Definition of Flight Simming

[jdbecks]

You're not thinking science are you captain bushpilot. Both are in effect the same.

that is more air than fuel will cause the pistons to melt.

you are wrong, Dieseling is " Dieseling or engine run-on is a condition which can occur in spark plug, gasoline powered internal combustion engines whereby the engine keeps running for a short period after being turned off, due to fuel igniting without a spark."

Running more air and fuel in the correct ratio will not make the pistons melt...

Melting pistons is normally caused by running lean, ...Please do not try to insult me while I discuss the views in your posts, not once have I tried to insult you.

[Ack-Ack]

What I don't like is seeing the air combat simulation crown going to some hacker or some child who knows nothing about the aircraft he pilots simply because air combat simulation is a game and not a simulation.

Ahh...finally we have the true motivation behind your "wish".  You're tired of getting your arse kicked in and want to make the game harder in the mistaken belief that it will result in you getting shot down less by those you consider to be lesser than you.


ack-ack

[gyrene81]

I agree that running an engine hard for long periods will increase wear, but not at the fast rate your expressing.

Actually, it does...just looking at the P-51D using WEP called for a complete overhaul/replacement after only 50 hours of WEP...SOP was to dismantle the engine and replace suspicious parts after every use of WEP. There are records of Marine F4U ground crews performing engine overhauls/replacements after every combat mission.

One thing you guys have to remember is an air battle lasted anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes during which time the pilots are pushing their aircraft as hard as they can...there were no onboard computers telling the ground crews how long the engine ran, how hot it got, how long the WEP was engaged, etc...it was mostly guess work and S.O.P. There wasn't any "space age" alloy metals used in the engines at that time...especially in Russia or Germany. You also have to remember that the reason there isn't more information on in flight engine failures, is because few pilots survived the ordeal...and those that did dismissed it or got killed in another battle. What is well documented is the standards ops for ground crews to do certain things at regular intervals in order to minimize catastrophic failures...even with modern internal combustion racing engines if redline is 10k rpms and you push it to 15k rpms, if your mechanic did a good job on it the chances of failure are minimal, but as soon as you park that car they will pull the engine and overhaul it.



Raster, I understand what you're saying but...I question where you think the line should be drawn between a flight simulation and a video game...I for one do not want to invest several thousand dollars for a simulated cockpit in my house...nor am I willing to spend more than $20 a month for a combat flight simulator...do you want an actual flight simulator or is a combat flight simulation game good enough? There are major differences not only in technology but in cost...as much as I would love to experience it, I'm not willing to foot the cost...and you probably wouldn't find several hundred other people willing to be your targets in a high cost air combat flight simulator the way you do in this combat flight simulation game.

[gyrene81]

Ahh...finally we have the true motivation behind your "wish".  You're tired of getting your arse kicked in and want to make the game harder in the mistaken belief that it will result in you getting shot down less by those you consider to be lesser than you.


ack-ack

  good one Ack...you devil. 

[hitech]

This thread, when I started it, was an attempt to illustrate that on-line air combat sims can go a long way to clear up many of the misconceptions that otherwise good flight sim pilots have about the representative aircraft they are using. As I said, rather than expand into ground based combat activities which could be controlled by the airbattle but simulated by AI, I would prefer to see more effort placed on individual specific flight controls such as the WEP.

There is nothing more hilarious to real pilots,

You are very correct, I find it very hilarious to listen to your idea's on what constitutes a sim.

Your ideas would make AH more of a pain in the but to fly, but they would make it less realistic.
The only people who normally request items like you do, are not pilots.

Also AH is a simulation that is used to play  a game. It really is a nonsensical argument is it more or less a simulation.

2nd to have even a close to realistic engine damage modeling huge random factors would have to be randomized. Randomizes that simply spoil your flight are not fun. And putting anything into AH that simply is a pain with out adding anything fun to the game is never a good idea.

You make a big deal out of things that are really minor, but you then ignore things that are very standard such as the 10 - 30 minutes you should have to wait before each flight do to preflight and engine warm up times. Simply making you sit for 10 mins after your engine start would actually be more realistic then what you suggest.

PS I believe you are mixing terms.


Detonation: Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber. It always occurs after normal combustion is initiated by the spark plug. The initial combustion at the spark plug is followed by a normal combustion burn. For some reason, likely heat and pressure, the end gas in the chamber spontaneously combusts. The key point here is that detonation occurs after you have initiated the normal combustion with the spark plug.

Pre-ignition: Pre-ignition is defined as the ignition of the mixture prior to the spark plug firing. Anytime something causes the mixture in the chamber to ignite prior to the spark plug event it is classified as pre-ignition. The two are completely different and abnormal phenomenon.

[Saurdaukar]

Randomly-generated, adverse events that simply spoil your flight are not fun.

Quote for posterity.

(and corrected for grammar) 

[RASTER]

Detonation: Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber.

Thats the correct term hitech but that only confirms what I wrote about octane controling this attribute as it does Run on, knocking, dieseling and whatever your mechanic will call it. Octane prevents engine damage at high boosts yes.

Your ideas would make AH more of a pain in the but to fly,

Yes it certainly would. But so did the abandonment of easy mode. I liked easy mode. You going to call me a dweeb if I ask you to return to easy mode. Where are the pilots now who want to return to easy mode and auto guns in the bombers. At some point the complexity of flight simming will approximate real flight and you simply can't expect a young person to pick this up instantly. Easy mode for beginners is a good thing, the parameters to keep seasoned flight simmers happy would be an ordeal for new pilots. Totally unworkable and the very reason to keep them apart. The reason my wish list includes increased control over the simulated aircraft is because of selfishness not reality. A wish list is exactly that, a wish, it is not a demand. I can absolutely envision how this could be done but that does not make my vision profitalbe or workable. It is simply a desire for a little more in that direction.

Randomizes that simply spoil your flight are not fun

It does not have to be radomized. Failure can be calculated. One way it could be done is heat. Thermodynamics equations are as accessable as are the definitions of preignition. There is a lot of complexity and even the smallest change from the press p button would be a lot of work to be corrected for each aircraft in a realist way. Easier to do ground operations and a lot less friction from the experts with the engineering background who dont understand why their 109 is busted.

the true motivation behind your "wish".  You're tired of getting your arse kicked

You can bet from the start of this tour I have had my butt kicked in the Mosquito that I have piloted most of the time. Unlike pilots like yourself who sit in behind their uber sticks. I take my beatings in a lesser aircraft and have repeatedly taking down P51's, 190's and spitfires 1 on 1 and brought home the kills. My score is the score almost totally from flying the mosquito in turn fights using a joystick whcih is almost 15 years old. So take a look ACE.

[Ack-Ack]

 You can bet from the start of this tour I have had my butt kicked in the Mosquito that I have piloted most of the time. Unlike pilots like yourself who sit in behind their uber sticks. I take my beatings in a lesser aircraft and have repeatedly taking down P51's, 190's and spitfires 1 on 1 and brought home the kills. My score is the score almost totally from flying the mosquito in turn fights using a joystick whcih is almost 15 years old. So take a look ACE.

The 10 year old CH stick I use is hardly 'uber' though I will admit that I am rather 'uber' in the P-38J but that just comes from the experience I have in flying the P-38 almost exclusively for the 17 years or so I've been playing online flight sims.

As I mentioned in my previous post, your motivation is quite clear.  You want to make this game harder in the false belief that it somehow will make it easier for you to get kills and stop being everyone's easy kill.


ack-ack

[hitech]

It does not have to be radomized. Failure can be calculated. One way it could be done is heat. Thermodynamics equations are as accessable as are the definitions of preignition. There is a lot of complexity and even the smallest change from the press p button would be a lot of work to be corrected for each aircraft in a realist way. Easier to do ground operations and a lot less friction from the experts with the engineering background who dont understand why their 109 is busted.

You have just proven my point, you really believe you can in any way realistically predict failures. This is so bloody unrealistic it is almost laughable.

Also I never removed easy mode. And a version of it is in AH so why would I call you a dweeb when it has never left.

Also Did you used to have a different handle?

HiTech

[Bronk]

Stiglr Jr?

[boomerlu]

Stiglr Jr?

Edit: I have it from good authority that Failure Consultants (in the sense of engineering failure) make $100+ an hour.

If it were so simple to model.... well I leave it up to you to fill in the blanks.

[gyrene81]

Ahem...I know this is going to open me up to a barrage but, failure can be predicted...to a point...especially in electrical and or mechanical systems. You would have to have some known factors and it can be done using a statistical analysis program...and it's done all the time in many industries...translating that to a programmable equation to be used in a software application could be more complicated...making it a random failure within a cyber environment is slightly more complex.

The only reason I know it is because I know a few of PhD's in statics, physics and engineering where I work...  They're doing some grant research and predictable failure is one of the issues they are addressing. I watched a demo a while back and it was pretty interesting...actually predicted an electro-mechanical failure based on heat.

[boomerlu]

Gyrene, you effectively made my point. It's PhD/post-doc research. Doing something like this with a stat package is one thing, doing it in real time for a flight sim is another. Also the cost/benefit of it is pretty bad.

[gyrene81]

Well Boomerlu...there have been a couple of games that used math algorithms to generate random gun jams...I'm sure random engine failure would be a bit more difficult but doable...but you're right, the cost/benefit would be bad.

[boomerlu]

Well, how many moving parts does a gun have? I'm not an expert, but my guess is in the range of 10-100 moving parts.

An engine on the other hand, I'd wager would have more in the range of 1,000-10,000 moving parts if not more.

And since it's not just the failure of the parts that matters, it's the inter-relationships between parts, the complexity of such a model would grow very quickly, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of quadratic complexity or more (that's just a guess).

In other words, multiply the moving parts by 100 (e.g. going from 10 in a gun to 1,000 in an engine) and you are multiplying the required processing time by approximately (100^2 = 10,000) if we are going to use a physically accurate model. Simplify and you run into the realism/game performance dilemma. Whereas it's probably easy enough to simplify an already (relatively) simple mechanism like a gun jam, it seems much harder to do so for a complex system like an engine.

Not sure of the truth of my analysis, but that's my intuitive take on it.