Just so I am understanding you correctly here Thorsim...
just so you are understanding me i will go over this one more time ...
The math and science that is used to determine AcesHigh's flight model, despite being universally accepted as being beyond reproach, is not 'good enough' for you because it lacks the element of "human error".
the math may or may not be used to one extent or another in the FM, however the data that is put into those formulas to arrive at the values they use to establish the parameters of the flight model are selected from data sources that you all are arguing are too subjective to be taken as data. i submit that it is fundamental to the FM what data is selected.
i will point out that any disagreement on what i state above is also based on assumption and ...
(there is a saying about assumptions you know...)
Why would ANYBODY want a games flight model based in any way on someones opinion? One would think that hard test data, math, and science would be what you want to ensure accuracy.
the hard test data must be arrived at someplace and i do not think the designers have ever had access to the vast majority if any of the planes represented in the game in their wartime configurations and i am positive they have not tested any of them for hard test data so at some point the designers must select data from the historic record. i am amazed that that is not obvious to everyone.
Add to that that what you are basing your "assumptions on" (your so called 'facts') are sorely lacking the data that would required to give them any merit.
the crux here is whether the data used to determine the FM is restricted to weights areas and force loads and then run through a program to determine say roll rate, or whether the values are just input directly from a selected data source or sources and that historic value is input into the FMs directly. since we know some of the values are directly inputted from data sources there is no reason to "assume" that any values are arrived at by any other means. is there?
10 people, all experts, can test drive the same car and have 10 different opinions of it.
"I drove a Ferrari once and it seemed a bit mushy in a turn at this one track I was driving it at" does not tell us enough information to base a driving sim on. We don't know the track, time of day, model, etc, etc, etc... Just some guys vague opinion that the car was mushy in a corner.
now that is not the case here is it? more like 9 guys drove a Ferrari, some for years and in many races and one guy drove a wrecked fiat that was poorly reassembled for a few minutes and they all wrote their opinions of the "Ferrari" and then a programmer chose the Fiat review to represent the Ferrari, in fact he used it as a base for all the Ferraris he modeled.
People make mistakes. Opinions are just that, opinions. Having an opinion doesn't make it a fact.
yes they do, why do you assume it is the testers who are all ...
(save one or 2 who were in the poor little Fiat we discussed earlier)
in very close agreement and actually had access to the type and not the programer?
after all they have admitted to being interested in numbers that seem to show one of their mistakes.
I would also turn your own argument back at you. You claim that AH models it's 190 series based on that USN test you keep bringing up. Have you seen the Coad (not that you would understand it) to know that for a fact? Has HiTech stepped in here and stated that the AH 190 FM is indeed based on that single test and I missed it?
i have some insights into how the values are represented and adjusted in WB, and unless HTC reinvented the wheel when they left there and came here which the similarities in the games makes me doubt i think i have a pretty good general idea of how things are done.
i have stated that the flight character of the 190 most resembles that USN test when the game is compared to the tests that i have been rooting through for several years, yes.
It seems to me you are basing a whole heck of a lot of your argument on assumptions whereas everybody that has been debating with you has backed their opinions up with stone cold facts.
less so than most others here with their ideas about how things are done in the flight modeling world.
i completely understand how math/physics is able to describe the world around us but i assure you the approach
that i have seen is much more like a diving score i.e.
"gizmo variation 11.3"
"doodad effectiveness 10.2"
etc ...
(there is a saying about assumptions you know...)
i don't make assumptions, i relay data and then try to sort out what is going on based on other data.
Just so you are understanding me correctly lute.
t
