · « **Reply #42 on:** June 21, 2001, 09:46:00 PM »

Thank you Pongo for understanding what I am posting about

ITs nice to see that we have people who can read and understand a post. <S>

Now how many more will react/reply with a decent non bashing post?

<S> Pongo

Pongo · « **Reply #43 on:** June 22, 2001, 03:33:00 AM »

sure no prob.
Pyro you jump right on that making a plane for xplane and testing it for us now...
let us know how it goes..

Wilbus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 22, 2001, 08:03:00 AM »

Why spend time making an Airplane for X-plane when you can spend that time on making a new plane or fixing other various FM problems with AH. It's not really easy to create planes, it takes time even if you have a good fast system to create them with, you need a 3D modell, you need a 3D cockpit to go with the rest of it, you need weights, HP, engine, wing shape etc etc etc.

I agree that Hammerheads and "staright up" stalls feel weird in AH, it usually brings your plane straight into some form of spin instead of making a tail slide, even with engine shut down and Ailerons trimmed rigth for the "tail slide speed" it's very difficult to make one, pherhaps this can be fixed but IMO you shouldn't fix it by comparing other products to it and trying to find out what they've done.

I haven't played X-plane much, I'd REALLY like to have it and pherhaps, some day I'll buy, when I have some money, it looks nice and FM feels good.

This post is not, in any way, intended to "rack down" on somebody, all ideas or good ideas but IMO it's not the way to go.

<S>